Tunisia's President, Zine el-Abedine Ben Ali has resigned and gone into exile after weeks of riots in the streets of Tunisian cities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12195025
What are the likely outcomes for Tunisia? A mere change of face at the top of an authoritarian regime? The Islamisation of one of the Arab world's more secular countries? Genuine democratisation and / or liberalisation?
And are these events likely to trigger similar instability and unrest in other Arab dictatorships?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraZine El Abidine Ben Ali was elected in 2009, with 89.62% of the vote. His closest rival received 5.01% of the vote. Voter turnout in the 2009 election was 89.4%. Despite some questionable practices, the African Union team of election observers described the election as "free and fair."
Statistically another dictatorship seems the most likely, especially since the opposition is not very organized.
Originally posted by rwingettDo you know what the African Union is?
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was elected in 2009, with 89.62% of the vote. His closest rival received 5.01% of the vote. Voter turnout in the 2009 election was 89.4%. Despite some questionable practices, the African Union team of election observers described the election as "free and fair."
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes I do. do you?
Do you know what the African Union is?
What I am questioning in this thread is your slapdash use of the term 'dictator.' Is it possible for someone who was popularly elected within the confines of an ostensibly "free and fair" multi-party electoral process, and who does not subsequently dismantle that electoral process, to be termed a dictator?
It is clear that Ben Ali enjoyed popular support through much of his rule. It is also clear that despite having been in power for 23 years, Ben Ali's rule was more democratic than his predecessor's. Since 1987, life-term presidencies have been abolished and parliament has been opened up to opened up to opposition parties. So, for the sake of argument, do the Tunisian demonstrations represent a triumph for democracy, or is it rather the case of a vocal minority subverting the democratic process and thwarting the democratic will of the people?
Originally posted by rwingettHow likely is it that a massively popular president gets ousted due to riots after a year in which no significant events happened? I don't know how popular Ben Ali actually was, but it's clear he was not as popular as the election result would suggest.
Yes I do. do you?
What I am questioning in this thread is your slapdash use of the term 'dictator.' Is it possible for someone who was popularly elected within the confines of an ostensibly "free and fair" multi-party electoral process, and who does not subsequently dismantle that electoral process, to be termed a dictator?
It is clear that Ben Ali e ...[text shortened]... inority subverting the democratic process and thwarting the democratic will of the people?
So, for the sake of argument, do the Tunisian demonstrations represent a triumph for democracy, or is it rather the case of a vocal minority subverting the democratic process and thwarting the democratic will of the people?
Time will tell.
Originally posted by rwingettMaybe it's not an either/or question. Perhaps the 2009 election expressed the democratic will of the people (though in an exaggerated form). Perhaps the demonstrations and riots over the last year also reflected the democratic will of the people given the changed circumstances.
Yes I do. do you?
What I am questioning in this thread is your slapdash use of the term 'dictator.' Is it possible for someone who was popularly elected within the confines of an ostensibly "free and fair" multi-party electoral process, and who does not subsequently dismantle that electoral process, to be termed a dictator?
It is clear that Ben Ali e ...[text shortened]... inority subverting the democratic process and thwarting the democratic will of the people?
Originally posted by no1marauderCan the 'democratic will of the people' be reflected outside of the democratic process itself? Using demonstrations to force a legally elected president to flee the country would seem to be a subversion of the democratic process.
Maybe it's not an either/or question. Perhaps the 2009 election expressed the democratic will of the people (though in an exaggerated form). Perhaps the demonstrations and riots over the last year also reflected the democratic will of the people given the changed circumstances.
Originally posted by rwingettWas Nixon resigning "a subversion of the democratic process"?
Can the 'democratic will of the people' be reflected outside of the democratic process itself? Using demonstrations to force a legally elected president to flee the country would seem to be a subversion of the democratic process.
If the President of Tunisia feels that he can no longer govern because the people have made it clear that they no longer have faith in his ability to manage the executive branch of his country, I see nothing wrong with his resigning. Nor do I see anything wrong with the people expressing their political judgments through demonstrations.
Originally posted by no1marauderSurely the esteemed gentleman from New York is not suggesting that mass protests are what forced Nixon to resign. To do so would be preposterous. It is clear that fear of impeachment is what caused him to resign. A process, I hasten to add, that is well embedded within the democratic system itself. That such a transition of power occurred within the framework of established democratic institutions is what represents the triumph of democracy.
Was Nixon resigning "a subversion of the democratic process"?
If the President of Tunisia feels that he can no longer govern because the people have made it clear that they no longer have faith in his ability to manage the executive branch of his country, I see nothing wrong with his resigning. Nor do I see anything wrong with the people expressing their political judgments through demonstrations.
Surely the Tunisian people have to right to peaceably assemble to air their grievances. I, least of all, would begrudge them that right of demonstration. But if they had indeed lost confidence in their president's ability to govern, then it would behoove them to vote him out of power in a democratic manner, according to the rules of the democratic process. To allow him to be chased from office like a thief in the night is to legitimize the hooliganism of the unruly mob. That, I can assure you, represents an undermining of democracy itself.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"Democracy" means "rule of the people". Elections are a means not an end.
Surely the esteemed gentleman from New York is not suggesting that mass protests are what forced Nixon to resign. To do so would be preposterous. It is clear that fear of impeachment is what caused him to resign. A process, I hasten to add, that is well embedded within the democratic system itself. That such a transition of power occurred within the framewo anism of the unruly mob. That, I can assure you, represents an undermining of democracy itself.
I like unruly mobs. These particular "unruly mobs" had been fired on by Tunisian security forces and perhaps a 100 killed.
I'm curious; you defend acts of illegal revolutionary violence by armed US labor activists (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?subject=Battle_of_Blair_Mountain&threadid=136972) but rail against unarmed Tunisian "unruly mobs" forcing a despotic President to resign. Are working class people in Africa forbidden to take actions that are would be acceptable if done by US working class people?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI will ask that you confine yourself to arguing against my position as it is presented here, and not as you imagine it ought to be.
"Democracy" means "rule of the people". Elections are a means not an end.
I like unruly mobs. These particular "unruly mobs" had been fired on by Tunisian security forces and perhaps a 100 killed.
I'm curious; you defend acts of illegal revolutionary violence by armed US labor activists (http://www.redhotpawn.com/boa bidden to take actions that are would be acceptable if done by US working class people?
And my position here is that mob violence has no place within the democratic process. Tunisian politics allows for unpopular presidents to be removed from power via democratic means. But the fact remains that president Ben Ali was returned to power with overwhelming popular backing as recently as 2009. I would suggest, therefore, that the demonstrations that removed him from power represent nothing more than the hooliganism of a vocal minority who had been unable to realize their subversive agenda through the democratic process. The Tunisian security forces rightly opposed this undermining of democracy, although it is to be regretted that their zeal for doing so escalated into violence.
Essentially, the case I am presenting to you (and the RHP readership at large) is that if you have a democratic process that allows for unpopular governments to be voted out of power, then it is illegal to do so by means that fall outside of that process. The only legitimate means of transferring power is through democratic elections.
Originally posted by rwingettThis is not formal debate; positions you have taken currently on this forum which seem to be at odds with the position taken here are fair game.
I will ask that you confine yourself to arguing against my position as it is presented here, and not as you imagine it ought to be.
And my position here is that mob violence has no place within the democratic process. Tunisian politics allows for unpopular presidents to be removed from power via democratic means. But the fact remains that ...[text shortened]... f that process. The only legitimate means of transferring power is through democratic elections.
Whether something is "illegal" depends on the law of the political subdivision of Earth where the action occurs. But what is "legitimate" is a question for morality (specifically I would say for the Natural Law). I see nothing illegitimate in the people of Tunisia performing mass demonstrations for the purpose of forcing their President to resign (of course, resignation and calls for resignation are legal as far as I know even in Tunisia).
Originally posted by no1marauderI merely ask that you argue the position on its own merits, without regard to what my personal opinion may, or may not, be.
This is not formal debate; positions you have taken currently on this forum which seem to be at odds with the position taken here are fair game.
Whether something is "illegal" depends on the law of the political subdivision of Earth where the action occurs. But what is "legitimate" is a question for morality (specifically I would say f ...[text shortened]... f course, resignation and calls for resignation are legal as far as I know even in Tunisia).
I consent that the Tunisian people (or any portion thereof) may request that their president resign. I further consent that the president, of his own free will, may accede to that request. But he is not in any way obliged to do so. He is legally entitled to remain in his office until he is subsequently voted out of power. To force the president to resign, against his will, through demonstrations, is both an illegal act and an abrogation of the democratic process. I doubt that you will find a single government on this earth, either democratic or not, that would recognize a people's supposed right to force a legally elected president to resign.
Indeed, a democratic society could not exist where such tumult and discord is tolerated. The unbridled passions of the lower and middling sorts must be made to conform to the rule of law and the orderly and democratic transition of power. Otherwise what you have is not democracy, but mob rule, which is the antithesis of democracy.