Originally printed in The Flyer on Dec. 04, 2007.
--------------------------
Christmas, along with the entire holiday season, has been hijacked. No longer just a period of time where feelings of peace, joy, charity and goodwill abound, the holiday season is in danger of becoming a deluxe version of Presidents Day, a holiday that only has significance to those who exploit the omnipresent sales held in its honor.... (Link to article.)
04 December 2007
18 November 2007
The Flyer editorial: Something rotten in the state of Louisiana (backdated)
At the time that I wrote this, it was commonly reported that there were three nooses hanging from the tree. Apparently, this was misreported and there were only two.
Originally printed in The Flyer on Sept. 18, 2007.
----------------------------
Racism is supposed to be dead. When Crash, a film about racial tensions in Los Angeles, won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2006, Annie Proulx, author of “Brokeback Mountain” complained that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had given the award to a film about an outdated issue. She facetiously predicted that the nominees for the award next year would be about “the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver." (Link to article.)
Originally printed in The Flyer on Sept. 18, 2007.
----------------------------
Racism is supposed to be dead. When Crash, a film about racial tensions in Los Angeles, won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2006, Annie Proulx, author of “Brokeback Mountain” complained that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had given the award to a film about an outdated issue. She facetiously predicted that the nominees for the award next year would be about “the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver." (Link to article.)
12 November 2007
The Flyer editorial: America's forced democracy: Right or wrong? (backdated)
This is the first editorial I wrote for The Flyer. I personally think the headline is unfortunate. I would have preferred something like "America's support for dictators: Is it necessary?" But that's what I get for not suggesting a headline....
Originally printed on Sept. 12, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In a matter of weeks, two former prime ministers of Pakistan will have emerged from planes that will have brought them back to their homeland after years of exile. The impending return of these two expatriate politicians, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, coincides with a resurgence of democratic sympathies within their nation. Pakistanis, frustrated by years of the military wielding excessive influence in their government, are beginning to demand the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s rule. Until recently, Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the “War on Terror,” had received dogged support from America despite his attempts to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
During his second inaugural address, President Bush declared, “[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements… in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” His administration would also “encourage reform [in other nations] by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.” Today, after two and a half years have passed, the U.S. government has apparently decided to fulfill its promise to democracy.
Last month, it was reported that, because of widespread opposition to his government, Musharraf considered proclaiming a state of emergency, which would have been tantamount to declaring martial law. According to reports from Pakistani officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called General Musharraf and convinced him not to take such a drastic step. It appears that the United States has decided that Musharraf needs to refrain from heavy-handed tactics and permit some level of dissent in his country or support for his regime would be jeopardized. This is a direct contrast to U.S. policies towards other states. For example, the United States touts its reasonably good relations with non-democratic Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the People’s Republic of China, and until recently, Russia.
There have been doubts expressed about the ability of democracy to flourish in certain regions of the world, especially in the Middle East. Many critics believe that aspects of the region’s culture, particularly the prevalence of Islam, hinder the growth of the democratic process and view human rights as less important than other issues. Others believe that democracy in the area risks stability and peace more than the autocratic governments already in place. The victories of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iranian elections in 2005 and Hamas in Palestine in 2006 would suggest that the underlying trend is towards fundamental Islamic government. However, there are other factors involved.
In 1979, when the Islamic revolution overcame Iran, the movement had the support of the population because of the simple fact that it had actually succeeded where other movements had failed. For decades, the royal family of Iran had enjoyed strong American support in exchange for access to resources, such as oil, and cooperation during the Cold War. Among the acts of support the U.S. provided was the overthrow of a democratically elected government and any reform movements that threatened the status quo. As a result, when the shah was overthrown, the populace backed the revolutionaries. This revolutionary movement became the backbone of the Iranian political authority, and still has considerable influence in Iranian politics today.
Fears that the Palestinians have become supportive of violent extremists are unfounded and simplistic. The little-known truth behind Hamas’ surprising victory in 2006 was the result of a poorly organized campaign by the ruling party, Fatah. Hamas’ campaign centered on the need for reform in the Palestinian Authority and strategically chose their candidates. Fatah, on the other hand, was unable to decide on sole nominees, which split Fatah votes and allowed Hamas to emerge victorious. It is an accepted truth that poorly organized parties will have a smaller probability of winning than organized parties. It has little to do with fundamentalism.
Perhaps the best argument that there can be Islamic democracies is the fact that there are some in existence today. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, has a thriving and stable democracy, as does Turkey, a state that values secularism highly. Both of these nations have issues, and are not perfect, but then again, is there such a thing as a perfect government?
Democracy and Islam are not incompatible. Secretary Rice’s phone call to General Musharraf needs to be the first step in a change of U.S. policy. The world does not need strongmen presiding over shallow democracies in order to be safe. Let Pakistanis choose their own government. Let freedom ring.
Originally printed on Sept. 12, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In a matter of weeks, two former prime ministers of Pakistan will have emerged from planes that will have brought them back to their homeland after years of exile. The impending return of these two expatriate politicians, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, coincides with a resurgence of democratic sympathies within their nation. Pakistanis, frustrated by years of the military wielding excessive influence in their government, are beginning to demand the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s rule. Until recently, Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the “War on Terror,” had received dogged support from America despite his attempts to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
During his second inaugural address, President Bush declared, “[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements… in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” His administration would also “encourage reform [in other nations] by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.” Today, after two and a half years have passed, the U.S. government has apparently decided to fulfill its promise to democracy.
Last month, it was reported that, because of widespread opposition to his government, Musharraf considered proclaiming a state of emergency, which would have been tantamount to declaring martial law. According to reports from Pakistani officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called General Musharraf and convinced him not to take such a drastic step. It appears that the United States has decided that Musharraf needs to refrain from heavy-handed tactics and permit some level of dissent in his country or support for his regime would be jeopardized. This is a direct contrast to U.S. policies towards other states. For example, the United States touts its reasonably good relations with non-democratic Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the People’s Republic of China, and until recently, Russia.
There have been doubts expressed about the ability of democracy to flourish in certain regions of the world, especially in the Middle East. Many critics believe that aspects of the region’s culture, particularly the prevalence of Islam, hinder the growth of the democratic process and view human rights as less important than other issues. Others believe that democracy in the area risks stability and peace more than the autocratic governments already in place. The victories of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iranian elections in 2005 and Hamas in Palestine in 2006 would suggest that the underlying trend is towards fundamental Islamic government. However, there are other factors involved.
In 1979, when the Islamic revolution overcame Iran, the movement had the support of the population because of the simple fact that it had actually succeeded where other movements had failed. For decades, the royal family of Iran had enjoyed strong American support in exchange for access to resources, such as oil, and cooperation during the Cold War. Among the acts of support the U.S. provided was the overthrow of a democratically elected government and any reform movements that threatened the status quo. As a result, when the shah was overthrown, the populace backed the revolutionaries. This revolutionary movement became the backbone of the Iranian political authority, and still has considerable influence in Iranian politics today.
Fears that the Palestinians have become supportive of violent extremists are unfounded and simplistic. The little-known truth behind Hamas’ surprising victory in 2006 was the result of a poorly organized campaign by the ruling party, Fatah. Hamas’ campaign centered on the need for reform in the Palestinian Authority and strategically chose their candidates. Fatah, on the other hand, was unable to decide on sole nominees, which split Fatah votes and allowed Hamas to emerge victorious. It is an accepted truth that poorly organized parties will have a smaller probability of winning than organized parties. It has little to do with fundamentalism.
Perhaps the best argument that there can be Islamic democracies is the fact that there are some in existence today. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, has a thriving and stable democracy, as does Turkey, a state that values secularism highly. Both of these nations have issues, and are not perfect, but then again, is there such a thing as a perfect government?
Democracy and Islam are not incompatible. Secretary Rice’s phone call to General Musharraf needs to be the first step in a change of U.S. policy. The world does not need strongmen presiding over shallow democracies in order to be safe. Let Pakistanis choose their own government. Let freedom ring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)