The dawn must come.

The dawn must come.

Saturday, 24 September 2011

Dictatorship & Totalitarianism vs. Democracy & Pluralism.

The following is an article I wrote in June 29th of last year. I think it is wise to read it again with fresh eyes and open minds to realise the alarming signs we detect from the general performance in the Arab world.

---------------------------------------------------------- Quote ---------------------------------------------------------------

While observing Egypt from the distant land I chose for an exile and a refuge, I see nothing else but the alarming conflicting encounters between rivals seeking power in their course of preparing the grounds for the “After Mubarak” era. On one front we have Mubarak’s Old Guard headed by Azmy & Co followed by Nazif & Co; while on the other front we see Mubarak Junior and his disciples presided by Ezz & Co.

For such a troubling scenery, I’m quoting hereafter from the Encyclopedia Britannica a definition apt and adapt to the situation, and in relation to which I will try to rhyme along my own thoughts.

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government, in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings:

1.    A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.

2.    A government controlled by one person or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests with one person. Such power is often obtained forcibly. A dictator usually takes away much of people's freedom.

3.    In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

In the twentieth century and early twenty-first century, hereditary dictatorship remained a relatively
common phenomenon.

For some scholars, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.

Well, I suppose there’s nothing else to be said while trying to classify the Egyptian Government(s) rule. However, here is one more act to be added to a very long list of precedents to qualify, without any further forcefully imposed doubts, the true character of that government (excuse me I mean criminal organization, as obviously we have no government) as a blunt Totalitarian Dictatorship.

The act was consumed publically through the physical attack of two hired thugs (in this case: lawyers on the payroll of the ruling NDP) on a respectable judge and for no reason, except to arrogantly intimidate the entire Juridical Authority, using humiliation and disrespect towards a representative of the most honorable class of “Curators of Justice and Guardians of the constitution”. The class which provided Egypt with patriots like Saad Pacha ZAGHLOOL, Moustafa Pacha EL NAHAS among thousands of other Egyptian valiant men and women of various political, social, and religious colours, who devoted their entire existence to defend the law, justice, and freedom of the Egyptian People.

It is obvious that the contemporary Ruling Élite is systematically expanding its generous grant of such a refined special treat (public humiliation, terror, intimidation, slander, imprisonment, false accusation…etc.) to the remaining fraction of dignity left to the Egyptian population. After intellectuals, syndicates, unions, journalists, political parties, politicians in and out of parliament, students, bloggers, human rights activists, industrial and agricultural workers; now, and once again, came the turn of the last fortress protecting our rights: The Juridical Institute.

No more values.. No more ethics.. no more rules.. They are “leading” us to become millions of separated “SUBJECTS” completely isolated from one another in horrifying doubt, poverty and ignorance.

Are we still going to let them enjoy raping and prostituting our lives?

---------------------------------------------------------- Unquote ----------------------------------------------------------

Let me know your observations in that regard, if you see any. But don't forget to Pass On The Word.

No comments: