Will Egypt Turn Out Like Iran?

After the Shah left Iran during the 1979 Revolution, 99.8% in favor of an Islamic Republic. The popular support for an Islamic government in Iran can be attributed to the country's 99% Muslim population. When I first looked at the statistic that showed Egypt's 90% Muslim population, my initial though that was that Egypt would turn out an Islamic Republic like Iran. However, it was not until I looked at the different concentrations of branches of Islam in both countries that I realizes that I could be wrong. In Iran, 90% of the population is composed of Shia Muslims; however, in Egypt, 90% of the population is composed of Sunni Muslims. The basic difference in ideology between the two branches of Islam is that, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Shias believed that the next leaders of Islam should come from a direct line of descent from Muhammad, whereas Sunnis believed that the next leader of Islam should be voted by the world's Muslims. From these basic ideological differences between Iran's and Egypt's respective populations, I can conclude that in the area of determining leadership, Iran believes that certain people are born with the right to rule, and seems to believe in a more restrictive system of leadership. Out these beliefs came an Islamic "democracy," in which appointed religious leaders determine who can and cannot run in elections. However, Egypt, with its Sunni beliefs, seems more more liberal in its view of leadership, and seems as if it will choose its next leader based on popular support, not a predetermined "right" to rule. From this assumption, I predict that Egypt's next government will be a Western style, open democracy in which anyone is allowed to run for elections, much like the democracy in the U.S.; however, the predominantly Muslim population will most like choose a leader who encourages Islam's influence on politics.

*Image- http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/phrase/1434/Egyptian-flag.html

Fall of Communism Blog Bost

Who or what what the primary contributor to the fall of communism? I've been trying to determine how after decades of suppressive regimes, nonviolent protests and peaceful opposition were able to overthrow such a strict and powerful government. To me, it seems that the only reason that nonviolent opposition was able to be effective in reforming the USSR was a process of liberalization of the Soviet government that started in 1985 with the election of Mikhail Gorbachev. In his speech to the United Nations on December 7, 1988, Gorbachev said, "The compelling necessity of the principle of freedom of choice is also clear to us. The failure to recognize this, to recognize it, is fraught with very dire consequences, consequences for world peace. Denying that right to the peoples, no matter what the pretext, no matter what the words are used to conceal it, means infringing upon even the unstable balance that is, has been possible to achieve." To me, this seems to be the turning point in the fall of communism. After years of strict governments, Gorbachev suddenly realized the importance of granting his citizens freedom of choice. What prevented any major reform prior to the Gorbachev era was the people's inability to make their own decisions. The year after Gorbachev decided to respect his citizens right to freedom of choice was the year during which everything changed for the USSR. In 1989, Solidarity won elections, borders were opened to the West, the the Soviet Union began to crumble. Mikhail Gorbachev allowed nature to take its course, and let his people decide their fate. By granting freedom of choice to citizens and allowing internal to reform to occur naturally, Mikhail Gorbachev both stimulated and allowed the natural reform that led to the fall of the USSR, and was the primary reason for its eventual collapse.

*image of Gorbachev during 1988 U.N. speech-

http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/freedom_of_choice.htm

Hypocrisy In China's Consolidation of Power

While looking at the various stages of the Chinese Revolution, I noticed multiple instances in which the government contradicted its self in an attempt to either gain or hold on to power. First, I noticed how Mao Tse-tung encouraged revolution and rebellion as a way to gain power, but at the same time poured much of his effort as ruler into suppressing rebellion in order to secure power. A Red Guard manifesto states that, "Revolution is rebellion, and rebellion is the soul of Mao Tse-tung's thought." (McKay, 984) Tse-tung encourages rebellion in a Red Guard manifesto; however, the Red Guard was set up to suppress the very thing that it "supported". Mao Tse-tung encouraged people to speak out and rebell against all who opposed the current regime, yet, during Great Cultural Revolution and the establishment of the Red Guard, put a great amount of effort into restricting all opposition to and rebellion against his absolutist government. Today, China still puts a huge amount of effort into censoring its media and suppressing all attempts of rebellion, examples of which include the Tiananmen Square massacre and the attempts to hide it from the public, and the current-day censorship of the internet.

Another example of hypocrisy within the Chinese government is the self-claimed "Communist" government's transition to an essentially capitalist society. When Deng Xioaping ended collectivization of agriculture and encouraged "dare to be rich", the Chinese government completely contradicted the fundamental communist principles that initially brought it to power, and compromised its core beliefs in not only a realization of how to achieve economic success in the new-age economy, but more importantly an attempt to consolidate power over China via economic success. From these examples of hypocrisy, I can conclude that in order to maintain a strong hold over a country, governments need to constantly change their policies to fit the needs of the current world in which they rule. Although the changes in China can be viewed as simple reform, to me, the fact that they so blatantly contradict previous policies was an unofficial recognition of the failure of communism. By drastically contradicting its earlier standpoints, the Chinese government unofficially admitted the failure of its initial policies, and, in its failure to acknowledge its mistakes, used hypocrisy as a way by which to consolidate power over China.

image- http://theclick.us/2009/06/behind-the-scenes-tank-man-of-tiananmen/

Will & Jeremy's Life in 1955 China Post

Dear Diary,
My name is Xiao Hun. I am a 30 year old woman, with a husband and 8 year old son, who lives on a farm just outside of Beijing. Recently, Chairman Mao has made new plans for our country. He has taken away many civil rights from the people, and nationalized all agriculture. Now, my family and I must work very hard to please Chairman Mao with all the grain that he demands. Mao has also started plans to industrialize our country, similar to the Soviet's 5 Year Plan. He plans to follow in the Soviet's footsteps to lead our country into the future. Although Mao has taken away many of our rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, he recognizes women's rights, and is making strides towards equality between men and women. He tells all women to be strong, and encourages us to fight in the army, and rebel against non-revolutionaries. There are some setbacks to living under Mao's rule, he is a great leader with good intentions, and although life is hard, Mao helps my family and I prosper and live happy lives.

Life In China-1967

Dear diary,

My name in Guang Xiao Hong and I grew up and still live in Beijing. I am 20 years old, and work in a small factory next to my dormitory. Revolution is brewing in my city, and I intend to be a part of it. Chairman Mao has told us common people to work together and overcome all of our society's problems. Many of my friends have been chosen to go to war to protect our country, and same of the remaining workers here fear the same fate. But I follow the teachings of our great leader, who said “When we die for the people, it is a worthy death." (“Serve the People,” speech from Mao Zedong on September 8^th, 1944). Every day, local bureaucrats try to assert their authority, but my friends and I listen to Mao and maintain revolutionary spirit to better our country. Chairman Mao tells us, "Marxism consists of thousands of truths, but these truths can be summarized in the statement: It is right to rebel!” (Mao Zedong’s speech on December 20^th, 1939). I know that it is right to rebel against non-revolutionary forces, but I will never oppose our great leader, Chairman Mao. Long live Chairman Mao and the revolutionary people of China!

-Will & Jeremy

Why Ghandi's Practices Work or Don't Work

Ghandi's methods of non-violent protesting, such as satygraha, rely on the willingness of authority to cooperate with protesters. What promotes authority to bend to the will of protesters practicing satyagraha is the authority's public image, and how it will be affected by their reaction to protests. In India, satyagraha forced the British government to change the way it ruled India because the British government was worried about its international image. If the British refused to cooperate with protesters, they would be perceived as a cruel absolutist government that didn't care about its people. However, non-violent protesting might not always work the way in which it did in India. With a government that pays little attention to what the rest of the world thinks of it, for example, Muammar Gaddafi's absolutist regime in Libya, satyagraha or any other method of non-violent protesting will not work. The current Revolution in Libya began with non-violent protests, which were quickly smothered by the government's use of violence. While the UN-enforced no-fly zone over Libya, put into effect of March 17th, caused Gaddafi forces to stop firing on civilians, it failed to convince Gaddafi to step down. While the situation in Libya is extreme, it is an instance in which force, rather than non-violent protesting, seems to work best in accomplishing a goal. Ghandi's non-violent practices can and will be successful in most cases; however, there are rare cases, when a government refuses to cooperate, during which force can be applied to more effectively accomplish a goal.

*Picture- a group of Libyan protesters fleeing violent Gaddafi troops

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/04/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live

Revolution in Egypt Is Not What Its Made Out to Be

Obviously there's been a lot of hype about the revolution in Egypt, but I think people are overreacting to this revolution and expecting a "free country" to emerge. Sure, Egyptians want to replace a despot with a democracy, but the Egyptian population isn't as liberal as it might appear. From April 12th to May 7th, the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project looked at the views of people from 7 muslim countries, including Egypt. Here are some shocking statistics: 59% of Egyptians define themselves as fundamentalists, 2% think that islam's influence on politics is a bad thing, 82% support stoning as a punishment for adultery, and 84% support the death penalty for apostates. Clearly, Egypt in not modernized in its social viewpoints. So although the idea getting rid of Mubarak and establishing a democracy is accepted well in Westerner's eyes, it doesn't seem like this new democracy will be modernized whatsoever in it's people's ideologies. With that in mind, I don't think that Egypt will make much progress in terms of becoming a "free nation" as Westerner's see it anytime soon. The change from absolutism to democracy is only a fraction of the reform Egypt needs in order to, in my opinion, become a free country, and I don't see this reform coming anytime soon. While the introduction of democracy is great, just remember that Egypt has a long way to go in order to become the nation that many people think will be born over the next few months from the current revolution.

Improvement of Quality of City Life During the Industrial Revolution

Before the industrial Revolution, the average European town was overcrowded, filled with waste, and festering with disease. Lack of knowledge and poor urban planning resulted extremely dirty towns and an overwhelming percentage of sick citizens. The citizens of pre-industrial cities suffered from disease after disease, such as the London cholera outbreak of 1831. Contaminated water led to the spreading of diseases such as typhoid, animals roaming towns spread diseases like typhus, and population density led to diseases like tuberculosis (TB). Between 1800 and 1850, it is estimated that 1/3 of the deaths in England were caused by TB. However, the industrial Revolution brought about a gain of knowledge in the area of disease prevention, all starting in the 1860's with Louis Pasteur's discovery of Germ Theory. Other breakthroughs in knowledge and urban planning like Lister's antiseptic principle and Edwin Chadwick's city reformation led to substantial decreases in disease-related deaths, and an overall healthier population. From the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, European death tolls almost cut in half. By the 19th century, an increased understanding of disease and its causes, and smarter urban planning led an overall happier and healthier European city population.

*Left Image- Louis Pasteur- http://www.fullissue.com/index.php/louis-pasteur-biography-1822%E2%80%931895.html

Right Image- http://moodle.montclairkimberley.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=99291