Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part II)

by Dr Sam Holliday

Continued from Part I

United States Misconceptions since 1945
Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945.

Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within.

There are several critical differences between building a nation and the creation of a state, or the expansion of an empire, or the formation of a federation.

- A state is based on coercion--by either force or law--and administration.

- Expanding an empire i.e. creating hegemony, requires a desire to dominate, superiority of armed forces that control territory, and ruthlessness.

- A federation requires agreement among its parts.

- A confederation is a state with considerable decentralization of authority to smaller self-governing units.

From these, Egyptians must determine the form of governance of the new Egypt. At the heart of the new Egypt will be the creation and maintenance of a common sense of identity from which behavior will be self regulated, and coercion will only be required against criminals and insurgents.

Attempting to persuade rival groups, prepared to use force to eliminate each other, to form a coalition government is not wise. This should not be attempted in Egypt. It is naive to treat factions, each of whom demand control of an all powerful centralized government, as parties in a system of parliamentary government based on checks and balances.

This was the error the United States made from 1945 to 1947 in its policy toward China. The United States made the same error in Vietnam, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan—and many other places. Obsession with (1) authority of the central government, (2) “rule of law” to replace custom and tradition, and (3) “democracy” defined as universal suffrage and elections, have caused this same error to be repeated again and again since 1945.

Ideological tunnel vision of American policy makers, who wanted others to have the benefits of American democracy and economic system, have often squandered billions of dollars and produced meager results.

Economic development of the kind practiced by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), often hinders more than it contributes. It has left a trail of destruction and poverty. It has propped up corrupt and chaotic governments. Many of the dams and highways it has financed have damaged the environment and destroyed social patterns of cooperation. It has contributed to the debt of many of the poorest countries.

Economic development has too often been determined by desires of central governments in their attempts to increase the state’s power. This view of economic development needs to be replaced with economic change to provide a better life for the people of Egypt.

Economic development in Egypt is essential; however, it should not focus on centrally controlled projects financed by an external source. There should be primary economic development, controlled at the local level, which provides the basic necessities of food, water, and shelter. There should be secondary economic development that provides the education and training so that Egypt can take advantage of technologic changes in production, distribution, financing, and marketing so as to benefit from an integrated worldwide capitalistic economic system.

The creation of a nation is a long--several generations at least--process; the maintenance of a nation is a never-ending process. This is at odds with the American desire for a quick fix. Today there are many examples of how long it takes to build a nation, even under favorable conditions. Spain after 500 years is still trying to absorb the Basques and the Catalans. After 300 years as the British Isles, Ireland broke away in 1922; both Wales and Scotland still have separatist movements.

Although some countries in South America and Asia seem to have developed national identities, it is difficult to find any true nation in Africa. Will Canada breakup? After extreme efforts in Germany and Italy to build nations around common languages, the primary identification of many Germans and Italians remain with something other than their nation-state.

Both building and preventing the decline of a nation is an art requiring the balancing of many factors. It is not something that can be done quickly or by following a specific recipe, and foreigners certainly cannot do it. However, a realistic conceptual framework of nationbuilding can be a useful tool for Egyptians as they tackle the difficult task of building a new Egypt.

A Conceptual Framework for a New Egypt
Egyptians should pay continual attention to four interrelated tasks:

• Achieve Security
• Provide effective local authority
• Organize and motivate
• Satisfy aspirations

Achieving a security shield is the first task since it is a prerequisite for the other three tasks. However, security cannot be seen as an end in itself. It is merely a means to the end of building a new Egypt. Also, if the focus was primarily on the creation of an Egyptian state, actions to establish centralized control by the police and the Army might be carried to the extreme--such actions would actually hinder identity with the Egyptian nation since they would not produce a self-regulating equilibrium.

Security is achieved when the various levels of government have a monopoly on the use of force, and no group within Egyptian territory is willing to use force to achieve political ends. In the new Egypt internal security will primarily be the responsibility of the police of the districts, villages, and neighborhoods; however, these police must be integrated into an alliance coordinated by the central government in Cairo. In addition, the central government would have the Army to protect Egypt’s interests and to ensure stability within Egypt.

Any group committed to the use of force to weaken or overthrow the established government must be neutralized. For Egypt this would mean insurgents of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists). First of all, this requires an effective intelligence system that will allow rapid response to any attempt at intimidation by any insurgent group, or payment to it.

When terrorism becomes a tool, a capability greater than that appropriate for policing ordinary crime must be added. This will usually require some temporary limitations on civil rights and the legal system. Finally, if insurgents gain control of a part of Egypt’s territory, control must be regained, using both the police and the Army, and the leaders of the insurgent group must be either killed or confined.

A second task for the new Egypt is to provide effective local authority. Each individual lives in a concrete, human, face-to-face world of clear and specific events and situations. Aspirations and an unseen environment may shape spiritual and material life of an individual, but he knows through what he sees, hears, smells and feels. This task provides local leadership.

Leadership which is: alert for signs of problems, inequalities and injustices; able to use initiative and flexibility to win loyalty and produce results; capable of countering acts of intimidation, violence, and destruction; able to see that everyone can earn a decent living; able to accomplish primary economic development; loyal to the established institutions; capable of educating each individual with values which blend freedom, ambition, duty and responsibility as well as the skills needed for economic improvement.

The third task of the new Egypt is to organize and motivate the people. The new Egyptian nation will be no more than Egyptian citizens welded together by a common destiny that binds into an active whole, yesterday, today and tomorrow. This task creates and maintains shared values, attitudes, habits and goals which shape the institutions through which a nation lives and grows: patterns of cooperation and conflict; the fabric of sanctioned relationship; the unseen lines of magnetic strength which link, join and confine; the elusive cultural environment. This task creates kinship and facilitates both primary and secondary economic development.

The fourth task of the new Egypt is to satisfy aspirations of Egyptian citizens. The fuel of progress is the never-ending attempt to satisfy aspirations. Economic development is a critical part of satisfying aspirations, but it must be joined with belief.

At this time Islam provides the strongest belief system in Egypt, but the Islamists would return Egypt to the 4th century. The belief of modern Muslims is not strong enough to effectively challenge the Islamists—nor is that of any other religion. Therefore, the only belief system that can provide a stronger horse than Islam is Egyptian nationalism and patriotism. The Egyptian military are well suited to use this belief system to neutralize the Islamists.

Aspirations can unite people in common effort; yet, aspirations can set one against another, preventing progress. Satisfying aspirations is an elusive, two faced task. Sole concern with satisfying aspirations can only result in turmoil, frustration and bitterness; as past aspirations are approached new and more demanding ones are invented.

This task means that Egypt must have its own, unique, ideology. Egypt must reject the ideologies of the Islamists and the neo-Marxists, since both would enslave Egyptians to the control of non-Egyptians. However, this task, just like the first task of achieving a security shield, must not be carried to an extreme.

If this conceptual framework is to be useful for the new Egypt, actions to accomplish these four tasks must be interrelated, and the building and maintenance of the new Egyptian nation must be seen as a never-ending process.

Conclusions
Egyptians need to remember the meaning of the Sacred Red, White, and Black of their flag. They must be prepared to fight against the ideologies of the neo-Marxists and Islamists. Americans cannot do any of this for the Egyptians, but they must understand and support Egyptians as they do about accomplishing the four tasks of building a new Egypt.

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Egypt's Future: How to Build a Free Nation (Part I)

by Dr Sam Holliday

On the night of 10-11 February 2011 the Egyptian military staged a bloodless coup to remove President Hosni Mubarak, following two weeks of turmoil and 19 hours of chaos. They promised to carry out the will of the Egyptian people. However, there is no way of knowing who will emerge to lead Egypt, or what the role of the military will be in the long run. For now the regime retains its power, for the aims of the younger military officers of the regime were the same as the crowds, i.e. to get rid of Mubarak and the patriarchs. The regime is a complex centered on the military but includes many civilians in the business and the government bureaucracies.

Since there is no consensus on Egypt’s future, the coming months and years will be a struggle between competing visions. Will it become a real revolution, or will the regime hold its control? This will be determined by the youth. What should be the policy of the United States during this move to a new Egypt—and a new Middle East?

FForemost should be the realization that the new Egypt is the responsibility of Egyptians, not Americans. Egyptians must establish a climate of order and satisfaction, they must rebuild Egypt’s economy, and Egyptians must determine a form of governance based on their own customs and traditions.

Also, the United States must not repeat the errors made, by the foreign policy establishment, around the world since 1945.

U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Egypt
In relations with Egypt, the United States should do what it can to advance Sacred Red, White, and Blue/Black—the colors in the American and Egyptian flags.
Sacred Red symbolizes the courage, practicality, and duty of Moses, Saint Paul, Oliver Cromwell and George Washington.
White symbolizes the compassion, purity, and honor of Jesus, Buddha, and John Adams.
Blue/Black symbolizes the unity, shared identity, and administrative skill of the Egyptian Pharaohs’ in linking humans with the divine, of Genghis Khan’s “blue sky”, and of America’s founders dreams.

This Red, White and Blue/Black must be integrated into a whole through checks and balances of principles, ideals, individuals, factions, and institutions. The outcome should be the decentralization of power to achieve governance of, by and for the people, rather than the centralization of power in the hands of an elite in accordance with the Hegelian dialectic. Also the United States should do what it can to counter the threats of the socialist collectivism (Secular Red) and the social-political ideology of Islam (Green).

The waving of the Red, White, and Blue/Black flags of the United States and Egypt should be constant reminders that Americans and Egyptians are both in an existential struggle with true believers of both the right (Islamists) and the left (Neo-Marxists). The Egyptian youth were revolting against the paternalistic, unaccountable authority that as prevailed across the Middle East for thousands of years. It is essential to remember that free individuals, making judgments based on their inner compass, are hated by both the Islamists and the Neo-Marxists; some may consider them political opposites, yet they share the Hegelian view that authoritarian control, by true believers, of a collective is the best form of governance.

Democracy is a noble goal; however, since the word “democracy” has so many different meanings, it can be fool’s gold.

For Egypt U.S. foreign policy should seek: (1) a version of democracy which allows Egyptian citizens to determine their own destiny, (2) a constitution which maintains stability and economic development, (3) the recognition of how technology has changed communication, and (4) citizenship which is a privilege for those who give primacy to the interests of Egypt.

In Egypt the aim should be individual Egyptian citizens with the free will to determine their own destiny; the aim should not be equality of outcomes among individuals or factions.

The goal should be equality before God, equality before the law, and equality of opportunity; the goal should not be so called social justice, which takes from the haves and gives to the have-nots. There should be civil rights, given to individuals by God, which protect life, freedom, and property as individuals pursue happiness as determined by Egyptians—not human rights as determined by others.

There should be processes and procedures to ensure long-term governance of, by and for the Egyptian citizens--not processes, procedures and elections to insure compliance with specific written documents. “One man, one vote, one time” must be prevented. A future collective totalitarian state—of either the left (socialistic) or of the right (Islamic) must be avoided.

Consensus on a social contract (expressed in customs and traditions and also in a written constitution) is necessary, but not sufficient. Respect for the rule of law, political parties to champion competing points of view, freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and freedom of assembly, and freedom of association are all needed to insure the Secular Authority of the state.

In addition there must also be primary economic development to ensure that there is adequate food, water and shelter and that the poorest aspire for a better life. Also there must the secondary economic development so that Egyptians think they are the economic equals of their peers and can see themselves as a worthy descendents of their 7,000 year history. Yet such worldly accomplishments must be in equilibrium with Sacred Authority, i.e. a common identity and shared principles and ideas which provide an inner compass to guide judgments between right and wrong, good and bad.

In the past when communication and transportation were more restricted national identity was based on cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious convictions. However, the global village of today and tomorrow make this impractical. Any future Egyptian nation must be based on shared principles, ideals and beliefs. This makes it necessary to exclude those individuals, groups, and parties who primarily identity with belief in a collective of either the left (neo-Marxists) or the right (Islamists)—as well as those who give their primarily allegiance to another state or to world governance.

Therefore, Egyptian citizenship must become a privilege to be earned, not a right of residency that allows master manipulators to control others. Universal human rights can remain an ideal, but the civil rights of Egypt must govern the behavior of Egyptians. Only those who have pledged their loyalty to, and demonstrated their patriotism for, Egypt should be allowed to participate in the struggles to determine Egypt’s future.

What the United States has Done Since 1945
Since 1945, inept actions by the United States in many countries has squandered billions of dollars, contributed to the deaths of millions, created poverty, and caused the loss of many opportunities. Most of this was done with the best of intentions and humanitarian instincts. Often these were the consequences of unquestioned preconceptions regarding how to build a state or nation. Such preconceptions have dominated the thinking of Americans, in and out of government, who have shaped U.S. foreign policy.

Will this be admitted? Certainly not. Can this be proven? Probably not. Most likely, articles and studies will continue to debate what happened, and why, with the "history" presented determined by the preconceptions of the authors.

In the past many have questioned the appropriateness of the United States being involved in building states and nations around the world. And today this debate continues. During such debates regarding Egypt it is essential that the difference between building a state and building a nation be understood.

State building is the creation and maintenance of legitimate authority, a legal system, and administrative capability to govern territory. Nationbuilding is the creation and maintenance of a sense of common identity among a people. Also it is important to recognize the reasons for the successes and failures made in the name of “nation-building”.

Obviously there have been successes since 1945. Changes in Western Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and even parts of Eastern Europe have been more positive than negative. Yet such progress has primarily been the result of efforts by the people of those countries, and circumstances unique to them. Nevertheless, preconceptions about building states and nations have hindered improvement in much of the world since 1945.

The Preconceptions
Unquestioned preconceptions about the creation and decline of nations were forged during World War II. The horrors of that war were blamed on nationalism and the nation-state. This overlooked the fact that paranoia and unspeakable crimes are to be found throughout history. The horrors committed by tribes, sects, and empires probably did affect fewer people, but they were no less repulsive.

Human beings need beliefs that offer a sense of order, that overcome the fears of an arbitrary environment, that give people some hope of control over random events. Group identity and religion have always been the two main sources of such belief systems. Moreover, human progress has depended on how group identities (be they family, tribe, sect, class, religion, or nation) relate to political structures having a monopoly on the use of force.

Human progress accelerated when the nation-state became the focus of personal loyalties, social order, political institutions, and economic coordination, because it was able to combine the cohesiveness of the nation with the legal authority and administrative capability of the state. However, with this progress came the excesses of integral (or totalitarian) nationalism.

Since World War II three contending ideologies (all called democratic) have been offered as replacements for nationalism: capitalism based on merit, communism based on equality of outcomes, and internationalism based on universal human rights. Yet none of the three have been able to create a sense of identity, vigor, innovation, and climate of order to equal that created by nation-states.

None have provided the new political form to replace the nation-state. This suggests that as a political structure the nation-state is superior to a multicultural state, or a coercion based state. It also suggests that any new world order must be of small nation-states rather than the centralization of power in world governance.

The challenge is achieve common identity among Egyptians yet to prevent the excesses and extremes, which have at times been associated with integral nationalism. Therefore, there is a need for a conceptual framework for building an Egyptian nation, which will be held together by sovereign nationalism—not by the integral nationalism of Egypt’s past statism.

Integral nationalism is intolerant and ethnocentric. Integral nationalism is linked to totalitarianism, and demands the highest loyalty be to the state in accordance with the views of Hegel. Integral nationalism seeks cultural and religious uniformity, plus institutional and economic unity. It tends to arise from religious or utopian beliefs, internal economic and political difficulties, or historical rivalries. The goal of integral nationalism is uniformity of purpose, appearance, beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices. It is linked to the statism, which many Islamic countries took from Western culture during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Sovereign nationalism seeks the ideals expressed in American Declaration of Independence. Sovereign nationalism is an expression of the human desire for freedom and self-government. It places an emphasis on popular sovereignty, a constitution, decentralization, and civil rights—it is legitimized by a social contract between a people and their state. Sovereign nationalism is often a melting pot resulting in E Pluribus Unum (of many, one). It is sovereign nationalism that offers hope for the Egypt—and the 21st century. It can provide peace, security, self-government, and stability by creating loyalties, emotional ties, and a common sense of identity among citizens.

In Part II

United States Misconceptions since 1945

Before offering a conceptual framework for a new Egypt it is necessary to comment on some of the misconceptions, which have dominated the thinking in the foreign policy establishment of the United States since 1945. Those identifying with a nation must be responsible for what happens to their nation. Others can assist, but the leadership, dedication, vision, and energy must come from within. (...)

Copyright © 201 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

For more essays and articles published by Dr Sam Holliday on Politeia  please refer to our file on Articles,  "The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

- "Who is a Patriot"
- "The Mandate of Heaven" (on authority and sovereignty)

Afghanistan: the Road to Nationhood - Part II

"On Development Aid, Stability and Unification"


by Dr Sam Holliday


The visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Afghanistan, on 8 December 2009, unfortunately suggests that US policy will not basically change. Or if there is to be a change toward decentralization of power, it was well hidden.


Gates spoke of continued support for Harmid Karzai and the building, training and retention of the security forces controlled by the central government, Afghan Army and the Afghan "National" Police.


Gates stated that the US was not going to abandon Afghanistan as it did in 1969 and that money for "development" would continue to flow. He mentioned the need to clean up government corruption, without recognizing that money for "development" was one of the causes of corruption.


The visit of Gates suggests more of the same. New visibility and vigor perhaps, but still a failure to address the fundamental problems.

Because of the fragmented nature of Afghanistan any centralized government able to maintain stability would have to be strong, nationalistic, authoritarian, and corruption free; therefore, the foreign-funded government of Hamid Karzai, protected by westerners and promoting Western ideas of politics, economics, diversity, and human rights has been unsuccessful.

To have both stability and democracy would require much greater common identity among the Afghans, something that would take, under the best of circumstances, several decades to develop. Since the US will not support the kind of centralized regime now required, it is necessary to move to a more decentralized structure.

This will make the various levels of governance in Afghanistan more responsive to the people. It might not be government of, by and for the people but it will be a move in that direction from the current ineffective, corrupt centralized structures.

It will be difficult to shift to greater decentralization since the US foreign policy establishment and the United Nations think in terms of a top-down control to achieve economic and political "development". They want a single point of contact; they are accustomed to dealing with state-to-state relationships; they expect the US and Europe to expend blood and treasure to "develop" others.


They see "development" as making others more like themselves.

Decentralization will no doubt consolidate the power of Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek, Mohammad Mohaqeq, a Hazan, Abdul Rasul Sayuyaf, a Pushtun, Abdullah Abdullah, a Tajik, and their likes within the provinces. While many of these leaders have defects in Western eyes, they are capable of providing a security shield against the Muslim extremists within their our provinces—if they think it is in their interests to do so.


Getting local leaders to provide the needed security shield for the people is an essential first step to stability. Then it would be possible to influence the course of events toward a more desirable outcome. Without this first step there is no possibility of long-term stability.


Therefore, the focus of US and NATO efforts should be shifted to making local leaders, local militia, and local police more effective and efficient. If this is done the cost will be less and the benefits will be greater. XXXXX


Dr Sam Holliday is Director of the Armiger Cromwell Center


All publications copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

Read also part I in this series, "Losing the War is Not an Option", by Arend Jan Boekestijn

Also by Dr Sam Holliday

-  American Diplomacy: "Aghan Federation"
- Armiger Cromwell Center: click "Afghanistan*New

All posts by Sam Holliday on Politeia

Related dossiers:

- "The Afghan Front"

- "Pakistan's Double Bubble"

- "The Finer Points of Warfare"

- "The Propaganda Hirabah"

- "Narco Wars"