No, it overstates the case to say that I don't think you care about the "details." I think that your abstract analysis makes it appear that those details don't exist for you. I think that if someone asks you if you care about such details, you will say yes and mean it. But I think that your abstract analysis ought to reflect that.
I also don't agree with your Manichean dichotomy between caring about elections and caring about popular mobilization (I vaguely recall that we had this disagreement before in another arena.) Both internationally and within Egypt, there are understood standards for what would constitute a "free and fair election." I think that an election that meets those standards is likely to result in a significant change in Egyptian government policy; for example, such an election likely to bring down the economic blockade of Gaza. It will be easy to know if an election in Egypt meets accepted standards. Whether it will be possible for an election to be held in Egypt which does not meet those standards is a question of domestic and international mobilization. If the last 10 days are an indication of continuing mobilization and interest, it will not be possible. If there is a return to lack of concern, it may be possible. At this point, I would say that continued mobilization is more likely. If there is a "free and fair election," that is an arena in which popular mobilization will be expressed and have an effect. If there isn't a "free and fair election," it is likely that popular mobilization with continue to be suppressed. So these are overlapping concerns, not disjoint concerns. On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Naiman wrote: >> You say you don't think that I am asking the right question. But >> surely you would agree that what one thinks is "the right question" >> (presumably, there is more than one "right question") depends on what >> one thinks is worth caring about. >> >> For example, I care about ending the economic blockade of Gaza. The >> continuation of the current policy is a matter of life and death for >> civilians in Gaza - a fact documented by Israeli human rights groups. > > This isn't what you were talking about before. Instead your focus was > on "free and fair" elections vs. the military hand-picking the > president. That's what I was responding to. My point was that the > elections, free and fair or not, aren't very important. I doubt that > the structure of power within Egyptian society will change > significantly. That structure determines the actual policy results of > the election, especially in the long run. > > In any event, I did mention the possibility of an anti-Israel tilt, > which might include ending the blockade. (By the way, that tilt would > be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.) The key thing is that such > a tilt would come from the popular pressure on the state (_whether or > not_ elections are "free and fair" or military-manipulated), > counteracting the massive pressure that the US and Israel. If there is > a strong constituency within the Egyptian military for ending that > blockade, then it could happen even without popular pressure. But > again, the Egyptian military is highly dependent on US aid. If other > militaries all around the world are any guide, they want their toys. > > I get the impression that you don't think I care about the details > (such as the blockade). That impression is wrong. It's hard to combine > a relatively abstract analysis with concrete details without going on > too long. My contribution was _already_ too long. > > > -- > Jim Devine / "Living a life of quiet desperation -- but always with style!" > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
