Today I visited Villawood Detention Centre here in Sydney, where Serco keeps refugees under guard at the behest of our government. I've visited the single men in stage 2/3 before, as well as the high security section stage 1 (where both asylum seekers with criminal records and those who have made trouble or staged protests inside detention centres are kept). But today was my first time visiting the Housing stage, where families and children are kept locked up.
I met Ranjini, a Tamil woman who fled Sri Lanka in 2008, as the Sinhala chauvinist government was tightening the net on the breakaway northern territory of Tamil Eelam. Her first husband, the father of her two boys, was killed in the fighting. Her two boys, 6 and 8, have lived through the voyage from Sri Lanka to India, from India to Christmas Island, then the stagnation of our detention system until about a year ago, when she was released into the community to have her asylum application processed. However, a few months ago she was called up by Immigration, plucking her two sons out of school, to be locked back up in Villawood.
Her younger son is full of energy - he pulled me outside to play hide-and-seek, to build a tent out of the soccer goals, to try and fix his bike's broken wheels. He is allowed out of the centre to go to a public school, where he is accompanied by a minimum of 3 Serco guards; they can visit parks, and once Clovelly Beach, but only after it's been investigated and cleared by Serco. For now, though, he is still full of beans; he reminded me of the young boy at my neighbour's house in Wollongong. But I know that growing up behind barbed wire has to be wearing on his mind. He made me promise to bring him a real tent the next time I visit.
These are the human beings that our establishment politicians and media voices demonise to misdirect our alienation and anger.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Saturday, 7 July 2012
Shoutout: The Wall Decorator
A friend from uni blogs at the wall decorator. She wrote about her encounter with anti-carbon price protesters (who make the repeated mistake of describing the recently passed emissions trading scheme as a tax), getting on the camera, and why people protest. Although the people she's writing about are on the other side of the barricades from me, I think there's a grain of truth for all who pick up placards and raise flags. Check it out.
Egypt: Morsi Sworn In Before Regime's Court
Submitted for publication to Green Left Weekly.
The Muslim Brotherhood candidate for Egypt's Presidential Elections, Mohamed Morsi, was sworn into office on July 30, after the Electoral Comission announced on June 24 that he had beaten ex-regime candidate Ahmed Shafiq with 51.7% of the vote.
Significantly, Morsi swore the oath before Egypt's High Consitutional Court (HCC) – which on June 14 declared the law regulating the 2011 parliamentary elections, in which the Muslim Brotherhood won close to half of all seats, unconstitutional.
Egypt's Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), which had exercised presidential powers after Hosni Mubarak's resignation, then dissolved the Parliament on June 17 with a supplementary Constitutional Declaration that also gave itself several Presidential powers and oversights.
This includes power to dissolve and appoint the constituent assembly elected by parliament to draft a new constitution.
The conformation of Morsi's win, however, was overshadowed by protests and sit-ins at Cairo's iconic Tahrir Square and elsewhere around the country, demanding the parliament be restored and the supplementary Constitution Declaration be revoked.
The Muslim Brotherhood called on its supporters to join the protests on Friday June 22, demanding the military respect Morsi's win.
However, Judge Tahani El-Gebaly, a member of the HCC, insisted in comments to al-Ahram newspaper that Morsi was bound to accept the addendum after taking oath before the court.
An AFP report quoted Morsi as saying there would be "no Islamisation of state institutions" during his Presidency, while the Herald Sun reported his vision of Egypt was as a "democratic, modern and constitutional state".
He also stated that he would "stand with the Palestinian people until they regain all their rights" – however, the supplementary Constitutional Declaration also declared the SCAF has sole authority over military matters and is the only body which can declare a state of war.
Egypt's military receives billions of dollars of aid from the US government annually; a key concern of American commentators has been the potential of the new regime to break the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, brokered at Camp David.
After taking office, Morsi began accepting protesters into his office to hear their grievances. On July 4 it was announced a group of public-sector teachers demanding permanent full-time contracts who had been protesting had their demands granted by Morsi. In response, Al-Ahram ran the headline: "The people know the way to the palace"
However, protesters demanding an end to military trials of civilians and the release of political prisoners were prevented from entering, reported Al Arabiya on July 4.
The demands of Tahrir - for democratisation, equality before the law, putting regime figures on trial - are still being fought tooth and nail by the regime. Yet the independant worker's movement seems to be winning far more sympathy amongst the population - and, as such, presenting far more of a threat to the "new" regime.
General Adel Al-Morsi, head of the Military Judiciary Authority, was reported Daily News Egypt as saying that no ‘political prisoners’ are facing military trials, only 'criminals'. He also said responsibility lay with the President to pardon any charged by military courts.
Morsi, who officially resigned from the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party after election results were announced, called for supporters to take to Tahrir on June 29 for the "Friday of the transfer of power". Protesters chanted "Down with the power of the military," reported AFP.
However, Egypt Independant reported on July 2 that Mostafa al-Ghoneimy, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau, announced they would no longer be supporting the Tahrir sit-in.
Sayed al-Nazily, a member of the Brotherhood Shura Council, said members were instructed to continue the sit-in until a July 9 challenge to the ruling which dissolved parliament.
Ahram Online's Yasmine Wali reported on July 3 that the Square was almost empty, with only a handful of Brotherhood supporters remaining. Other activist groups such as the April 6 Youth Movement also suspended their involvement in Tahrir.
As the struggle between the SCAF and Morsi for control of the state apparatus unfolds, it seems clear that, despite the hopes of many, Tahrir's revolutionaries will still need to take to the streets to win their demands.
The Muslim Brotherhood candidate for Egypt's Presidential Elections, Mohamed Morsi, was sworn into office on July 30, after the Electoral Comission announced on June 24 that he had beaten ex-regime candidate Ahmed Shafiq with 51.7% of the vote.
 |
| Morsi sworn in before High Constitutional Court. Photo: Xinhua |
Significantly, Morsi swore the oath before Egypt's High Consitutional Court (HCC) – which on June 14 declared the law regulating the 2011 parliamentary elections, in which the Muslim Brotherhood won close to half of all seats, unconstitutional.
Egypt's Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), which had exercised presidential powers after Hosni Mubarak's resignation, then dissolved the Parliament on June 17 with a supplementary Constitutional Declaration that also gave itself several Presidential powers and oversights.
This includes power to dissolve and appoint the constituent assembly elected by parliament to draft a new constitution.
The conformation of Morsi's win, however, was overshadowed by protests and sit-ins at Cairo's iconic Tahrir Square and elsewhere around the country, demanding the parliament be restored and the supplementary Constitution Declaration be revoked.
The Muslim Brotherhood called on its supporters to join the protests on Friday June 22, demanding the military respect Morsi's win.
However, Judge Tahani El-Gebaly, a member of the HCC, insisted in comments to al-Ahram newspaper that Morsi was bound to accept the addendum after taking oath before the court.
An AFP report quoted Morsi as saying there would be "no Islamisation of state institutions" during his Presidency, while the Herald Sun reported his vision of Egypt was as a "democratic, modern and constitutional state".
He also stated that he would "stand with the Palestinian people until they regain all their rights" – however, the supplementary Constitutional Declaration also declared the SCAF has sole authority over military matters and is the only body which can declare a state of war.
Egypt's military receives billions of dollars of aid from the US government annually; a key concern of American commentators has been the potential of the new regime to break the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, brokered at Camp David.
After taking office, Morsi began accepting protesters into his office to hear their grievances. On July 4 it was announced a group of public-sector teachers demanding permanent full-time contracts who had been protesting had their demands granted by Morsi. In response, Al-Ahram ran the headline: "The people know the way to the palace"
However, protesters demanding an end to military trials of civilians and the release of political prisoners were prevented from entering, reported Al Arabiya on July 4.
The demands of Tahrir - for democratisation, equality before the law, putting regime figures on trial - are still being fought tooth and nail by the regime. Yet the independant worker's movement seems to be winning far more sympathy amongst the population - and, as such, presenting far more of a threat to the "new" regime.
General Adel Al-Morsi, head of the Military Judiciary Authority, was reported Daily News Egypt as saying that no ‘political prisoners’ are facing military trials, only 'criminals'. He also said responsibility lay with the President to pardon any charged by military courts.
Morsi, who officially resigned from the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party after election results were announced, called for supporters to take to Tahrir on June 29 for the "Friday of the transfer of power". Protesters chanted "Down with the power of the military," reported AFP.
However, Egypt Independant reported on July 2 that Mostafa al-Ghoneimy, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau, announced they would no longer be supporting the Tahrir sit-in.
Sayed al-Nazily, a member of the Brotherhood Shura Council, said members were instructed to continue the sit-in until a July 9 challenge to the ruling which dissolved parliament.
Ahram Online's Yasmine Wali reported on July 3 that the Square was almost empty, with only a handful of Brotherhood supporters remaining. Other activist groups such as the April 6 Youth Movement also suspended their involvement in Tahrir.
As the struggle between the SCAF and Morsi for control of the state apparatus unfolds, it seems clear that, despite the hopes of many, Tahrir's revolutionaries will still need to take to the streets to win their demands.
Friday, 6 July 2012
Egypt: Brotherhood claim presidential win amid big street protests
This was orginally published in Green Left Weekly here, going to print on June 24 shortly before Morsi's victory was announced. Stay posted for another update on his swearing in, the Brotherhood's withdrawal from Tahrir, and the military's advances.
[Although official results are yet to be announced, it seems] Muhammad Morsi, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) candidate, has won the second round of Egypt's presidential elections, held on June 16-17.
However, his opponent, ex-regime candidate Ahmed Shafik, also declared victory on election night, claiming there was no way Morsi had secured the million-vote lead their camp claimed.
Election Contest
In the lead-up to the second round of voting, several prominent left forces, including the Revolutionary Socialists and the April 6 Youth Movement, declared their support for Morsi's campaign.
In a statement on May 28, the Revolutionary Socialists described Shafiq as the "face of the counter-revolution", and without a candidate standing for the Tahrir revolution, called for all supporters of the January 25 revolution to unite behind Morsi.
The statement attributed Shafiq's success to "the smear campaigns, systematic repression and intimidation of the social and popular forces "
An independant election monitor supported by Middle East Voices substantiated Morsi's claim of leading with around 51.8% of the vote. (the final count was 51.7% Morsi)
Much of the attention from the elections, however, was taken up with the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF)'s maneuvers to limit the power of the winner.
Military Declares Power
After the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) ruled on June 14 that the Parliamentary Election Law regulating the 2011 elections was unconstitutional, the SCAF issued a decree dissolving the Islamist-majority parliament on June 17, shortly after the presidential polls had closed.
The day before the ruling, the Justice Ministry had also decreed that military police and intelligence officers could arrest civilians, continuing the legacy of the state of emergency, which legally ended at the start of June.
Al Jazeera English quoted Mohamed Beltagy, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, as describing the decree as a "military coup" which had not been discussed in Parliament.
On June 17, Ahram Online reported Saad El-Katatni, speaker of the Parliament, as having told the SCAF he would continue to convene the body despite its dissolution.
The SCAF has also issued a "supplementary constitutional declaration" seizing many Presidential powers for the council itself.
Armed forces were deployed in great numbers across Egypt ahead of the announcement of official results – originally scheduled for June 21.
Amr Ahmed, from the Egyptian Socialist Party, told Green Left Weekly: "There are four main points to the declaration.
Firstly, that the SCAF are the only ones responsible for everything relating to the military, the appointment of leadership, and [Field Marshall] Tantawi is to hold the power of Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defence
Second, that the SCAF must approve any declaration of a state of war.
Thirdly, the SCAF will hold the authority of Parliament until a new one can be elected.
Fourth, the SCAF will control the body to draft a new constitution within 3 months, to be approved by a referendum after that.
So at present you can see the SCAF will remain in the scene regardless of who is the president.... they will be like a marionette in the hands of the military."
Responses
The US government has signalled concerns with the situation. Hilary Clinton responded to the declarations with a statement on June 14 calling for the military authorities to "fully transfer power to a democratically elected civilian government as planned", reported Ahram Online.
However, the role of the US has been far from helpful to the transition to democratic rule in Egypt. In fact, in March Clinton waived the requirement for certification of basic human rights conditions in the country before the United States' $1.3 US billion of aid to Egypt could be released, reported the New York Times on March 26.
The Guardian reported that Egypt's benchmark index dropped 1.9% in the early hours of Monday morning, on the back of the expected win of Morsi and the military maneuvers.
Initial protests at the dissolution of parliament drew thousands to the street on June 15. Then on June 18, a joint statement was issued by a variety of left forces to "Announce [the signatories'] complete rejection of the Supplementary Constitutional Declaration."
The statement called for the president-elect to reject the Supplementary Declaration, cancel exceptional measures issued by the SCAF and refuse to take the oath of office before the SCC. (ed: Morsi did take the oath before the SCC, which I write about in my following article)
The statement called for a protest in Tahrir Square on Tuesday June 19; tens of thousands responded, rallying through the night.
The Muslim Brotherhood called for its supporters to join the protests throughout the week, launching its own vigils in public squares throughout the country against the "coup".
Ahmed told Green Left Weekly: "What's happening now has nothing to do with the goals of the revolution or the people, but is part of the ongoing conflict between the SCAF and the Muslim Brotherhood for power and influence in the state."
Where to for the Revolution?
Since the first-round elections, when all candidates reflecting the demands of the revolution were defeated, Egypt's revolutionary camp has been split on how to approach the electoral processes and the political sphere.
One important chapter for breaking people's illusions in the Muslim Brotherhood is the question of sexism and sexual harrassment, which was brought to the fore in December when footage of a female protester being beaten and stripped half-naked in Tahrir by soldiers spread online.
Ahmed said: "On this issue there is no conflict between the SCAF and the MB. The Brotherhood said that it was the fault of the protester for being in Tahrir Square that this happened to her."
"The illusion of fundamental differences between the MB and the SCAF will become more and more apparent over time."
Where to for Tahrir?
The "leaderless" approach of the Tahrir revolutionaries, uniting around basic demands for democratic and economic reforms, has been a factor in the lack of significant wins in the political sphere for the demands of the revolution beyond the winning of electoral process and the trial of Mubarak.
"We have pushed to take some advancements and achievements, but they have all been taken up by the Brotherhood", Ahmed told GLW.
"We need to create a third power, an organisation of the revolution, to represent its agenda & goals, and lead people towards the revolution's milestones."
"The Egyptian Socialist Party is seeking to create this third political force with other figures on the left – such as Sabahy and El Baradei – that can represent the revolution."
Writing on her blog Tahrir & Beyond on June 17, Gigi Ibrahim, a leading member of Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists, declared: "the revolution has no machine, no organised group, no political party sufficient enough to adopt the revolution's goals and capable of fighting the two most organised and biggest threatening machines to the revolution, the NDP (Mubarak's party) and MB, and the SCAF"
Throughout the struggles around the elections, the workers' movement has continued to push for economic & political reforms in workplaces across Egypt.
Public Transport workers in Cairo went on strike for two weeks in March, demanding the removal of corrupt Mubarak-era officials as well as a bonus equal to 100 weeks pay.
On March 27 they went back to work, winning their demands for improved pay and conditions.
The strong showing of Hamdeen Sabahy, who put forward a Nasserist platform of expanding subsidies and state investment, and polled a close third behind Shafik in the first round of the presidential elections, shows that the prospects for building on the demands of workers and democracy activists in the political sphere are good.
The question is – will they find the vehicle to exercise their own power? Or will the mauevering between the SCAF & MB stagnate the January 25 revolution?
[Although official results are yet to be announced, it seems] Muhammad Morsi, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) candidate, has won the second round of Egypt's presidential elections, held on June 16-17.
However, his opponent, ex-regime candidate Ahmed Shafik, also declared victory on election night, claiming there was no way Morsi had secured the million-vote lead their camp claimed.
Election Contest
In the lead-up to the second round of voting, several prominent left forces, including the Revolutionary Socialists and the April 6 Youth Movement, declared their support for Morsi's campaign.
In a statement on May 28, the Revolutionary Socialists described Shafiq as the "face of the counter-revolution", and without a candidate standing for the Tahrir revolution, called for all supporters of the January 25 revolution to unite behind Morsi.
The statement attributed Shafiq's success to "the smear campaigns, systematic repression and intimidation of the social and popular forces "
An independant election monitor supported by Middle East Voices substantiated Morsi's claim of leading with around 51.8% of the vote. (the final count was 51.7% Morsi)
Much of the attention from the elections, however, was taken up with the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF)'s maneuvers to limit the power of the winner.
Military Declares Power
After the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) ruled on June 14 that the Parliamentary Election Law regulating the 2011 elections was unconstitutional, the SCAF issued a decree dissolving the Islamist-majority parliament on June 17, shortly after the presidential polls had closed.
The day before the ruling, the Justice Ministry had also decreed that military police and intelligence officers could arrest civilians, continuing the legacy of the state of emergency, which legally ended at the start of June.
Al Jazeera English quoted Mohamed Beltagy, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, as describing the decree as a "military coup" which had not been discussed in Parliament.
On June 17, Ahram Online reported Saad El-Katatni, speaker of the Parliament, as having told the SCAF he would continue to convene the body despite its dissolution.
The SCAF has also issued a "supplementary constitutional declaration" seizing many Presidential powers for the council itself.
Armed forces were deployed in great numbers across Egypt ahead of the announcement of official results – originally scheduled for June 21.
Amr Ahmed, from the Egyptian Socialist Party, told Green Left Weekly: "There are four main points to the declaration.
Firstly, that the SCAF are the only ones responsible for everything relating to the military, the appointment of leadership, and [Field Marshall] Tantawi is to hold the power of Commander in Chief and Secretary of Defence
Second, that the SCAF must approve any declaration of a state of war.
Thirdly, the SCAF will hold the authority of Parliament until a new one can be elected.
Fourth, the SCAF will control the body to draft a new constitution within 3 months, to be approved by a referendum after that.
So at present you can see the SCAF will remain in the scene regardless of who is the president.... they will be like a marionette in the hands of the military."
Responses
The US government has signalled concerns with the situation. Hilary Clinton responded to the declarations with a statement on June 14 calling for the military authorities to "fully transfer power to a democratically elected civilian government as planned", reported Ahram Online.
However, the role of the US has been far from helpful to the transition to democratic rule in Egypt. In fact, in March Clinton waived the requirement for certification of basic human rights conditions in the country before the United States' $1.3 US billion of aid to Egypt could be released, reported the New York Times on March 26.
The Guardian reported that Egypt's benchmark index dropped 1.9% in the early hours of Monday morning, on the back of the expected win of Morsi and the military maneuvers.
Initial protests at the dissolution of parliament drew thousands to the street on June 15. Then on June 18, a joint statement was issued by a variety of left forces to "Announce [the signatories'] complete rejection of the Supplementary Constitutional Declaration."
The statement called for the president-elect to reject the Supplementary Declaration, cancel exceptional measures issued by the SCAF and refuse to take the oath of office before the SCC. (ed: Morsi did take the oath before the SCC, which I write about in my following article)
The statement called for a protest in Tahrir Square on Tuesday June 19; tens of thousands responded, rallying through the night.
The Muslim Brotherhood called for its supporters to join the protests throughout the week, launching its own vigils in public squares throughout the country against the "coup".
Ahmed told Green Left Weekly: "What's happening now has nothing to do with the goals of the revolution or the people, but is part of the ongoing conflict between the SCAF and the Muslim Brotherhood for power and influence in the state."
Where to for the Revolution?
Since the first-round elections, when all candidates reflecting the demands of the revolution were defeated, Egypt's revolutionary camp has been split on how to approach the electoral processes and the political sphere.
One important chapter for breaking people's illusions in the Muslim Brotherhood is the question of sexism and sexual harrassment, which was brought to the fore in December when footage of a female protester being beaten and stripped half-naked in Tahrir by soldiers spread online.
Ahmed said: "On this issue there is no conflict between the SCAF and the MB. The Brotherhood said that it was the fault of the protester for being in Tahrir Square that this happened to her."
"The illusion of fundamental differences between the MB and the SCAF will become more and more apparent over time."
Where to for Tahrir?
The "leaderless" approach of the Tahrir revolutionaries, uniting around basic demands for democratic and economic reforms, has been a factor in the lack of significant wins in the political sphere for the demands of the revolution beyond the winning of electoral process and the trial of Mubarak.
"We have pushed to take some advancements and achievements, but they have all been taken up by the Brotherhood", Ahmed told GLW.
"We need to create a third power, an organisation of the revolution, to represent its agenda & goals, and lead people towards the revolution's milestones."
"The Egyptian Socialist Party is seeking to create this third political force with other figures on the left – such as Sabahy and El Baradei – that can represent the revolution."
Writing on her blog Tahrir & Beyond on June 17, Gigi Ibrahim, a leading member of Egypt's Revolutionary Socialists, declared: "the revolution has no machine, no organised group, no political party sufficient enough to adopt the revolution's goals and capable of fighting the two most organised and biggest threatening machines to the revolution, the NDP (Mubarak's party) and MB, and the SCAF"
Throughout the struggles around the elections, the workers' movement has continued to push for economic & political reforms in workplaces across Egypt.
Public Transport workers in Cairo went on strike for two weeks in March, demanding the removal of corrupt Mubarak-era officials as well as a bonus equal to 100 weeks pay.
On March 27 they went back to work, winning their demands for improved pay and conditions.
The strong showing of Hamdeen Sabahy, who put forward a Nasserist platform of expanding subsidies and state investment, and polled a close third behind Shafik in the first round of the presidential elections, shows that the prospects for building on the demands of workers and democracy activists in the political sphere are good.
The question is – will they find the vehicle to exercise their own power? Or will the mauevering between the SCAF & MB stagnate the January 25 revolution?
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Their Leadership and Ours
Along with the previous post, The Tyranny of Coffee, this piece is part of a larger article I submitted to Resistance Pre-Conference Discussion discussing how socialists, particularly youth, should organise in Australia today.
UPDATE: 4000 page views, w00t!
UPDATE: 4000 page views, w00t!
The
kind of leaders and the vision of leadership prevalent in society
today today are fundamentally deformed by the nature of class
society. Under modern global capitalism, leadership – whether in
civil society, parliament or industry – is structured
hierachically. Leaders, whether formally elected or, like Rinehart,Palmer and Forrest, not at all, are expected to command those below
them, and implement their own individual vision of how to carry out
decisions that are made, either by them or collectively.
The
socialist vision of leaders is something radically different.
Socialists understand that, as human beings, we are best equipped to
solve our problems collectively, through collaboration and teamwork.
Our vision of leadership is collective too; decisions that are made
by a group should be carried out by a group, with the different ideas
of how to carry things out that all members hold tested out in
practice. Our organisers are not "leaders" to instruct
members on how to carry out their assignments or tasks they have
taken on, or take on responsibility for doing everything themselves,
but members of the team, there to ensure decisions made collectively
through branches or executives are actually getting carried out in
practice, and to help comrades out when they need it.
Failures
should not lead to individual shame or demotion, but are also the
responsibility of the whole team involved. Going it alone as
activists or taking on too much work as individuals rather than as a
team, no matter how much easier or more efficient it might seem in
the short term, is a quick route to developing bad ideas unchecked,
becoming more and more alienated from those we are seeking to lead,
and in the long run, burning out and losing faith in people or
activism altogether.
Youth
are particularly vulnerable to being under-developed as leaders in
class society – we are underrepresented in leadership positions
both in politics and the economy, under-developed or mis-developed as
leaders by civil society programs and official forms of student
politics, and super-exploited and in the workplace. Yet since we
haven't yet risen to better jobs with better perks, and we haven't
yet been as ground down by the capitalist system as the rest of the
working class, we are also most open to ideas about changing the
society that we live in in a revolutionary way.
Unless
we actively take steps to safeguard against it, the dominant
consciousness of leadership developed under class society also plays
out within activist spaces. This is true for a variety of oppressed
groups in society, but particularly so for youth and new members –
given the seriousness with which socialists committed to building an
organisation take our task of fighting to overthrow the system, it is
only natural for older and more experienced comrades to step in when
new ones are making mistakes or unsure of what is to be done – and
this isn't always a bad thing. But if it happens repeatedly, then it
means that we aren't allowing space for young activists to develop as
real leaders, with confidence in their own abilities, but who
understand they aren't operating alone.
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
Egypt: Streets erupt as court dissolves parliament in 'coup'
This piece was finished shortly before polls opened in last weekend's Egyptian Presidential elections, which it now seems the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate Muhammad Morsi, who revolutionary groups such as the April 6 Youth Movement and the Revolutionary Socialists backed, has announced his victory in. Official results will be announced Thursday. Stay posted for more in-depth coverage. Originally published at Green Left Weekly.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Egypt's second-round presidential elections between ex-regime figure Ahmed Shafiq and Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi will go ahead after the High Constitutional Court (HCC) ruled on June 14 that Shafiq's candidacy was constitutional.
The ruling declared that the Political Disenfanchisement Law, which barred ex-members of Mubarak's National Democratic Party (NDP) from holding high government offices, was unconstitional.
In what came as a shock to many, the HCC also said Egypt's Parliamentary Elections Law, which had regulated last year's parliamentary elections, was unconstitutional, dissolving the lower house People's Assembly.
The elections last year brought the Muslim Brotherhood to the fore and, combined with the Salafist al-Nour party, gave the Islamists a majority. Morsi, the Brotherhood's candidate in the presidential elections, led the first round of voting over May 23-24.
But Ziad Bahaa-Eldin, a legislator from the Social Democratic Party, said Egypt's electoral law was "flawed and brought in a flawed parliament," Reuters reported on June 15.
"Parliament had lost much of its stature and credibility ... because of the Islamist parties' misuse of the majority they enjoyed."
But many activists have called the moves a "coup". Enjy Hamdy, from the leading activist organisation the April 6 Youth Movement (A6YM), said: "This all must be seen as a military coup, an attempt by the army to stay in power longer to protect their interests, which we will not accept."
First-round candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh also called the results "an obvious military coup", reported Bikya Masr.
The Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF), who have retained presidential powers since Mubarak was ousted on February 11 last year, has blamed ongoing protests and struggles for democratic reform on "foreign hands", while refusing popular calls to relinquish their authority to a civilian "salvation council" to oversee Egypt's elections.
Ahram Online reporter Wael Eskaner tweeted in response to the ruling: "It's not true that Egyptians aren't ready for democracy, it's the Egyptian regime that isn't."
Angry protests were launched around the country after the results. Two thousand protesters marched from Mohandeseen to Tahrir Square in Cairo on June 15 in a protest called by the Revolutionary Socialists, A6YM and others, Ahram Online said.
However, despite thousands taking to Tahrir Square, street protests did not reach the critical mass needed to shut down the city.
Ahram Online's reporter said marchers tore down and defaced campaign posters for Shafiq. Immediately after the results images becan circulating social media of protesters stamping on Shafiq's posters or hitting them with shoes.
Despite the protests, the presidential run-off was set to go ahead at the weekend of June 16-17.
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
The Tyranny of Coffee
Before I became an activist, coffee was not a usual part of my diet, outside of the occasional late-night writing (or gaming) stint.
But in the last couple of years, as I've become a full-time activist, I've found myself drinking coffee more and more, to the point where now I generally feel like I'm not firing on all cylinders if I haven't had one to start the day. So i thought I'd take a minute, while I'm buzzing on this morning's coffee, to reflect on what that means.
I think coffee is a fine thing, and probably no more hurtful than any other mildly addictive substance (let's not forget the conditions of alienation, increasing automatisation, atomisation, etc for the majority in current first-world capitalist nations, in which material context such things have to be considered). I'm more interested, though, in the role "coffee" has to play in social activity and activism.
I've been to many meetings in my day over a cup of coffee (this way was my first real introduction to regular coffee-drinking). It's a good shot of zest for those early morning picket lines or stalls, long skype meetings, tedious days of email and data entry, etc... And meetings over coffee are a great way to get to know new members of your organisation or campaign group, sketch out ideas, and bond with people (and let's not forget that, as Eddie Izzard pointed out, "coffee" dates can often have a more adult connotation too...)
But if coffee dates are the primary way of getting stuff done in an activist group (even if between meetings), I think there's some issues. It's hard for there to be accountability to an informal gathering in a cafe (or a pub, or wherever). A coffee meeting doesn't have a constitution, and it's open only to those already in the circle. Even with people who are well-intentioned or don't mean to be cliquey or exluding, there are some implicit assumptions in coffee meetings - that people know each other and are friendly, that they have the right to make decisions and act on them, that attempting to involve more people in the process is at odds with formal meetings. Those who work during cafe opening hours are excluded; those who can't afford to drink coffee are excluded.
I'm not saying such meetings should be banned by serious activists, just that any organisation which wants to grow, involve more people and lead them in doing something needs to be open, accountable and easy to get involved in and take on responsibility in; coffee dates, pub lunches and other informal meetings have their place in this, but collective and democratic decision making meetings are essential.
Now, I'm off to put the percolator on...
 |
| The best photo of myself drinking coffee I could find... |
But in the last couple of years, as I've become a full-time activist, I've found myself drinking coffee more and more, to the point where now I generally feel like I'm not firing on all cylinders if I haven't had one to start the day. So i thought I'd take a minute, while I'm buzzing on this morning's coffee, to reflect on what that means.
I think coffee is a fine thing, and probably no more hurtful than any other mildly addictive substance (let's not forget the conditions of alienation, increasing automatisation, atomisation, etc for the majority in current first-world capitalist nations, in which material context such things have to be considered). I'm more interested, though, in the role "coffee" has to play in social activity and activism.
I've been to many meetings in my day over a cup of coffee (this way was my first real introduction to regular coffee-drinking). It's a good shot of zest for those early morning picket lines or stalls, long skype meetings, tedious days of email and data entry, etc... And meetings over coffee are a great way to get to know new members of your organisation or campaign group, sketch out ideas, and bond with people (and let's not forget that, as Eddie Izzard pointed out, "coffee" dates can often have a more adult connotation too...)
But if coffee dates are the primary way of getting stuff done in an activist group (even if between meetings), I think there's some issues. It's hard for there to be accountability to an informal gathering in a cafe (or a pub, or wherever). A coffee meeting doesn't have a constitution, and it's open only to those already in the circle. Even with people who are well-intentioned or don't mean to be cliquey or exluding, there are some implicit assumptions in coffee meetings - that people know each other and are friendly, that they have the right to make decisions and act on them, that attempting to involve more people in the process is at odds with formal meetings. Those who work during cafe opening hours are excluded; those who can't afford to drink coffee are excluded.
I'm not saying such meetings should be banned by serious activists, just that any organisation which wants to grow, involve more people and lead them in doing something needs to be open, accountable and easy to get involved in and take on responsibility in; coffee dates, pub lunches and other informal meetings have their place in this, but collective and democratic decision making meetings are essential.
Now, I'm off to put the percolator on...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)