Tunisia, Egypt, and the World: Speculation and Opinion

We're seeing more 'after Tunisia, what?' speculation in the news. Like a piece on the CNN website that boils down to 'we don't know.' There's an interesting set of observations on the way, though:

• "Ripple protests could topple U.S. allies"
  Nic Robertson, CNN (January 24, 2011)

It does look like:

"Tunisia has brought a blast of reality to Mideast politics. Aging autocrats have been put on notice they can no longer count on docile citizens.
(CNN)

Setting Fire to Yourself?!

On the other hand, maybe there's not so much change coming. Like what didn't happen in Egypt. The Tunisian turnover seems to have been sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi. He was a young vegetable market trader who was upset about Tunisian economics: and so he set fire to himself. He's dead now, no surprise there.

About a half-dozen Egyptians set fire to themselves after Tunisia's former president hightailed it for Saudi Arabia. The smoke has cleared from those demonstrations - and the Egyptian government is still there. No great uprising.

While I'm thinking of it: setting fire to oneself because you don't think your leaders are doing a good job never made much sense to me. Setting fire to the leaders: maybe. But either alternative has serious problems, ethical and otherwise.

I discussed Tunisia, Twitter, and being tense about change yesterday. At length.

Today, I'm going to touch on an opinion that may sound odd, coming from someone who is quite glad to be an American. I don't think democracy is the best form of government. I certainly don't think it's the only way that decent people would want to run a country.

The Ideal Form of Government: One that Works

As I said, I'm glad that I'm an American, living in a country where not even a moderately inept (my opinion), clueless (my opinion), meddlesome (my opinion again) government has bollixed up a nation of people who like to get things done - and know how to do so.

Our "Constitution-based federal republic; [with a] strong democratic tradition" (World Factbook, CIA) has, for the most part, worked pretty well - for us. Most of Europe - including countries that still have monarchs - use some flavor of democracy to take money from their citizens and provide bureaucrats with a means to earn a living.

These Western countries could be doing a lot worse.

But I don't think that a constitution-based federal republic is the only 'right' way to run a country. I've written about this before:

Military Rule as the Ideal Form of Government

No, I don't really think so, but look at this:

• Government by Religious Leaders
  Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban
  Result: Terrorism
• Government by Monarch
  Example: Saudi Arabia
  Result: Terrorists
  • (15/19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis)
• Government by Elected Leaders
  Example: Somalia
  Result: Terrorists - and pirates
• Government by Military Ruler
  Example: Guinea
  • Assuming that the elections were as faked as critics claim
  Result: No terrorism (and no pirates, either)

You see?! That 'proves' that military rule is superior to old-fashioned monarchies, theocracies, and constitutional democracies.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Pretty obvious, isn't it? I carefully selected examples that supported my claim. That can make for effective propaganda, but it's not good reasoning.

As a matter of fact, I don't have the visceral, reflexive revulsion that many Americans have toward the idea of having a country run by military or religious rulers. I think it depends on what individuals are running the show, and which side of the eighteenth century most of the country's people live on.
(December 29, 2008)

Does this mean that I think Saudi Arabia's monarch is doing a wonderful job, and that Queen Elizabeth II should disband parliament?

No.

But I don't think it would be better if all countries, everywhere, were McYankee clones, complete with bicameral legislatures.

What I do think is that countries work better if their leaders have some common sense; and care more about how the folks who share the country with them live, than how many solid-gold faucets are in the presidential palace.

I think that the American system, choosing leaders based on how well they dress, talk, and do their hair, works fairly well. I also think that systems that choose leaders based on what family they were born into can work fairly well, too.

I think what kind of people the leaders are matters more than how they got into the top jobs. Which isn't as radical as it may sound. Think about it: just how altruistic would you expect a person to be: who had bribed, poisoned, and stabbed his way into office?

Related posts:

• "Tunisia, Twitter, Change, and Staying Sane"
  (January 23, 2011)
• "Tunisia: Goodbye Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hello Information Age"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 15, 2011)
• "Tunisia: 24 Hours, Three Presidents"
  (January 15, 2011)
• "Commie Plots, Cholesterol, Frank Burns, Hugo Chavez, and 2012"
  (November 15, 2009)
• "Guinea, Military Rule, and Terrorism: Beware Hasty Judgment"
  (December 29, 2008)

News and views:

• "Ripple protests could topple U.S. allies"
  Nic Robertson, CNN (January 24, 2011)
• "Tunisia on verge of new crisis over regime holdovers"
  Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times (January 25, 2011)
  • They're a little ahead of themselves with the date stamp
    • It's still the 24th in the continental United States
• "Corked Like An Egyptian"
  Tim Marshall, Sky News (January 24, 2011)