View previous stories
	The struggle for consensus in the midst of democratic transition by Agencies   December 14, 2012   What Egypt needs is a constitution that confines itself as much as possible to matters of consensus, writes Waleed Aly.   At the heart of every revolution is a struggle for the nation"s soul. And at present, Egypt"s soul is on the verge of being torn apart. Egyptians are scheduled to go to the polls to vote on a new constitution in what should be a historic, seminal day for a new post-revolutionary nation. Instead, Egypt is looking at one hell of a mess visible to all but the most incurable optimist.   Consider what is likely to happen. A nation of people, a third of whom are illiterate, will be asked to vote on a constitution running to 236 articles they haven"t been given the time to read. If last year"s referendum on an interim constitution is any guide, the constitution will pass. But voter turnout will be low, particularly if Egyptian liberals and Mubarak loyalists decide to boycott in large numbers. The result, then, is a poorly drafted constitution that vast swaths of Egyptian society will view as illegitimate.   That leaves President Mohammed Mursi"s government in something of a crisis. Many things have contributed to this mess. Most recently the focus has been on Mursi"s behaviour: his presidential declaration that, until rescinded, effectively placed him above the law; his contemptuous dismissal of opposition as inconsequential; his attempt to ram through a complex, sprawling constitution rather than try to find a compromise. All this is relevant. But it"s only part of the story. The real problems start with the revolution itself.   Everything that was so inspiring about it - its spontaneity, its genuinely broad, grass-roots appeal, its lack of leaders, its lack of ideological dogma - I consider its weakness now. This was a revolution without a vanguard and without a clear purpose beyond claiming Hosni Mubarak"s scalp. It wasn"t an Islamist revolution but it wasn"t a liberal, secular one either. It might be among the most ambiguous revolutions in history. Really, it was a temporary, largely convenient alliance of factions with very little in common. That"s why we now see secular liberals and pro-Mubarak loyalists uniting against an Islamist regime. The revolution hasn"t really ended. It has just reconfigured.   You can"t have an apolitical revolution. Some kind of ideological contest must step in to fill the breech, particularly in a society as divided as Egypt"s.   That"s fine at the level of ordinary political debate. But when you"re trying to draft a constitution it just generates the cycles of protest we"re seeing now. The problem is Egypt"s path to a new constitution has fallen captive to the partisan bearpit. It begins with the constitutional committee that drafted this document. Here, there are two fatal flaws. First, it reflects the partisan make-up of the Egyptian Parliament. Second, it did its drafting by majority vote. That means a Muslim Brotherhood majority in Parliament suddenly becomes a Brotherhood monopoly over the constitution. It"s a Brotherhood document that, in the current context, looks like usurping the revolution.   Then there was the folly of proceeding with the presidential election in June without a constitution in place. This meant Egyptians were voting for a president when they had no idea what his job would be. It also meant a frightening new creature was born: an Egyptian president who can honestly claim popular support but with no agreed limits on his power.   The problem isn"t that Mursi has dictatorial instincts. The problem is he has a democratic argument. It"s just too easy for him to claim his opponents are standing in the way of the will of the people. He should never have been in a position to play that card because the constitution should predate his power.   The constitution is a long-term document with long-term consequences. It shouldn"t represent a short-term democratic outcome such as the parliament of today. That Mursi thinks it should, neatly captures the partisan quagmire Egyptians face. So, unfortunately, does the draft constitution"s text. This is not a legal document; it"s a loose, often meandering statement of political aspiration.   It says things such as: "The state is keen to preserve the genuine character of the Egyptian family" and "the state supports and encourages technical education and overseas education." It guarantees freedom of the press except "in times of war or public mobilisation". Who knows what any of this means? This looseness is exactly what dictators of the past used to place a veneer of constitutionalism on their oppression. Indeed, this constitution borrows heavily from the one that governed the previous regime - which, for a revolutionary document, isn"t very revolutionary. What Egypt needs is a minimalist (preferably boring) constitution; one that confines itself as much as possible to matters of consensus. This one is trying too hard to make a partisan claim on the Egyptian soul.   * Waleed Aly is a lecturer in politics at Monash University.   Elders to Egyptian youth: "You are the Future", by Mary Robinson.   “It took us 12 years to write a constitution. Don"t underestimate what you have done.” - Jimmy Carter.   Last week, to conclude their two-day visit to Cairo, the Elders took part in a televised discussion with young Egyptians on the momentous events that have changed their country – and their hopes and expectations for what comes next.   Half of Egypt’s population is under 25: this is the generation that led Egypt’s revolution, and will shape Egypt’s future. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson appeared with four young Egyptians before a studio audience to discuss the pressing issues facing the nation.   Moderated by TV host Yosri Fouda and broadcast live from the Cairo Opera House, the debate was an opportunity to listen to the aspirations of Egyptian youth and discuss how they can build on the momentum of last year’s uprising and take their rightful place at the heart of Egypt’s democratic transition.   The event was organised together with Young Arab Voices, a joint project of the Anna Lindh Foundation and the British Council, which develops skills and opportunities for youth-led debate across the Arab region.   Anna Lindh Foundation: http://www.euromedalex.org/trends/digest/edition/2012-edition-8-october   Nov 2012   Social media transforming journalism, says ex-Al Jazeera head. (SBS News)   Former director-general of media network Al Jazeera Wadah Khanfar says social media is bringing journalism "back to reality", as audiences expect media networks to increasingly go down to the streets with the people, and understand their hopes and fears.   Wadah Khanfar believes the future of journalism lies in social media.   “The arrival of new media is necessary to reform us, to reform our traditional television organisation and to bring us back to the orthodoxy of journalism, to the universal values of journalism as we did inherit from the founders of this profession,” he told SBS.   Khanfar was in Sydney meeting politicians and delivering seminars as part of his role with his Sharq Forum, an independent think-tank developing long-term strategies for political development and social justice in the Middle East.   “Social media is balancing the spectrum, reforming the traditional media, bringing us back to reality, connecting with the grassroots,” he says. “It is good news; we need to embrace it. It is here to stay.”   He says the transformation that the region is going through is a testament to the influence of social media, with power being redistributed to citizens.”   During his eight years as director-general, Khanfar turned Al Jazeera from a single channel in 2006 to the global media network it is today. He resigned from the post in 2011.   “I feel that mainstream media over the past few decades have been more and more involved in commercial gains, political games and other things that distracted us from putting the human being at the centre."   Giving power back to the people and fostering dialogue is the crux of his work with the Sharq Forum, particularly as the Middle Eastern region continues to undergo revolutionary changes.   “For the first time we are discovering that the diversity in our societies is a strength not a threat against us and against our future.   “The most important thing is: to what extent can we go down to the streets live with the people, understand their hopes and build our paradigm of thinking – be it political, social or cultural– on them because they are much more solid than any other organisation, political party or even government."   http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1713119/Social-media-transforming-journalism-ex-Al-Jazeera Visit the related web page
	Silencing a Voice for Justice by Xiao Guozhen International Herald Tribune & agencies China   October 31, 2012   I’ve been a lawyer in China for 14 years, and have been recently seeking to use the rule of law to achieve social justice. This isn’t easy in a country where legal vagueness and arbitrary enforcement make advocacy a constant uphill battle. But in my career, I’ve encountered few cases as maddening as that of Song Ze.   I first met Mr. Song in the winter of 2011 as part of a project to help petitioners — poor people from the provinces who had come to Beijing to petition the central government for redress after suffering official misconduct back home. His work was purely an act of humanitarianism, but a risky one — a risk that had to be taken in today’s China.   Last November, I worried how the petitioners would make it through another cold winter in Beijing. I’d learned that Gongmeng, or the Open Constitution Initiative — a group set up in 2003 by lawyers and scholars to promote the rule of law — was carrying out a drive to help them with warm clothing. I contacted Mr. Song, a 26-year-old man from Hubei Province who was responsible for the aid effort. I’d never met him but from our phone conversation, I could tell that he was passionate about his work.   There was a strong response to our appeal. When we had a truckload of clothing, we discussed with Mr. Song the fastest and most economical way to get these items to the petitioners. On Dec. 1, Mr. Song arrived to collect the clothing and bring it to Beijing’s South Railway Station to hand out.   We chatted as we loaded the car, having no time for a proper talk. Our meeting lasted just 20 minutes, but Mr. Song made an unforgettable impression. The day after we delivered the items to the petitioners, the temperature in Beijing plunged and there was a heavy snowfall. I was grateful that we had delivered the warm clothing just in time.   After that, I remained in contact with Mr. Song via the Internet and by phone and learned that he’d set up several discussion groups on QQ, which is similar to Skype, to discuss how to help petitioners. Because the authorities were always shutting down such groups, several had to be set up as a precaution.   At the end of December, on the day of the Laba Rice Congee Festival, when Chinese families typically eat congee, a type of rice porridge, Mr. Song wanted to deliver some congee to the petitioners. I told him that if he distributed it in the evening, I could go with him. But he said that in accordance with Northern custom, the congee should be eaten at lunchtime and so Mr. Song did it on his own. On his way, he was stopped by the police, and the porridge was confiscated. On the day of the Lantern Festival, which marked the end of the annual Chinese New Year holiday, Mr. Song was detained once again, because he gave the petitioners glutinous rice dumplings.   After the coldest months of the winter had passed, I contacted Mr. Song and learned that he’d turned his focus toward rescuing petitioners who were being illegally detained in the infamous black jails, ad hoc detention centers that were set up in hotels to hold “troublemakers” from outside of Beijing until they could be returned forcibly to their hometowns.   It was clear that Mr. Song would become a thorn in the side of local and national authorities. This activity put him directly in the path of danger more than anything he’d done before. He knew this, but he remained cheerful.   After the escape of the blind, barefoot lawyer Chen Guangcheng from his farmhouse in Shandong Province, where he’d been under illegal house arrest, Mr. Song took an even more dangerous risk. He drove to Dongshigu, Mr. Chen’s village, and helped the wife of Mr. Chen’s nephew, who had also been arrested, to escape to Beijing, where she went into hiding to avoid being abused by the local government.   Mr. Song’s act of justice was labeled a crime of “disturbing public order,” and the Beijing Public Security Bureau detained him on May 5. A lawyer visited him a month later, and soon afterward, Mr. Song was put under residential surveillance. He hasn’t been seen or heard from since.   China’s shameless Article 73, which has been criticized by legal experts and human rights groups, gives law enforcement agencies broad surveillance powers and the authority to legally detain terrorism or “national security” suspects for up to six months. It’s that regulation that has resulted in Mr. Song’s being cut off from the world, leaving us willing yet unable to help him.   I don’t know how Mr. Song is being treated, whether he is being tortured, or if he can endure such suffering. I know that the Chinese authorities want to crush the O.C.I., all petitioners against the state, those who give mutual help and protection to others, and all the other virtues Mr. Song embodies.   Like countless other righteous people, armed with nothing more than morality, a sense of justice, dreams and physical strength, Song Ze defied a law that was unlawful. And now he is paying the price. As China prepares for next week’s Communist Party Congress, there is little hope that the country’s new leaders will change the government’s approach to rural peasants who have done nothing more than complain about injustice. Darkness always hates the light. Ugliness always hates beauty.   * Xiao Guozhen is a commercial lawyer. This essay was translated by Paul Mooney from the Chinese. Ian Johnson writing for the New York Review of Books, intervies a number of Chinese writers and thinkers - Huang Qi, Ran Yunfei, Bao Tong, Yu Jie and Chen Guangcheng see link below. Visit the related web page
	View more stories