Mediaboss Marketing

The Wests normalisation of Sisi is a huge pillar of the stranglehold he has over the lives of every Egyptian.

Today marks the 7th anniversary of the military coup that brought an end to Egypts brief experiment with democracy. The July 3 coup is an area of modern history that is conveniently and woefully neglected by a world that has, with a few noble exceptions, normalised and bolstered the subsequent reign of terror of the triumphant tyrant Abdel Fattah El Sisi.

In a way, its absurd to talk of the coup in the past tense, given it has never really ended. To this day, one could take a brief dip into the modern political scene in Egypt and only witness another instance of the escalation of the perpetual violence that began on July 3, 2013.

Those who fail to see this do so almost entirely deliberately and maliciously. No more is this the case with the so-called democratic West. The tone, as ever, was set by Egypts biggest patron, the US.

It was Obama who refused to call the removal of the democratically elected Mohamed Morsi for what it was, namely a military a coup. Obama knew that if he did so it would mean that, under US law, hed have to stop funding the very military that had just carried out the coup.

Obama was briefly forced to pretend to care about human rights in post-coup Egypt, following the 14th of August, 2013 when Egyptian military and paramilitary forces, funded by the US and so ferociously utilising the military technologies it provides, carried out a massacre of over 1000 pro-democracy protesters at Cairos Rabaa and Nadha squares.

Though there was some handwringing within the Obama administration on the question of renewing military aid, the reality was that the US was simply biding its time, waiting for Sisi to stabilise the country so that normal service of funding Egypt as a key geopolitical ally regardless of the barbarity of the regime could resume.

Stability, no matter how one reads it, meant the violent, murderous destruction of the entire democratic opposition, paving the way for Sisi officially assuming the throne of the presidency.

For this unprecedented violence, the US praised and duly rewarded Sisi with uninterrupted military aid and diplomatic support.

But theres a more viscerally ideological aspect regarding the relation of the July 3 coup to the West. One of the major ways in which the coup was globally justified in its early stages was to depict the democratically elected government as anti-western.

Supporters of the coup had, since essentially the first moment Morsi elected, sought to depict his technocratic, transitional and incrementally reformist government as dangerous Islamists whose ultimate goal was to transform Egypt into an anti-western theocracy.

Egypt is becoming the new Iran, was a popular counter-revolutionary cry, while absurd stories of the Islamization of Egypt flooded the domestic and international media.

Morsi was depicted as being worse than Mubarak on TV stations owned by Mubarak loyalists (feloul).

To this end, figures who were popular in the West but marginal in Egypt, most notably Nobel Peace Prize-winner Mohamed ElBaradei, were recruited to the cause of subverting democracy in Egypt by poisoning the West against Morsi.

Joining him was a plethora of westernised leftists and liberals whose own conception of Egypt is based on the Egypt that Mubarak had surrendered for his own kleptocratic interests to aggressive Westernisation the Egypt of ultra-elite shopping malls, globetrotting between Cairo and Los Angeles, Dubai, London, New York etc. A place where the Egyptian experience is largely restricted to affluent gated communities in Cairo far from the Baladi alien masses with their decidedly un-western traditions, religiosity and cultures.

They advertised to the West a so-called corrective revolution a restricted Egyptian democracy that circumvented the Islamists who had won every single fair and free election since the January 25 revolution.

They knew they couldnt win power by contesting elections, since they had insignificant domestic support; hence why simply voting Morsi out of power was rejected by the so-called opposition. He had to be removed and what he represented, namely the democratic process that led to his presidency, had to be, at the very best, severely cut down to size.

Of course, it was when the bodies started dropping in Rabaa and Nadha that ELBaradei fled in the night away from Sisi and his bloodthirsty coupist comrades his subsequent mea culpas would be more believable if this wasnt a man who understood the ruthlessly anti-democratic and counter-revolutionary nature of the Egyptian Armed Forces before getting into bed with them.

Similarly, there was an exodus of previously pro-coup left-liberals who realised that their feloul and military allies had no inclination for sharing power.

But they had fleetingly served their purpose. Sisis entire selling point to the West has been shaped by the false but mutually expedient secularist-Islamist dichotomy.

Sisi has found almost no better an ally than the European Union, which helped legitimise his fake election, and which provides him with sweetheart trade and weapons deals under the guise of him fighting 'Islamist' terrorism in the Sinai, but which has more to do with his function as a merciless policeman of illegal immigrants trying to penetrate the walls of Fortress Europe.

None of this about making tired anti-Western arguments, but the July 3 coup against democracy and its perceived irrelevance in Western considerations of Egypt is something that is hugely relevant to the lives of Egyptians today.

To illustrate it in the most graphic terms when, last year, the Palacegate protests erupted, it was with German, French and American weaponry that the regime viciously repressed the protesters. When Sisi carries out war crimes in the Sinai, he does so with US and European weaponry.

The Wests normalisation of Sisi is a huge pillar of the stranglehold that he and the kleptocracy he represents has over the lives of every Egyptian.

The Sisi regime is a bastion of backwardness, having one of the worst human rights records on earth it is rapidly pulling Egypt deeper into a political and economic abyss.

Every totalitarian lunge backwards every killing, every execution, every act of torture, every indefinite detention without trial and every voice viciously censored is done so with the full and unwavering support of the democratic West.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

We welcome all pitches and submissions to TRT World Opinion please send them via email, to opinion.editorial@trtworld.com

The rest is here:
The West's role in ending Egypt's short-lived democracy - TRT World

Published 6 July 2020

After more than 200 years, Thomas Muir of Huntershill has been restored to the roll of the Faculty of Advocates following a successful plea by Ross Macfarlane QC.

Muir was an advocate and political reformer in late eighteenth-century Scotland who, during an age of revolution, promoted democratic ideas including support for universal suffrage, which were seen by some as subversive.

Muir practised as an advocate from 1787 until being struck off in 1793 following his indictment by Lord Braxfield of the High Court of Justiciary on the charge of sedition. While he was facing trial, and was a fugitive from justice, the Faculty expelled him from membership. He was brought to trial, convicted, and sentenced to transportation, before escaping to America and revolutionary France in pursuit of his political campaigns, where he died in 1799 at the age of 33.

Muirs sentencing sparked a controversy that has persisted until the present day. Soon after his trial, concerns were being expressed that the political climate of the times had resulted in an unacceptable erosion of civil liberties, and in the 1840s a monument was erected in Calton Cemetery in memory of Muir and the other political martyrs of the time. Muir has since become known as the father of Scottish democracy for his exploits.

Mr Macfarlanes submission to the former Dean of Faculty, Gordon Jackson QC, centred on his discovery of key documents that proved a decree of fugitation lodged against Muir had never held legal effect and so voided the grounds for his expulsion from Faculty.

Mr Macfarlane showed that the decree against Muir had been reponed by an interlocutor of the Court of Session six months after being issued due to Muirs inability to make the trial by the High Court, during which he was sentenced as a fugitive. As the only reason for Muirs expulsion from Faculty, Mr Macfarlane moved that the granting of this appeal should now enable his restoration.

In his letter reinstating Muir to Faculty, Mr Jackson said: On any view of it, the trial and conviction of Muir fell far short of any notions of fairness and the due processes of Scots law.

Mr Jackson described Mr Macfarlanes work as being in the proud traditions of the Faculty of Advocates in their quest for justice, their dogged and meticulous research methods and the persuasive quality of their argument.

Mr Macfarlane said: Muir was passionate, eloquent and charismatic, albeit perceived as anti-establishment in his own time.

And on the matter of his reinstatement to Faculty, I cant do better than leave the last word to Muir himself: I have dedicated myself to the cause of the people. It is a good cause. It shall ultimately prevail. It shall finally triumph.

SLN managing editor Graham Ogilvy said: Those with an interest in Thomas Muir might like to know that a plaque of the Scottish advocate adorns the walls of the Cuban embassy in London.

A copy of the plaque was given to me by the late sculptor Ian Swann after the original was presented to the Cuban ambassador to commemorate Muirs time as a prisoner of the Spanish in Havana after his rescue from Indians on the Yucatn peninsula, where he had been shipwrecked.

Read the original post:
'Father of Scottish democracy' Thomas Muir of Huntershill restored to roll of Faculty - Scottish Legal News

On June 28 Lazarus Chakwera of the Malawi Congress Party (MCP) won the countrys presidential electoral rerun. He led a nine-party opposition coalition, the Tonse Alliance (Together Alliance). His running mate was the vibrant and popular Saulos Chilima, the leader of the United Transformation Movement (UTM).

The Tonse victory appears to have consolidated the countrys democracy, at the same revealing redefined roles of a new consensus built on the judiciary, the military and civil society organisations. At first glance, Malawians have voted for the party they rejected in 1994 as part of their transition towards constitutionalism through multiparty democratic elections after 31 years of death and darkness. (On achieving independence in 1964, the prime minister and later president, Hastings Banda, declared Malawi a one-party state under the MCP.)

Twenty-six years later, the MCP has benefited from the complex machinations and attempts to impose transitional leadership succession that have characterised Malawian politics for the past decade and a half. In 2004, president Bakili Muluzi of the United Democratic Front (UDF) acrimoniously ended his second tenure, after failing to amend the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term. After he left office, Muluzi foisted on his party and country the little-known former deputy governor of the Reserve bank of Malawi and later finance minister, Bingu wa Mutharika. This came at a time when the opposition was boycotting the electoral process.

Within months, Wa Mutharika and Muluzi had fallen out, with corruption and treason charges levelled against the former president by the incumbent. Mutharika proceeded to form his own political party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while sequestering legislators from the UDF. In April 2005, Muluzi went public, apologising to Malawians for having facilitated Wa Mutharikas ascension to office. He was then forced to flee the country and went into self-exile in the United Kingdom until May 2008.

Early in his second term, Mutharika began planning for his successor, requesting that his DDP deputy vice-president of the country, Joyce Banda, step aside for his younger brother, law professor Peter wa Mutharika, who was teaching in the United States at the time. Banda resisted and was unceremoniously removed from the party and government and forced to stay at home; she immediately formed her own party, the Peoples Party.

On April 5 2005, the unexpected happened. President Bingu wa Mutharika had a cardiac arrest and died. Thereafter, the DPP discovered that the Constitution provided for the vice-president, in this instance Joyce Banda, to take over, which she did. In the ensuing chaos, allegations emerged that key DPP officials had asked that either the attorney general or the commander of the defence forces, General Henry Odillo, take over the running of the country for a time to prevent Banda from assuming power.

In the presence of the police inspector general, Peter Mukhito, Odillo refused. Banda was able to succeed Bingu wa Mutharika and serve out the remaining term until the May 2014 elections. The DPP reorganised, with Peter Mutharika as the leader, and won the May 2014 poll. Meanwhile, an internal corruption case, the Cashgate scandal, had embroiled Joyce Bandas administration, resulting in the loss of public confidence and the possibility of arrest and detention. She fled the country into four years of self-imposed exile.

Peter Mutharika became president in May 2014 and, within weeks of his inauguration, Odillo was relieved of his duties. No explanation was provided, but it was clearly tied up with the recalcitrant position he took in 2012. In the run-up to and beyond the May 2019 elections, Mutharika continued attempting to retain the services of a discredited Malawi Electoral Commission, confronting and attempting to forcibly retire members of the judiciary and the military. Senior officers had to approach the courts to block the presidential decrees, and were successful in these efforts.

As the country prepared for the 2019 polls, Mutharika fell out with his deputy and vice-president, Chilima. As had become fashionable, Chilima also established his own party, the UTM, that is reported to have connected with the young people across the nation, particularly in urban areas.

The May 28 2019 election result, later criticised by the courts as The Tippex Election, had the DPP winning with 38.57%; the MCP and the UTM gained 35.41% and 20.24% of the vote, respectively. The two losing parties, the MCP and UTM together with the Human Rights Defenders Coalition (HRDC) approached the courts, citing irregularities. One of their criticisms was about the role played by the electoral commission director, Jane Ansaha, who was accused of being partisan and biased. The electoral commission and the governing DPP appealed against the injunction.

But the high court of Malawi, in its verdict of the May 2019 election, overturned the results.

It was clear that, to defeat the incumbent, the opposition parties had to reach an accommodation of sorts before the polls an elite pact. As the elections approached, it was evident that Chilima would be the kingmaker between the governing DPP and the old, established MCP.

The short history of the Tonse Alliance, whose main leaders marched on the streets on March 12 2020 and since been inaugurated in power by June, reflects an entity emerging from a shot-gun wedding whose lasting endurance remains to be tested. This is because the marriage of convenience emerged from a sober evaluation of the losing percentages in the May election against the narrow victory of the incumbent, Peter Mutharika. On this the sums were obvious; if the two combined then they would dislodge Mutharika. The losing parties were reacting to the 150 day cooling period before the presidential re-run opportunity offered by the court ruling succeeding to gain office as the logical outcome.

The question is: How deep is this relationship and will it combine the ideological idiosyncrasies and constituencies of the MCP and UTM?

Significantly, as part of his new appointments, including a vice-president, minister of economic planning and public sector reform, and minister of finance, Chakwera has also removed the partisan acting police inspector, Duncan Mwapasa, and installed George Kainja with instructions to clean up the battered image of the police.

What has the Malawi election delivered? An entity that comprises a complex elite sits in the political saddle, while providing an opportunity for the judiciary, the electoral commission and the military to act in concert towards consolidating democracy in the country.

As Malawians rush into the streets to celebrate, they must be aware of the implications of what the poll has delivered, and keep a watchful eye on the extent the actors remain true to their ideal of acting as servant leaders.

The rest is here:
Consolidating democracy in Malawi: A case of recycled elite pacts? - Mail and Guardian

Dear Editor,

I note that my friend and CARICOM Brother, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the new CARICOM Chairman, seems determined to throw stones towards Guyana.

Statements which are certainly premature.

As one of the most experienced leaders in the Region, and the longest serving Prime Minister, I remain disappointed that he has not taken a page out of the Book of many other CARICOM Heads of Government and Leaders of political and social groupings.

That is to maintain a level of cohesion and comradery within CARICOM.

When we behave this way, we earn the disrespect of outsiders and weaken the foundation pillars of CARICOM.

No sensible leader should contribute to the creation of this kind of environment.

I read a report by the Opposition Leader of St. Vincent. He certainly did not glorify democracy in St. Vincent.

Mr. Gonsalves and others use the term democracy with gay abandon. He must know that throughout modern history, democracy is a chameleon term used for a variety of reasons and those of us who ought to know better should be careful not to ply this term without providing detail and credible information.

The truth is democracy means different things to different people and experienced political figures ought to be careful when we apply the term without providing data. In a few hours, we will be celebrating the Independence anniversary of the United States of America.

A country and the people I believe the majority of Guyanese cherish. A place where Guyanese have a family-member, relative, or friend resident there and in the majority of cases, enjoying the American way of life with the many avenues for upward mobility and where we happily refer to as the land of opportunities.

There and elsewhere the struggle to define and refine democracy is ongoing.

I quote from the Book, The Challenge of Democracy written by Janda, Berry and Goldman which states in the first chapter of the second edition, as follows: Which is better: to live under a government that allows individuals freedom to do whatever they please or under one that enforces strict law and order? Which is better: to allow businesses and private clubs to discriminate in choosing their customers and members or to pass laws that enforce equality among races and sexes?

For many people, none of these alternatives is satisfactory. All of them pose difficult dilemmas of choice. The dilemmas are tied to opposing philosophies that place different values on freedom, order, and equality. End of quote.

Even before we cut the umbilical cord with Great Britain, Demerarians (as Guyanese were then called) looked to the US for guidance and succor.

We can be reminded, however, that the first twelve Presidents beginning with George Washington, James Maddison, James Munroe, Andrew Jackson and others were slave owners in that democracy prompting Martin Luther King (jnr), a century after the American Civil War to note and I quote I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed We hold these truths to be self -evident, that all men are created equal.

President David A. Granger has neither violated our Constitution nor broken our laws but yet we see so many throwing stones at him and the government he leads.

And I wonder, Dear Editor, if the underlying philosophy of these stone throwers is that they regard our erect and proper leader as being one of the other folks.

I wonder, for I can find no valid reasons for this relentless stone-throwing by a few people in the US, Guyana and the Caribbean. I wonder.

Yours faithfully,

Hamilton Green

See the rest here:
Mr. Gonsalves and others use the term 'democracy' with gay abandon - Stabroek News

The United States is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. People who arent wealthy have less chance of success and less chance for their children to succeed. When you talk about fixing these things, though, people freak out. Taxing the rich? Helping the poor? To many Americans, that smells like socialism. But theres one part of American society that has been successfully fighting inequality for years, and right under our noses, because they know just how important it is to make sure everyone gets a fair chance. Thats right, Im talking about the National Basketball Association. [UPBEAT MUSIC PLAYING] See, in the N.B.A., there are rich teams and poor teams. The New York Knicks, the Los Angeles Lakers and other big-city teams charge more for tickets, sell more merchandise and strike bigger broadcasting deals. Theyre rolling in money. Meanwhile, the Phoenix Suns and Minnesota Timberwolves are struggling to get by. Now, you may be thinking, great. Thats competition for you. Let the best team win, right? Well, no. The N.B.A. wants competition on the court. But to maintain that competition and make sure every team has a fighting chance, the N.B.A. imposes strict rules to limit competition everywhere else. Lets take a look. Rule 1: revenue sharing. The N.B.A. makes about $2.6 billion every year from national television deals. But that money is divided evenly among the teams, regardless of how many viewers each team attracts. Popular teams, which bring in huge audiences, are actually giving up some of their earnings to help out teams that are less profitable. Rule 2: spending limits. Theres this thing called the salary cap. Its a limit on how much each team can spend on players. Last year, it was about $110 million. And every team has to stay under that limit. So instead of a no-holds-barred free market, the N.BA. is actually stepping in to make sure the wealthy teams dont always outbid everyone else. And that means poor teams can make competitive salary offers to top players. Rule 3: the Draft. New players enter the N.B.A. through a draft. But how do you decide who gets first dibs on the hot talent? Well, its not random. The N.B.A. awards those precious top draft picks to the worst teams. Thats right. Each seasons worst teams are actually rewarded for their failures by getting a better chance at the top pick. And that gives them a head start on building a better team for next season. So why does the N.B.A. do all this? Simply put, they know that unregulated competition would be a disaster. The rich teams would use their mountains of cash to buy up all the best players, and soon, theyd have a chokehold on the league. Youd start to see the same few teams in the championship every year Lakers, Bulls, Knicks. Lakers, Bulls, Knicks. Just imagine the Knicks. It would be a lot like the rest of America, where the wealthiest people can set their kids up with trust funds, while everyone else struggles just to pay the rent. But maybe youre wondering, why do rich teams agree to share their hard-earned profits with their poorer rivals? Well, the answer is simple the Lakers need other teams to play good teams. Otherwise, whats the point? The only reason fans show up for basketball is because we believe its a fair fight. We need to know that with enough talent, hard work and good old-fashioned luck, any team has a chance at the championship. Without that level playing field, it would be boring as hell, and bad business for the N.B.A. And heres the thing a level playing field would be good for the rest of us too. So what would it take for America to look a little more like the N.B.A.? Well, we would need higher taxes on the wealthy to redistribute money from the rich to the rest of us. And, just like the N.B.A. draft, we would need to give poor folks a better shot at opportunity, like making sure everyone has access to education and good housing. Thats what a leg up looks like. Now, obviously, you cant run a country like a sports league. And the N.B.A. has plenty of flaws too. The rich owners keep getting richer, just like the rest of the country. And while the players are well compensated, thousands of other workers, the ones who collect tickets, sell popcorn, clean the stands, dont make very much at all. But we can still learn a lesson from the N.B.A. They havent abolished winners and losers. They havent abolished capitalism or wealth or profit. They just keep teams from using those profits to rig the system and spoil the game for everyone. Thats not socialism. Its just fair play. So which world do you want to live in? A society where everyone has a chance to succeed or one where the winners are always the New York Knicks?

Follow this link:
Opinion | What The NBA Can Teach Us About Fixing Income Inequality - The New York Times