NPM

Egypt’s Autocracy

Time to Make a U-Turn

The Oldest Centralized State

For over 5000 years, Egypt has known one of the oldest Centralized States since the “second” unification under King Mene, Unifier of the Two Lands, around 3150 B.C. Since then, Egypt’s borders, administrative structure and probably public services did not change much! Unity seems to fateful due to the hydro-geography of the land and the need for a stable irrigation system which is centrally controlled. But does that mean we have to live with the same administrative problems forever?

Modern State

Egypt witnessed its first modern reforms on the hands of Mohamed Aly, installed as ruler by the people in 1805 AD. After Napoleon’s short adventure in Egypt, Egyptians realized how bad things have become under the Ottoman rule and were eager for modernization. Egypt saw its golden liberal era between 1922 and 1952. Egyptian economy, culture and arts thrived with private initiative in a liberal society.

Re-distribution of … Poverty?

In 1952, the “Free Officers” movement led a coup d’état or a “Revolution” which took Egypt in a totally different path. Under the banners of “Social Justice” and “Re-distribution of Wealth”, every business was soon “Nationalized”, i.e., put under controlling hands of the “revolutionaries” and their accomplices who quickly formed a new ruling elite which controlled every aspect of Egyptian life. Industry, Trade, Banking, Insurance, Contracting, Transportation and other services all came under the “State’s” control but so did the media, education, healthcare, theater, cinema, book publishing, the arts and culture. Nothing seemed to escape the grips of the tight control-obsessed administration. The government would nationalize for instance a successful factory and install an army officer as Chairman and CEO then kick the business owners out. A large and perhaps at one time briefly productive and socially popular Public Sector was the backbone of the Egyptian State for several decades following 1952 and specially after the July Socialist Decrees of 1960 and 1961. But Egypt’s back was suffering and near collapse. Over time this system has become expensive and unsustainable, creating a passive citizenry, encouraging relationships of inequity and dependency and allowing room for mismanagement, corruption and waste of national resources. Near-criminalization of private initiative led to the death of entrepreneurship and the decay of the process of generating wealth which came to a standstill. With the annulment of wealth-making activities, “Redistribution of Wealth” would become “Re-distribution of Poverty”.

Obsession with Control

Obsession with control soon turned Egypt into a Police State where the ruling elite felt that “their” state needed protection from “enemies of the revolution”. Random arrests and voluntary detentions became the norm in dealing with anyone suspected of voicing out opposition. A wide citizen-based network was installed where people would spy on each other and report suspicious activities, “objectionable” material or speech to security authorities which reigned supreme with unchecked powers. We argue that this obsession with control was behind Egypt’s uniquely designed administrative apparatus, modeled with one concern or rather a phobia in mind: state security and control and therefore, without major political paradigm shift, no administrative reforms can be effective.

Faulty Administrative Structures

All administrative structures in Egypt were built with this phobia in mind. Everyone and every entity, public or private, in the State should be a part of the hierarchy and ultimately report to one person at the top of that hierarchy, the president. According to the constitution (!), the President appoints the prime minister and the ministers who make the “technocratic government”. The President also appoints the “governors” who in turn appoint mayors of their cities. Minister of Interiors appoints mayors of villages. The President also appoints chief judges. Minister of justice appoints judges at all levels and decides on their benefits. The president is the chairman of the NDP ruling party which one way or another controls the parliament either through NDP members or through independent MPs who join the NDP after they win elections as independent candidates. The president also appoints minister of defense, head of the army. The President is Commander in Chief of the Army, Head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, head of the Supreme Police Council, and so on. So, at the end of the day, the President is meant to control the country through this tight hierarchy.

An Expensive Machine

The size of the government which has to fill this monstrous hierarchy is staggering. It is estimated that around 7 million Egyptians are employed by the government while several more millions work for the government one way or another. The government therefore controls between 30-50% of the work force which has been seen essential to maintain political grip of the regime over its people. Come election time, these millions are shipped in government-owned buses to vote for government candidates. The cost of Egypt’s bureaucracy is over LE 200 billion ($35 Billion) while the national debt approaches LE700 billion ($120 billion).

Pains of the Ruled

Egyptians have to put up with the arrogance, inefficiency and control phobias of this torturing machine. One week ago, in a closely controlled meeting between the prime minister and some university students, one of the carefully screened students just could not stay quiet, he stood up and faced the prime minister with the horrors of dealing with government corruption. The prime minister responded, “if the government is corrupt, then we are all corrupt, those in this hall with no relatives or family members working for the government, raise your hands.” This was the plan, implicate everyone, then we will have no one to blame. The biggest problem with this failing administrative system is not its cost, although it is pretty expensive. It is not funds lost to corruption, although corruption in Egypt goes beyond belief or comprehension. The biggest problem with this monstrous machine in Egypt is corruption of values and lost time. Time lost in dealing with unrealistic requirements and procedures mandated by the government make Egyptian economy no longer compatible with the rest of the world. So, if you wish to engage in the global economy as a part of the supply chain of an international manufacturer or distribution network, you fail to do so because of two main reasons, cost and tempo. Business tempo in Egypt is many times far slower than most other countries. So, working with a company in Egypt will soon cause a bottle neck in the system and the Egyptian company will eventually be eliminated from the chain as its weakest link. The failing administrative and political systems put their curse on Egyptian business competitiveness.

Hernando de Soto, in his book, Mystery of Capital observed that an Egyptian citizen wishing to obtain a permit for building a house and registering the deed for such a house in his name must go through some staggering 76 different procedures to complete that task which would take many years to complete. Since people must live and will usually require houses for this purpose, the reality today in Egypt is that millions of homes are built in what is called “Random Housing” clusters. Slums invaded Egypt’s landscape where no urban planning or design standards are followed.

At the end, the government had always had to bow its head and connect those millions of people with necessary utilities and we have to live for decades or centuries to come with an ugly, random, impoverished and utility deprived slum-based Egyptian landscape. The same goes for business licenses, car licenses, and all possible interactions with the government.

Egypt is not ruled by politicians. Egypt is ruled by security officers who dictate their terms on the technocrats cabinet, governors (usually ex-army officers), over the legislative and judiciary branches, the media and even the academia! So, when security people said GPS is bad and dangerous to Egypt’s security, what they meant is that it posed an additional risk for them in protecting heads of the regime and they did not see it necessary to put any effort to deal with that risk. Never mind that car navigation systems or fleet management systems may need it. Never mind that many new mobile phone set models came pre-equipped with GPS. Just ban GPS import and enjoy peace of mind. Until one powerful agent of a major auto manufacturer or a major mobile phone manufacturer made a deal with the security, which then agreed to allow GPS into Egypt or rather formally allow it since it has been informally and illegally in the market for years!

Rise of the Parallel State

For years, private businesses and ordinary people used to suffer the pain of dealing with the government with all the time lost, the humiliation, money lost in bribes, deteriorating service quality in education, healthcare, utilities, and so on, but the people gradually found out that they did not really “need” to do so. In a functional sense, a State is basically a number of administrative systems, structures and institutions which provide an organized solution to such social needs as collective decision-making, justice, security, education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. If the “formal state”, however fails to provide a reasonable level of security, justice and quality life, or if laws issued are detached from the reality of things or contradicting with socially negotiated norms, or if laws are unenforceable, etc., individuals and private entities will seek to fulfill these essential services elsewhere, independent from the state. A Parallel State emerges gradually.

When a government employee who is supposed to deliver public services to citizens, services which should be provided by the state, when this public servant comes to the conclusion that his salary can hardly suffice to meet the essential needs of his family, he will be encouraged to establish a mini state of his own or a benefice for himself to provide such services against an additional cost in the form of tips, bribes or informal fees. The informal state is thus randomly formed as an ad hoc virtual collection of unrelated entities that collectively provide some or most of the functions and services which the formal state was supposed to provide. For instance, in education, poor quality of the state-run education system leads to the emergence of a parallel market for private tuition and after-hours education centers where the same lowly paid teachers working for the government would exert more effort in providing a better service for a reasonable fee! This was also manifested in a parallel market for books which claim to explain gibberish government-published books and so on. In the Healthcare sector, care providers and nurses working in government-operated hospitals independently charge informal fees that would ultimately determine the quality of the healthcare, or the lack of which. In transportation, when the government froze the taxi tariffs for over 25 years despite inflation and rise of fuel prices, government-controlled meters became irrelevant as passengers and service providers would use their own rates independent from the state. I wrote extensively and published several articles and studies about this phenomenon and the list encompasses every possible aspect of state services, from licensing, permits, security, justice, political associations, credit, media, foreign currency market and even social structures.

Reform Efforts

The past few years witnessed a realization that this deteriorating situation cannot go on. The focus of the reforms started with fixing the bad and often conflicting legislations. Reform are usually introduced by cabinet technocrats who despite being aware of the power of the security chiefs, sometimes manage to convince the president that Egypt was on the verge of collapse due to the control-freak policies of the past 6 decades. Egyptian Human Development Report (EHDR) issued in 2005, introduced the idea of a social contract which represents a paradigm shift to conceive a new Vision for the Future.

The message of the EHDR 2005 is that Egypt can no longer afford a 'business as usual' approach to the many daunting challenges we face over the next few years. The report argues that the time is indeed right to review our options and to implement new measures to enhance human security, growth and development. A perception that a new 'social contract' is needed, which better articulates the concepts of citizen rights and citizen obligations is becoming increasingly evident. It assumes that reform is a shared task that will succeed only if all citizens take part in the process, and if the state empowers its citizens in an increasingly competitive and rapidly globalizing world.

The government talks of decentralization, the President gave promises for updating the laws and fixing the dysfunctional government structures, but I believe that without addressing the political process and ending the Police-State, only minor reforms can be achieved. Two days ago, one of the Governors was called to a hearing in the People’s Assembly, the lower house of the Egyptian parliament, to be questioned about a Typhoid epidemic spreading in his governorate as a result of sewage leaking and mixing with drinking water. The Governor publicly insisted that it was not his fault, because he had no power over such infrastructural civil works which are centrally managed by the Ministry of Housing. I wrote an article agreeing with the governor, but for different reasons. The Governor is indeed not responsible. People of his governorate have no say in electing him in or out of office. He is not accountable to the people. He is appointed by the president.

When there is a political will reform has shown itself to work for Egypt. When telecom market was partially privatized and deregulated it worked like magic. Instead of waiting for many years and paying a fortune to get a landline, Telecom Egypt is now advertising to promote its services. Mobile penetration reached 50% and a third operator was recently introduced into the market driving competition to work for the consumers. When a new tax law was issued lowering tax rates from an average of 48% to a flat rate of 20% tax revenues increased and people and businesses gradually are engaging in the system and the huge market for evading taxes is dying. The same happened with custom duties. Harmonization and reduction of tariffs reduced corruption and improved economic vitality. Partial reforms introduced to housing laws eliminated the need for complex “foot-hold” or “key-fee” for newly built apartments.

Conclusion: the Fallacy of Prioritizing Control

If we can learn anything from the Rise of the Parallel State, it would be that excessive controls actually lead to losing control. Control is surely an important element of any system design and as a result of modern management which often follows a system approach. Control, however, is only one element. Other elements are "effectiveness", i.e., can the system deliver desired objectives; and "efficiency", i.e., how efficient is the system when we compare outputs to inputs and "user-satisfaction / user-friendliness", i.e., how satisfied the users of the system are with its performance, among other things. Traditional public administration approach, however, emphasized "control" over any other element when designing and evaluating public administration systems. This surely came on the expense of effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction of the users, citizens or the public, with regards to system performance.

Under authoritarian regimes specially, this emphasis on "control" had an additional political imperative, since authoritarian regimes rely for their survival on "control". However, the more procedures the government tries to install to ensure absolute control over the lives of the people, the weaker the government control in fact becomes, since people cannot and would not comply with these procedures, which renders the objective of absolute control as a self-defeating fallacy.

Egypt is a rich land with enormous resources, but its most precious resource is Egyptians themselves. If we shackle them in bondage, they, we cannot hope to reap the fruits of their creativity and hard work. Freeing the people is what makes wealth. And when we have a wealth-generating, value-adding economy, we can then have the resources to create and extend equal opportunity to Egyptians all over Egypt though a decentralized structure. This perhaps is the opposite of what autocratic, control-obsessed regimes have done for the past 6 decades and therefore I would say, time to make a U-Turn.

The Battle of UNESCO: The Order Works in Mysterious Ways

غزوة اليونسكو

 

 

لم أعلق بشيء أثناء المعركة الانتخابية لغزوة اليونسكو حتى لا يقال - المعارضة المصرية الخائنة العميلة تدعم المؤامرة الصهيونية الأمريكية - لكن الآن وبعد أن انتهت تلك المعركة بنتيجة مشرفة بالفعل لمرشح مصر وللجهد الدبلوماسي المصري الذي نجح رغم كل شيء ومهما كان رأينا فيه – نجح في حشد نصف الأصوات لصالح المرشح المصري الذي كان أقرب للفوز في كل الجولات الأربعة الأولى. والآن وبعد أن رمينا كل هذا وراء ظهرنا طبقاً للنصيحة - لابد أن نعود وننظر قليلاً للوراء ونحاسب أنفسنا ونتساءل عن السياسات الثقافية ليس فقط لفاروق حسني - ولكن للنظام بأكمله الذي جعل الثقافة - مثل التعليم والصحة والمرافق - مسئولية كل مخبول يبحث عن الثقافة في بلد كتب فيه طه حسين منذ 80 عاماً عن مستقبل الثقافة في مصر. لابد أن نتساءل لماذا عقمت مصر ثقافياً عن أن تلد أمثال طه حسين ولطفي السيد وعلى عبد الرازق والعقاد وقاسم أمين ومحمد عبده والمازني ويوسف إدريس ويحيى حقي وتوفيق الحكيم ونجيب محفوظ وحسين فوزي والدكتور محمد حسين هيكل وأم كلثوم؟ أين الإذاعة المصرية القديمة ذات حديث الأربعاء بالمقارنة بالبرامج التليفزيونية لشيوخ إرضاع الكبير والتبرك بالبول؟

 

لقد تقهقرنا للوراء ثقافياً 200 عاماً على الأيدي الطاهرة لقادة وقواد النظام الشمولي الذي أمم كل شيء، الاقتصاد والسياسة والعمل المدني والإعلام والثقافة بل أمم العقل المصري ووظف "الإرشاد القومي" في خدمة غسيل المخ السياسي والديني على أيد أبطال وجهابذة مثل محمد حسنين هيكل وغيره ممن تولوا وزارات الثقافة والإرشاد القومي والصحف القومية المأممة التي أصبحت أبواقاً للنظام في حربه النفسية مع الروح الحرة للشعب – فذبح هؤلاء القواد الثقافة والمثقفين ودمروا الهوية القومية.

 

فاروق حسني بكل موضوعية حقق نتيجة جيدة في انتخابات اليونسكو بالنظر لمعطيات الأمور - لكن ما هي النتيجة التي حققها في معركة الثقافة في مصر؟ لا يمكن أن نتجاهل أن في عهده السعيد تصاعد الغزو الوهابي – صحيح جاء هذا التصاعد لأسباب اقتصادية اجتماعية سياسية - لكن ماذا فعل وزير الثقافة المصري ليطور الثقافة والمناعة الحضارية المصرية القادرة على تعميق الهوية المصرية الأصيلة والمتفاعلة أيضاً مع الآخر ومع العولمة؟ برنامج فاروق حسني لليونكسو تحدث عن الحفاظ على الثقافات واللغات القديمة، ولكن ماذا فعل فاروق حسني في الحفاظ على اللغة القبطية – المصرية القديمة، ولو كلغة اختيارية في المدارس أو حتى كشعبة في أقسام اللغات الشرقية، فنحن ندرس في كليات الآداب اللغات العبرية والفارسية والتركية والسيريانية والآرامية ولكن لا وألف لا للقبطية – مع أن اللغة القبطية هي الأقرب لأصل اللغات الأفروأسيوية (المسماة قديماً وحتى وقت قريب زوراً بالسامية والحامية وهو التصنيف العبراني الشوفوني)؟ ماذا فعل وزير الثقافة المصري لمنح الاعتبار للغة العامية المصرية – حفيدة المصرية القديمة والعربية – وهي اللغة التي نعاملها كلغة لقيطة رغم أن أولادنا وأمهاتنا وآباؤنا يتحدثون بها منذ مئات السنين، لأنها لغة عبقرية سلسة قادرة على التعبير عن كل شيء واستيعاب كل المتغيرات والاختراعات دون خجل أو إبطاء، ومع ذلك هي محرومة من التأليف والتوثيق والتنظير الأكاديمي أو الاستخدام الرسمي لأسباب سياسية؟

 

الكتابة والنشر والفكر في مصر أصبحوا وبالاً على الكاتب والناشر والمفكر - وكل ما فعلته الدولة هو أنها وفرت بعض الكتب القديمة بجنيه - وفي نفس الوقت تجاهلت حقوق المؤلفين أو همشت من تلك الحقوق فماتت حركة التأليف والترجمة إذ أصبح على المؤلف والباحث أن يبحث - ليس عن علم أو فكر أو فن أو إبداع جديد يقدمه - ولكن عن لقمة عيش من مصدر آخر، عن كسرات خبز يسد بها رمقه ورمق أولاده من خلال مهن أخرى - فالتأليف أصبح عالة مالية وعبء نفسي على المؤلف، والبحث أصبح نزيفاً مادياً ومعنوياً للباحث، والتفكير اصبح نكبة على المفكر الحر من كل النواح- والإقصاء لمن لا يطبل للسلطة وحكامها وزوجاتهم وأبنائهم وأصهارهم هو النتيجة الحتمية في واقع اللوغاريتم المعكوس. توفير الكتب بجنيه شيء جميل من ناحية تشجيع الطلب، ولكن ماذا عن تشجيع العرض؟ ماذا عن تشجيع الإنتاج؟ فالذي يريد أن يبقشش بتخفيض قيمة الكتاب يجب أن يبقشش من جيبه، وليس من عرق المؤلف أو الناشر، لأن انعدام العائد المادي على المؤلف جعله يبحث عن مصدر آخر للرزق ويهجر الكتابة أو يمارسها بصورة غير احترافية في وقت فراغه.

 

في ظل ولاية فاروق حسني الذي نحترمه كفنان ونتساءل عن مهارته كإداري ورؤيته كسياسي ومواقفه كمثقف – في ظل تلك الولاية التي دامت 23 عاماً – أين منح الدولة والمجتمع المدني للأفلام الجدية؟ أو الأفلام التسجيلية؟ أين منح الكتب والأبحاث؟ أين منح الفنانين التشكيليين والنحاتين والمثالين؟ أين منح إنتاج أفلام الكارتون للأطفال بعيداً عن غابات ماسبيرو والأعمال المتخلفة؟ أين الإنتاج الثقافي المصري في ظل سيطرة الدولة على وسائل الإعلام حتى الخاصة منها؟ في ظل ولاية فاروق حسني، ألم يتفش الفساد والتجارة في الآثار في وزارة الثقافة المصرية وباتت فضائحها المتتالية مادة للتندر الإعلامي؟ ماذا يقول هذا عن فاروق حسني المدير والسياسي؟

 

هل طبيعي أن يفوز وزير ثقافة جلس على كرسيه لمدة 23 سنة في هذا الإطار - بصرف النظر عن أنه مسلم أو مسيحي أو بوذي، مصري أو عربي أو إفريقي – شمالي أو جنوبي؟ مع تقديري لفاروق حسني الفنان - لابد أن أتساءل عن فاروق حسني السياسي التنفيذي في مجال الثقافة - فمنصب مدير عام اليونسكو هو منصب سياسي ثقافي - لأنه يتطلب وضع سياسات ثقافية للعالم والترويج لها وسط الدول الأعضاء بصورة سياسية - فالمنصب نفسه هو منصب سياسي في مجال الثقافة، مما يحتم السؤال – ما هي السياسات والرؤية الملهمة التي قدمها فاروق حسني للثقافة في مصر وكيف نجح في تحويلها لواقع ثقافي ملموس؟

 

صحيح قد يكون فاروق حسني خسر غزوة اليونسكو بسبب رد فعل عصبي منه احتوى على كلمة "حرق" و"يهودي" في نفس الجملة، وهو ما اعتذر عنه، ولكن المنظمات الصهيونية أو اليهودية أو الأمريكية لم تغفر له ذلك. قد يكون هذا صحيحاً بدرجة ما.

 

ولكن لو افترضنا أن فاروق حسني لم يكن سيء الحظ ولم يتلفظ بهذين اللفظين المحرمين، بل وبذل جهداً في التطبيع مع إسرائيل، كان فاروق حسني سوف ينجح في الفوز بغزوة اليونسكو، ولكن، ماذا يقول هذا للأجيال القادمة؟ هل يشجع على الثقافة الحرة والإبداع أم على مسايرة الأنظمة الدكتاتورية واستخدام الثقافة كسلاح في يدها لتطويع الشعب ومنعه من تغيير الوضع القائم، مهما كان سيئاً؟ هل يشجع على الفكر الحر أم الوقوع في براثن الابتزاز السلفي الفاشي؟ عندما فازت وزيرة الثقافة البلغارية كان وراؤها كفاحاً ضد سلطة شيوعية غاشمة وقفت المرشحة البلغارية فيه مع الحرية والثقافة والمثقفين، فأين هذا من كفاح فاروق حسني في التمرغ تحت أقدام سلطة شمولية بابوية دكتاتورية وخضوعه ومهادنته للابتزاز السلفي الوهابي؟ لقد خسر فاروق حسني غزوة اليونسكو لأسباب قد لا تكون موضوعية، لكن النظام الكوني كثيراً ما يعطي الأشارات الصحيحة من خلال أغرب الطرق والمسالك!

 

نعم لابد أن نعترف أن الكون يعمل بصورة غامضة أحياناً.

 

Free Kareem Amer Petition

ماذا فعل كريم عامر؟

ماذا فعل كريم عامر؟

كيف استحق أن يسجن لشهور وأعوام طويلة بل للحظة واحدة؟

لأنه انتقد السلطة أم لأنه اختلف في الرأي أو العقيدة مع البعض؟

ما هذه التهمة المضحكة المسماة بازدراء الأديان؟

وهل أن يقوم البعض بانتقاد الفكر الديني يصبح عرضة للسجن؟

طالب بالإفراج عن كريم عامر الآن

وقع هذه العريضة الالكترونية للمطالبة بالإفراج عن البلوجر المصري كريم عامر

:::

http://www.petitiononline.com/KAmer/petition.html

::::

What did Kareem Amer do?

How did he deserve to be held in prison for months and years or even for one minute?

Because he criticized the authorities in Egypt?

Because he has different opinions or beliefs than some or even all of us?

Because he criticized religious thought?

How can this be a crime?

Holding Kareem Amer in custody violates Egyptian Constitution and also seriously violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Demand freedom of Kareem Amer NOW.

Sign this Petition and Invite your Friends to Sign.

:::

http://www.petitiononline.com/KAmer/petition.html

:::

Before it is YOU tomorrow who is put behind bars

:::

Free Kareem Amer NOW

افرجوا عن كريم عامر

الآن

ماذا فعل كريم عامر؟
كيف استحق أن يسجن لشهور وأعوام طويلة بل للحظة واحدة؟

لأنه اختلف في الرأي أو العقيدة مع البعض؟

ما هذه التهمة المضحكة المسماة بازدراء الأديان؟

وهل أن يقوم البعض بانتقاد الفكر الديني يصبح عرضة للسجن؟

افرجوا عن كريم عامر الآن

:::

Free Kareem! » Blog Archive » Decision of today’s appeal will be reported on the 20th of October

Source: www.freekareem.org

As we noted a few weeks ago, today was Kareem’s final appeal. The decision of this appeal will be announced on the 20th of October. In the meantime Kareem will continue suffering in his jail cell while the Egyptian government visibily ignores all requests to release him.

The Essence of Tolerance

ليس التسامح أن نسمح للآخرين بالحصول على حقوقهم الطبيعية

Tolerance goes far deeper beyond allowing others to enjoy their natural human rights.

Alyaa Gad

بواهاهاهاها!! حللللوة

Gee King

قطعا

بل أن نكون سعداء عندما يحصلون علي تلك الحقوق

Eman Aly

التسامح هو العفو

عند المقدرة و مغفرة أخطاء الأخرين

إنما السماح للأخرين بالحصول على حقوقهم يسمى عدلا وحق

Ezzat Wagdy

هههههههههها ده قمة التسامح لو الحقوق شرعية

Wael Hlool

خلي التسامح ديدنك وشعارك*****وانثر شعورك بامسية شعرية

والغرب لا دكو مفاعل جارك***** سامح باراك واباما والحرية

Sameh Hanna:

This is Exactally what Manfalouty wrote a century ago.

محمدمحمودصبرى اسماعيل

وليه هو مينتزعش حقه وميستناش العفو والسماح

Mona Gawad

ده للبشر العاديين لكن لما نتكلم عن ناس تحت المستوي الآدمي يبقي الأمل هو بس الحصول علي الحقوق الطبيعية لأن أكترمن كدة بيكون رفاهية

زي بالضبط أيام العبودية و الرق و التفرقة العنصرية انسان بيطلب بس الاعتراف به كانسان و احنا بنعيش العار ده

المشكلة في تعريف الحقوق الطبيعية لأن مثلا عندنا التفكير الي هو حق طبيعي بيعتبر رفاهية ده غير حرية العقيدة

و حتي حرية ممارسة العبادات أو عدم ممارستها

Jomana Farahat:

I read something' somehow in relation to this recently:

"I have never liked the word tolerance. It always implies that somehow we disapprove of somebody's ethnic background or religion, but we put up with it, usually under duress. It is almost like saying, "I hate what you believe in, but I have to put up with it, the government told me to," when really you would like nothing more than to see the back of them."

" Tolerance has nothing to do with compassion. Tolerance places you above the person you are being tolerant to, do you understand? It places you as a powerful superior, and it is only by your good grace you allow them to exist at all!

In my mind, we have to take this word out of the dictionary if we are to progress as a species. We must accept all who we meet as brothers, for they are. We are forged from the same steel. We are one with them, what does it matter if they speak a different language, believe in different gods, eat different foods, and have different skin colours? We are all part of the whole, the indivisible. There is nothing else. You will see this when you gain more insight.

So instead of "tolerating" people, we must embrace them (not physically, although you can if you like!).

"

Nachoua Ihab:

Ya Joujie, u made think back the word tolerance ! Actually, it's definitely true that it places u above the person tolerated.. Yess. Only now i can realize it. And the same with the arabic equivalent, tasamo7, it drives from sama7a, yosame7, as in forgiveness.. Meaning u are forgiving the person tolerated !!!!!!!! Forgiving him for being what he is... Read More

Jomana Farahat:

Same thing exactly happened to me when I read these words for the first time ya Nouche. It is the writer's opinion, but it did change the way I look at the word tolerance.

Wael Nawara:

This is where the misconception is - Tolerance indeed comes from a position of a "Higher Moral Ground" - this position is attained when our rights are infringed and we exercise tolerance and forgiveness with those who stepped on our toes - this has nothing to do with allowing others to having their natural rights.

Facebook Blues and the Death of Privacy

Wael Nawara

Egyptian Writer

Posted: September 14, 2009 04:26 PM

BIOBecome a Fan

Get Email AlertsBloggers' Index

Facebook Blues

and the Death of Privacy

Read it on HuffPost

I have recently observed a number of notes written by fellow Facebookers in which they describe, in varying levels of detail, "romantic relationships" which they allegedly have had with other friends on Facebook. The underlying motive in most of these "notes" would seem to be taking revenge once the relationship has gone sour. But the peculiar thing is this. None of these notes goes so far as to mention the actual name of the other party "involved". Instead, the plaintiff lays out sufficient personal details as to expose the alleged "perpetrator" before other fellow Facebook friends or acquaintances. I say "perpetrator" because this is how the "person" is described. A savage inconsiderate beast. Of course, none of these adjectives had been used when the relationship was good and running. But the trick is, once they break up, the one who starts to publicize this corners the "defendant" who in fact is bullied into silence. To avoid a scandal, the "defendant" would refrain from making a comment so that he or she does not directly commit to being a party to the broken affair and the recipient of the generously designated infamous adjectives of evil. The harm, nevertheless, is done, and the "defendant's" reputation is tarnished. He or she can never tell his or her side of the story. Yet, they stand in fact victims of a one-sided virtual trial whose sentence they cannot appeal. This can be very traumatic, although the truth of the matter is, those who know you enough to matter won't believe the lies told about you and those who would believe such lies don't really matter.

For the past decade and a half, we have managed to live by while our names, photos, news, personal data and private stuff was being violated. We survived this "invasion" of our privacy. But for relationships, romances, affairs and break-ups to publicly go online, this marks the end of privacy. I do not see this phenomenon as a new trend in romantic relationships. I see this as an announcement for the death of privacy or what remained of it. The frightening penetration of Facebook, My-space, Twitter and other virtual social communities adds a lot of leverage to this loss of privacy. What you say or write in confidence to someone, can possibly be advertised by that person or worse, by a hacker, and exposed to the whole 200 million users of Facebook or the 1 billion users of the Internet! Unlike older chat communities, such as "Yahoo Chat" where everyone was using some screen name or a handle which protected their real identities, Facebook came with a new concept: no face, no book, so you either shared your real name, photo and personal details or no one would feel comfortable enough to "add" you as a friend.

It is like this giant nude beach party where the only condition to being invited is to show up naked yourself!

It worked. People just put their real names and photos online and stepped into the global village, where anyone can know everything about anyone else.

We got so absorbed -- in fact, sucked into -- this virtual universe that many of us would update our "statuses" several times a day using our mobile phones, to tell the rest of the world what we were up to, where we were and how we felt. We shared our photos, photos of our children and loved ones, with the entire Internet-using world. Anyone now can know our birth date, our entire education and job history, music and movies we like, even watch our friends' photos and learn their hobbies.

We live our lives naked. Why do we do that? Is it because we are exhibitionist by nature and have been just waiting all along for the chance to be ourselves? Is it because we are narcissist and ego-centered at the core and these web-based bars merely empowered us to have our daily, or even hourly fix? Are we just lonely and we are trying to find someone, anyone, to communicate with? Are we just randomly tossing away bottles into the deep wide ocean and hoping that someone somewhere will read the message, possibly like what is there enough to get back to us, even befriend us for whom we are?

This desperate and random exchange of billions of message-carrying-bottles every day, however, has come at the cost of our own privacy. Some would argue, what is the value of privacy if there is nothing happening in our lives in the first place? Nothing interesting, exotic and out of the ordinary, that is. So, we trade privacy for communication and potential action.

Should we just share our lives on the screen with whoever cares to watch in a giant randomTruman Show where everyone basically knows that they are being watched? Should we mourn our privacy or celebrate our new friends? Should we guard our secrets or snoop into those of everyone else so that we are all equally exposed! Is privacy over-rated? Does the apparent loss of privacy make us behave in a better way? Become better netizens, since everything we say or do can be found out, reported and publicized for and or against us? Isn't this "familiarity" what enforced a certain behavioral code in little villages where everyone knew everyone else? A code which was less observed in the city where people could go wild anonymously?

On the other hand, isn't our privacy what makes us unique? Makes us who we are? I mean, if we feel watched all the time by some "collective Big Brother", wouldn't we just think and behave as we are "expected to"? Would we try to become who we should be rather who we really are? Would we just lose our uniqueness, innocence, spontaneity, innovation and become copies of the same "standard and approved person"?

For some reason, somehow, I do mourn privacy and regret its death. The death of a world where you could one day, not too long ago, think loudly sometimes, without finding your thoughts played on YouTube the next day.

Follow Wael Nawara on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wnawara

Frown or Jail

Egyptian Police Arresting

Those Who Publicly

Breakfast in Ramadan:

Frown or Jail?

I am deeply troubled by the Egyptian Police going around arresting people who publicly breakfast during the days of Ramadan. Please don't get me wrong. I love traditions and I want everyone, or almost everyone, to be a part of them if possible. I love Ramadan although my waking and sleeping schedule is radically disturbed by it. I enjoy Eid although I seem to put on a few kilos every Eid. A few kilos which I never seem to be able to shed after Eid. I am fond of Christmas and used to play Santa Claus myself. I adore Shemu, an ancient Egyptian Tradition of celebrating Easter, which we now call Sham El Nessim and I even like to paint the eggs and eat salted fish and fresh onions in spring celebrations.

I believe that in a society where most people fast, it would be courteous of those who do not fast to keep a low profile. Be mindful of those who do. I think of this as a form of social courtesy, kind of an extension to the "being nice to your neighbor" creed sort of thing. Yet, I am deeply disturbed by actions of the Egyptian police and not only because there is no law to support their self-appointed role of now enforcing a certain social behavior. It just reminds me of the Saudi Mutawwa, or religious police.

So, although I would just love it if most of us, even all of us, joined in the celebration of the social events and feasts related to our heritage, Islamic, Christian and Egyptian, I still find it unacceptable to enforce this by law. To be truly honest, I am not offended the least bit by those who don't join in celebration or those who eat publicly while others fast. But that's just me. Living in a conservative society which has recently been swept by symptoms of religious hysteria, I can understand that there would be quite a few people who would be offended by those publicly breakfasting during the days of Ramadan.

But being lightly offended is something, yet demanding the arrest and punishment of those who break the social code is another. This is what it is all about, really. Pressures to conform to social code and anger at those who do not conform. It has nothing to do with religion, because religion is a personal, and not a social thing. Only God can judge people for not praying or fasting, but in our case society is playing God. Society wants to punish those who do not conform.

I am most troubled by those supporting these unlawful arrests saying that it will bring order to our streets and preserve social harmony. To those I ask a simple question.

Do you believe, that those who do NOT in fact, celebrate the same social events as you, by observing fasting, or some other religious or social tradition, should be ARRESTED for this?

Please think carefully now. I am not asking you if you LIKE it when they breakfast publicly, I am asking you if you think that they should be ARRESTED for breaking fast publicly. I ask everyone of those supporting punishment, have you always observed every tradition without exception and never done anything that would part from those traditions in your life? In these instances, where you were naughty and broke the traditions, do you think that you should have been jailed if you were caught?

OK, maybe you have always observed the traditions. So, let me ask you in a different way.

We want our children to be nice and mindful of our traditions. Most of us do. I am sure it will help them be socially popular for that. It may impede them in some other areas of growth, creativity and critical thinking, but I must admit that they will be more socially successful if they did that - i.e., observe all or most of the socially accepted traditions.

Now the question; if they, our children, your children, broke some social traditions once or twice what do we do with them? I realize that it may not be nice and may in fact be anti-social to do that. But, for breaking social tradition, without PHYSICALLY causing damage to anyone else, do they deserve, in your opinion to be arrested? Do you agree that your loved ones should be arrested on such charges? Sort of let them suffer, it will teach them a lesson? A lesson of what exactly? Hypocrisy?

Or do you prefer to live in a more tolerant society, whereby those social-code-breakers, who could very well be your relatives or loved ones, who occasionally or even frequently ignore the social traditions, without really causing any serious physical harm to anyone, would be just FROWNED upon by those offended? Yes, be frowned upon - and possibly punished in some social ways, like for instance, that those most offended will not invite them to the next party or refrain from befriending them - yet, they will be tolerated - their rights and freedoms respected? Remember, some of us, those who are most deeply hurt by this mindfulness, will still punish them, in personal ways. They will not only frown at them, but they will also vote for someone else, should those naughty ones decide at some point in the future to run for mayor or some other public office.

Again, I am not asking you to LIKE what they do; I am asking you a TOTALLY different question. I am asking you if you believe that they should be ARRESTED. Lose their Freedom even for a few hours for publicly breaking fast during the days of Ramadan.

So, what should it be?

Frown or Jail?

Tolerance ... or COERCION?

A moderate society or tightly governed one where laws and jail are used to enforce social behavior in matters which are really considered well within the domain of personal freedom??

Now, what shall it be?

"I am not asking you to be exactly like me. I am asking you to stop forcing me to be exactly like you."