My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
Mario Loyola, I could weep with gratitude to you:
The Baker criteria are useful, but still focus too much on the behavior of the leadership. They provide few clues for judging the inherent legitimacy of a state’s constitutional order. That is where the U.S. and its partners must develop refined criteria, including at the very least full representation in the legislature, impartial execution of the laws, and an independent judiciary — as well as individual freedoms not marred by sanctioned justifications for arbitrary abuses, whether religious or otherwise. Under international law, such principles could be established in declarations of the U.S. government and endorsed by groups such as the G-8.
Where does this leave us in the case of Egypt? The U.S. should be able to fall back on objective criteria when taking a position on the legitimacy of Mubarak’s rule. We should insist that Mubarak’s legitimacy is a constitutional question — and that the solution is a new constitution.
I really thought I'd just have to stop reading the news. This is an article full of interesting ideas, well-worth discussing. Take it away, Ricochet.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
An excellent and thoughtful analysis; however... He's blurring political science and realpolitik in a way that indicates neither study has any history to learn from. And that history has already informed the art of diplomacy for centuries.
Yes, we need to be concerned about the legitimacy of the governments we deal with, but there are many sources of legitimacy, including ones the USA is not particularly fond of. The distinction between government and states is important here; states can only deal with other states (via ritualized diplomacy), but states are replaced by new forms of governments (via revolution, conquest, etc) which eventually crystallize into a different state. Constitutions are one way to formalize a government, not the only way.
Loyola is correct: no matter how much they espouse democracy, freedom, and balance of power, the legitimacy of constitutions need to be analyzed separate from their text. But he goes on to suggest a framework should be constructed via international law... and that does not hold promise. International law necessarily takes the existence of states for granted, and regularly fails at meta-critiques of states; by definition, it is badly designed to deal with emerging governments.
Oct '10
Re: My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
AAAhhh yes... that nasty reality again gets in the way. As they say in golf, you gotta play the ball where it lies. Wanna deal with the Taliban? Hold your nose, drink lotsa sweet green tea, and say nice stuff until you are in a strong enough position to let it all hang out.
This is still, and always will be, a world in which nasty people prepare themselves against us by accumulating force and weapons. Never look down the barrel of a gun and diss the guy holding it, unless you are prepared for the possibility that he is crazy enough to pull the trigger.
Edited on Feb 7, 2011 at 8:38amMay '10
Re: My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
Mob rule, indeed. This is exactly what Barak Obama promotes -- he is not interested in the rule of constitutional law, U.S. or Egyptian.
I read this morning that the Egyptian government has been "in talks" with the Muslim Brotherhood -- and we were told days ago the Brotherhood was both illegal and a tiny political minority -- not known for their embrace of open, representational, government. Worse still are the reports that the Obama Administration has been communicating with the Brotherhood before the rock throwing began. Now Mr. Obama is taking a "I was for him before I was against him" approach to Mr. Mubarak.
Perhaps the question of legitimacy should be asked of the opposition. Have they established a written charter, are combatants dressed in some kind of uniform, and what is the design of their banner?
Edited on Feb 9, 2011 at 9:48amJul '10
Re: My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
That was serious, pertinent, insightful, and illuminating. Where has this guy been hiding?
Of course, the problem with raising the legitimacy question is, who decides? Every nation can take a position, but the UN and the "World Court" and such are not reliable, objective bodies capable of rendering responsible decisions.
Dec '10
Re: My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
OK, I read that, but I was aghast.
This, to me, was the most pertinent response:
"Of course, the problem with raising the legitimacy question is, who decides?"
The US? The G-8? International law is the sole judge of the legitimacy of a constitution?
In this country, we have a president that considers our constitution, because our Bill of Rights is a declaration of negative values. He feels that the document spends too much time talking about what government is restricted from doing and no time telling us what government must do for us. I'm inclined to believe that The Hague and the G-8 might agree with him, So what? I am not required to give a darn what they think and that does not make the U.S. Constitution any less binding upon its citizens or government.
Everyday, across the world, individuals make a decision to legitmize our constitution. For most of my life, I have seen them line up outside our consulates to request visas to enter the Unted States. We are a diminished nation, as we undermine our own constitution, and yet it is daily ratified by individuals, across the world.
Oct '10
Re: My God! Finally a Pundit Says Something Intelligent About Egypt!
Yes, that's a huge part of it.
Here's the 1986 Philippine "Freedom Constitution".
Edited on Feb 7, 2011 at 7:46pm