Democracy Solves All
Hundreds of thousands of dissatisfied Egyptians turned out to express their wish that President Hosni Mubarak depart the country of his birth and theirs. They envision an Egypt without his presence, his dominating hold on power, directing the growth and the economy and the international political alliances of their ancient country.
Those who are dissatisfied are more likely to be activist, compelled to act out their dissent.
Those among the population who are moderately satisfied with what they have been able to achieve in their country of origin are more likely to be placidly accepting of the status quo. They may nurse grievances and wish for alternatives and improvements but they are also more likely to continue to accept what they are most familiar with. They do not actively assert themselves through public demonstration.
Those represent the quiet majority in any population. It is the noisy, demanding minority that garners public attention. Demonstrating just how apt it is, that old saying that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. What initiated the protest in Egypt, just as it was evidenced elsewhere in Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, was a populist protest against food scarcity and rising food and fuel prices.
That modest but vital protest became elevated, and began to draw in political protesters who bewail the fact of Egypt's repressive state governance. And shrill demands for the unthinkable occurred; the people stood up and demanded the overthrow of the existing governing hierarchy; President Hosni Mubarak must depart, must as did the president of Tunisia, bow to the peoples' demands and leave the country.
An immediate, an instant change in government is demanded. Freedom, security, economic change, dignity to the people, employment opportunities where few exist: democracy. How is food scarcity to be addressed, unemployment to be changed, if the government steps down and another takes its place? The resolute demonstrations stretching well over a week have taken their financial toll on the country.
A modestly healthy economy has been brought to its knees, trading on the stock exchange has been halted, foreign investment has been drawn back, and international corporations are giving second thought to their Egypt-based installations. Food and other commodities are becoming scarcer occasioning the original protests. Government supplies of flour have been interrupted to the bakeries the poor depend upon.
With the change in government that the protesters are so vociferously and confidently demanding, how will the economy manage to turn itself inside out to satisfy the demands of the aggrieved? Will the price of subsidized staples drop? Will 80 million people suddenly all become middle class, poverty vanish? Will university be available universally, medical care be provided free of cost?
Those who are dissatisfied are more likely to be activist, compelled to act out their dissent.
Those among the population who are moderately satisfied with what they have been able to achieve in their country of origin are more likely to be placidly accepting of the status quo. They may nurse grievances and wish for alternatives and improvements but they are also more likely to continue to accept what they are most familiar with. They do not actively assert themselves through public demonstration.
Those represent the quiet majority in any population. It is the noisy, demanding minority that garners public attention. Demonstrating just how apt it is, that old saying that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. What initiated the protest in Egypt, just as it was evidenced elsewhere in Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, was a populist protest against food scarcity and rising food and fuel prices.
That modest but vital protest became elevated, and began to draw in political protesters who bewail the fact of Egypt's repressive state governance. And shrill demands for the unthinkable occurred; the people stood up and demanded the overthrow of the existing governing hierarchy; President Hosni Mubarak must depart, must as did the president of Tunisia, bow to the peoples' demands and leave the country.
An immediate, an instant change in government is demanded. Freedom, security, economic change, dignity to the people, employment opportunities where few exist: democracy. How is food scarcity to be addressed, unemployment to be changed, if the government steps down and another takes its place? The resolute demonstrations stretching well over a week have taken their financial toll on the country.
A modestly healthy economy has been brought to its knees, trading on the stock exchange has been halted, foreign investment has been drawn back, and international corporations are giving second thought to their Egypt-based installations. Food and other commodities are becoming scarcer occasioning the original protests. Government supplies of flour have been interrupted to the bakeries the poor depend upon.
With the change in government that the protesters are so vociferously and confidently demanding, how will the economy manage to turn itself inside out to satisfy the demands of the aggrieved? Will the price of subsidized staples drop? Will 80 million people suddenly all become middle class, poverty vanish? Will university be available universally, medical care be provided free of cost?
Labels: Crisis Politics, Heritage, Human Relations, Middle East
posted by Pieface | 7:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home