A Day of Martial Law

     If you ask a conspiracy theorist about the recent bombing in Boston, one of the first things they may tell you is that it was set up by the government to practice Martial Law. Since I love this country and I have faith in our government to conduct itself fairly and legally, I'm willing to let the first part of that theory go. It is the second part, however, which is causing me to question what happened exactly.
     If there were an untested protocol, a method of conduct for a dangerous situation how would we know it would work? Obviously, such a method must be used in practicum to rule whether or not it will work. In Boston, we saw a very intricate response to the two bombing suspects and it should cause us to think about how necessary it all was.
     For those fateful days in April, people in Boston were asked to stay in their homes and lock their doors while the Federal, State, and local police hunted down the nineteen-year-old suspect. I do not believe any information on the total number of police involved, artillery, and equipment have been released, but judging by the looks of Boston for those days in question, it seems to be overkill for a single person. Yes, it is a dangerous situation and, as an acquaintance pointed out to me earlier, the last thing we would want is a manhunt in Boston's rush-hour traffic. Not to mention, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Governor Patrick, and the state and local police only asked people to stay indoors; that is to say that unless Martial Law was officially declared, the people were allowed to follow their government's suggestion at their own discretion.
     This is what is so worrying to me. The day of and the days following the bombing, we witnessed how people will react to a certain type of response to terror on our own soil. Compared to 9/11, the terror at the Boston Marathon, though tragic, was a minimum; it wasn't the chaos and temporary anarchy that New York was for the weeks following the attack. New York was practically a battlefield while Boston, though in peril, was tame— well, as tame as Boston can be. Had Martial law been declared in both situations, New York would have been next to impossible to control while Boston would have been a cakewalk, and not because Boston is smaller, but because it was compliant with the requests of the government.
     This is not to say that the people should not have been compliant or that they had any reason to distrust their government, though efforts to capture the culprits were drastic and perhaps over the top, it was probably just as easy allowing the police do what they do without getting in their way. My personal concern, however, is that people will grow used to allowing this anytime for anything. We must stand against violence in every form and, in avoidance of siding with either Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, suffice it to say that violence should be battled with intolerance— however you, the reader, may take that notion.
~Joe

Democracy a no go in Cairo

     “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain”; Mohamed Morsi is officially irrelevant in the lives of Egyptians. “Come here O Sisi,” a protestor's flag beckoned the attention of the military's general, “Morsi isn't my president.” General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi lived up to his promise just two days ago that the military would aid the protesters in overthrowing the president; he announced only hours ago that Morsi is no longer in office, that the constitution is now suspended, and that the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Adli al-Mansour will act as interim head of state. Sisi stated that while Mansour will temporarily serve as the head of state, he wishes to quickly move forward with early presidential and parliamentary elections, a panel to review the constitution, and a national reconciliation committee designed to bring all groups together to move the country forward.

     The last four days in Cairo outside the Presidential Palace have marked record breaking protests with millions of people in attendance, but statistics of a different nature have indicated a digression from the main purpose of the movement; around 46 sexual assaults have been reported as well as the death of sixteen people and around 780 people sustaining injuries. Despite the alarming statistics, protestors have proclaimed that this is a resistance held in civil disobedience and that such actions are unacceptable and damaging in Egypt's new fight for a fair democracy.

     As Morsi supporters— who happen largely to be proponents of the Muslim Brotherhood— have illustrated, the voices of the people were answered when Morsi was elected by over 13 million votes last June. However, as emotions tend to run wild when freedom and liberty can be just as easily lost as they are won, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were seen as the necessary option for presidency considering their large role in reclaiming the country in 2011 from Hasni Mubarek, former dictator of Egypt (recall the evolution of France's 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Republics).

     A year to change not only a political climate, but a socio-economic climate is a very small time frame for a very large task. But is this movement against Egypt's first democratically elected president in years a show of restlessness and rejection of democracy or is it a period of enlightenment for the people of Egypt? That is, have the people of Egypt come to the realization that their revolutionary heroes may not necessarily be suitable to lead their new government? This is a consideration that democracy has not at all failed, that, in fact, it has not yet prevailed for Egypt. For a people who are still used to and who are still in reminiscence of dictatorship, perhaps graduality is a bit much to ask and a more radical change is in order when leadership fails.

     President Morsi's only response to his expulsion is rejection— that the military has formed a coup against him and that he is still Egypt's leader. In addition, President Morsi explicitly instructs the people of Egypt to abide by the constitution while matters are being settled. Though General Sisi has suspended the constitution and though Morsi may not realize the implications of his words, this indicates to the people that their inalienable rights are still to be taken seriously. Such a message seems to be exactly what the leaders of every great nation convey whether they continue to hold power or not. In essence, Morsi is conveying to the people that their rights are more important than his dispute with them and the military.

     What we are seeing in Egypt right now is the failure of a cabinet much like failures we have seen in our own political history (the Nixon and Clinton impeachments). This does not necessarily mean Egypt is becoming anti-democracy or anti-government— they are simply anti-Morsi-government. They have found that the elections of June 2012 were a grave mistake and their civil demonstrations should show that they wish to correct this mistake.

     After nearly a week of unrest, Mansour will be sworn in tomorrow, Thursday, July 4, and a new, albeit brief chapter will begin for Egypt and its people.

~ Joe