|
One simple fact to consider: how could Murbark have stayed in power for 30 years without oppressing the people? How could anyone?
The idea of considering what might happen here, as some have suggested online, is a worthy counter example for consideration. People can’t just gather in the Mall in Washington and bring down the government, can they?
Well, one million people could assemble in Washington, DC, demanding that any president quit. They would, however, at one million in size, represent a small fraction of the American population. Suppose that millions of people gathered in various places around the country, all with valid complaints against a despotic government.
Then, consider this: suppose the president of the U.S. ordered, or allowed to happen without intervention, shooting down unarmed and peaceful protesters? Suppose he then shut off cell phones throughout the US and shutdown the Internet. Then, he hired "Bob from Dallas" (someone who commented on the NY Times online) and a bunch of his friends to come to Washington, DC, on horseback and charge the crowd. Then, hundreds, if not thousands, of people were arrested, habeous corpus suspended and they were kept in jails to be tortured.
Suppose, also, our president had a secret protection force (thugs), made up largely of drug addicted ex-police officers who answered to no one and could beat people to death in the streets without any repercussions or charges. Would not that president have exposed his lack of moral or legal authority to remain in office, by any means? Is there no point at which a so called leader’s efforts to stay in power overstep any bounds of reason? When a ruler exposes himself as illegitimate, to his very core, the demands of the people seem mild in comparison.
In addition to the above actions, and more, attributed to Mubarak, it is clear he has been looting his country for his own personal wealth during his long rule of Egypt. Murbarak's personal wealth holdings are estimated to be up to 50 billion dollars. Here's what that number looks like in full: 50,000,0000,000.00. The exact among of Mubarak’s taken wealth is not known; some guesses range from 2 to 70 billion. It is not considered unusual for an autocratic ruler in the middle east to pile up this kind of money and stash it, and many houses, outside his home country. What do you say about his legitimacy and constitutional responsibilities now?
There is another point. In America, we have presidential elections every four years. That process has been thoroughly corrupted by many forces, but, still, we have a reasonable expectation that we can rid ourselves of a despotic, tin horn, would be king. If that fails, there is the Congress and impeachment and, potentially, action by the Supreme Court, in extreme cases. They have none of this in Egypt. We also have a free press and free discussion, by which a president can be reduced to a powerless symbol, because no one would follow his or her direction.
There is no other way for the people to get rid of Mubarak and his thugs other than mass protest. Every other form of protest through the years has been met with arrests, torture and death, which is not an attractive option for anyone. Lacking any other means, and seeing his repressive measures pile up over the years, the Egyptian people are fully justified in their protests. They would even be justified in taking him from office by force, although that option has many negative implications.
We, too, in America have an inherent right to revolution. Thomas Jefferson believed that these were among the inherent rights of man and here is how it was worded in our Declaration of Independence:
"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The philosophical underpinning of these words is that the rights of people supercede those of any government. Here, the state is the subject of the people, not the other way around. Can this get any clearer? When human rights collide with a constitution, behind which an illegitimate regime hides, the constitution must fall along with the despot.
Doug Terry 2.10.11
|
|
