Hey, Maybe Freedom Is On The March!

Here in Egypt a lot are hoping that even if this change does not result in a regime change this Sept. it may open the way for later ones given that it *is*, after all, a change in the Constitution which currently only allows the National Council (like the House of Reps in the US) to propose candidates, and they only ever propose Mubarak – now political parties get to field candidates. Yes opposition political parties are a joke. Does that mean they alwasy will be? One thing though, I don’t think this is primarily a response to Bush although some pressure from the US may have been one of the factors. Egyptians are kind of sick of the referenda choosing Mubarak by proxy. This will be the 5th time he “runs” and it’s annoying. There was some political pressure aobut this. Not just the protest movement “Enough!” (Kefaya) but also I think some important players in even the ruling party have been for this sort of reform.

Just to give some more details on Mubarek’s ‘bombshell’.

‘Only weeks ago Cairo jailed Ayman Nour, a charismatic young MP who had just launched a new liberal party. The only real grassroots movement in Egypt, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, is illegal. Mr Mubarak likes to tell visitors that Egypt is not Scandinavia. Let us first build the middle classes, he argues, then we will have some liberals to liberalise with. This is bogus. In the course of suppressing an episodic Islamist insurgency he has laid waste to the entire political spectrum, leaving his opponents only the mosque as a rallying point and abetting a creeping theocracy.’

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aaf3ae7a-89f6-11d9-aa18-00000e2511c8.html

‘Mubarak (a former military officer who, since 1981, has been “elected” four times without opposition) said nothing about ending his government’s detention of the most likely challenger for the presidency, Ayman Nour. Nor did he say that Egypt’s largely state-controlled media would grant access to opposition candidates or that they would be allowed to hold public rallies.

Furthermore, it appears the only parties that will be allowed to nominate candidates will be those the parliament deems acceptable (Mubarak’s National Democratic Party controls 85 percent of the seats in parliament and the other 15 parties have no political power whatsoever). Thus it is unlikely the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic group, will be able to participate for fear that if it gained power it would turn Egypt into a religiously fundamentalist state. What kind of democracy is that? And there’s nothing to say Mubarak, who is 76, won’t seek another term….’

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050301/NEWS/503010342/1021

Mubarak’s move, mindlessly applauded in the West will change NOTHING in Egypt. Now that’s not to say that at some point in the future democracy won’t come to Egypt. It’s just barely possible I suppose as well that Mubarak (or, more likely, his successor) will lose control of the situation. However, rest assured if the popular will of the people is expressed and the Muslim Brotherhood swept into power, Washington will be there to make sure that the democracy train is quickly derailed (cf Algeria).

We have been here before, you know.

Aymen Nour is not that popular. Or he was not before he was arrested. Now he is popular but it’s nothing more than the popularity of the martyr. the other people who have been agitating for open elections are feminist Nawwal Saadawi and American citizen Saad Eddine Ibrahim, both of whom could not win an election in Egypt at all and who are widely mistrusted and disliked. Even the most liberal of Egyptians tell me they’d hold their nose and vote for Mubarak if it was a choice between him, or Nawwal or Saad Eddine. The person who could actually win a popular election is Amr Moussa, and he will not run. The election will be a joke. What I am saying, Brendan, is that this is a good change in that it sets the system to have better elections in the future. In case anyone wants to know what the rumor mill here in Egypt is saying about this, they are saying htis was a calculated move on Mubarak’s part as he will suddenly withdraw in like, Aguust or something, and his party, which controls the National Council, will nominate his son Gamal, who will win easily as all the stupid opposition parties will be too busy infighting.

Brendan,

You probably wouldn’t even give Bush credit for orchestrating Saad Eddin Ibrahim’s release?

As for the Iraqi elections, how could Bush not get credit? He negotiated with the Iraqis for the best way to start the democracy, a compromise was reached, and it worked out pretty well. So well that the people of Lebanon have decided they want to rule themselves also. Or would you claim the Lebanese were not influenced by the Iraqi blue fingers?

Juan Cole spends a thousand words summing up the history of Lebanon, then this is how he describes the recent spark that ignited the current revolution, “The assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri, the popular multi-billionnaire Sunni prime minister (1992-1998 and 2000-2004), angered a broad swathe of the Sunni community, convincing them it was time for the Syrians to go. Despite the lack of any real evidence for the identity of the assassin, the Lebanese public fixed on the Syrians as the most likely culprit.” Why does that sound like he’s rooting for the other side? Or does he just mean that the Lebanese shouldn’t get hasty in their revolt before it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Syrian insurgents did the killing (cause they’ve never been know to do this in the past, right?)

‘As for the Iraqi elections, how could Bush not get credit? He negotiated with the Iraqis for the best way to start the democracy, a compromise was reached, and it worked out pretty well. So well that the people of Lebanon have decided they want to rule themselves also. Or would you claim the Lebanese were not influenced by the Iraqi blue fingers?’

I still do not understand this point. Bush was forced to have these elections: the original plan was for a stitch up. There was no compromise on that, unless you stretch a point and state that the price paid by Sistani was that the Americans get to stay in Iraq forever. This is probably not a price he is willing to pay forever, although he seems willing to go along with it for the next few months.

Given that Syria’s position vis a vis Lebanon is almost precisely the same as United States’ position vis a vis Iraq (oh come on….an army that was ‘welcomed’ by the people and which remains to ‘preserve security’ and which pulls political strings behind the scenes….the parallels are so close it’s embarassing), I could well believe that the Syrians are being inspired by the (peaceful) anti-Coalition protesters in Iraq. Or perhaps that’s not what you meant?

I’m sorry, incidentally, but you’re going to have to clarify your use of the statement ‘the other side’, usually used by the extreme right in the US to accuse (covertly or overtly) their opponents of treason. Given that Bush et al support Saudi Arabia, the most extremist fundamentalist state in the world, does this mean Bush, too, fights ‘for the other side’? Can we have him tried for treason?

Incidentally, you obviously have some information denied to the rest of us proving that Syria was behind al-Hariri’s murder. May I ask you bring this information to the relevant authorities as soon as possible?

You are completely correct, incidentally, that I would give Bush no credit for the release of Saad Eddin Ibrahim. Neither, seemingly, would Saad Eddin Ibrahim himself. Here is what he has to say about Bush.

‘Last month former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright visited Egypt on a fact-finding mission for the Council on Foreign Relations. While there, she met with officials and civil society leaders, including an opposition member of Egypt’s parliament, Ayman Nour, who heads a new political party called El Ghad, or Tomorrow. In his assessment of the situation in Egypt, Nour was sharply critical of President Hosni Mubarak’s failing policies.

Shortly afterward — as soon as Albright and company had left — the parliament met in emergency session to approve a government-sponsored motion stripping Nour of his parliamentary immunity. Minutes later, as he was leaving the parliament building, he was arrested by members of the notorious State Security Agency. His home and party headquarters were raided and searched, and computers and many of his papers were seized…In the days that followed, the state-controlled media competed in denouncing Nour, calling him a crook and accusing him of forgery and of lying about the membership of his party. The state security prosecutor ordered him held in solitary confinement for 45 days…I was dismayed by the faint “we take note'” reaction of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher to Nour’s arrest and the trumped-up charges against him….President Bush has repeated that the United States will stand by those who work for freedom in their countries. Scores of courageous Arab dissidents have taken a stand for freedom, and many face pending trials or have spent years in prison. But the United States has yet to be heard from in their defense.

What we have so far from George W. Bush is fine language in his inaugural and State of the Union speeches. That message was loud and clear. The credibility of the messenger is what is still in doubt.’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15631-2005Feb10.html

However, you clearly know and understand more about Egyptian domestic policy and its relation to American foreign policy than Mr Ibrahim. May I ask you email him c/o Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and correct his errors?

And have we forgotten so soon?

‘U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders.

The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the U.S.-led occupation forces are not making good on their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for three decades by Saddam Hussein. ‘

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42905-2003Jun27

Of course if Bremer had permitted these elections to go ahead it would have been yet another sign of how wonderful the occupation was. Heads I win, tails you lose. If we are forced to hold elections it is a sign of how wonderful and democratic we are. If we destroy civic democracy it is a sign that we are being ‘careful’ in safeguarding democracy. And any variation thereof.

The salient point is that because ‘our’ motives are ‘good’ anything can be justified, and usually is.

Incidentally the president of Togo has promised to hold elections soon as well, ending his dictatorship. Perhaps this is becauase of Bush as well? Presumably he is inspired by the invasion of Iraq?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-18-voa66.cfm

Brenden,

You said “Neither, seemingly, would Saad Eddin Ibrahim himself.” But your excerpt of Ibrahim doesn’t have anything in it about him talking about himself. You are either mis-interpreting him, or he has just thoroughly discredited himself in the US eyes. For if he claimed that his new trial and subsequent release had nothing to do with Bush’s cut in foreign aid coupled with a letter of chastisement to Egypt that named Ibrahim personally, then he has a lot of explaining to do. Cause from over here, a whole bunch of convictions followed by an acquittal looks like something caused the government to decide it wanted an acquittal. Hmm, could it have been all that lost foreign aid? Or maybe Ibrahim was just able to come up with new evidence that he wasn’t guilty of making fun of the government?

Why give it its own paragraph?

That’s how you join “the other side”? Give a full paragraph to accurate but inconvenient information? Wow.

OK:

so you admit that if anyone points out the (objectively true) fact that no-one actually knows who killed Rafiq al-Hariri,then they are on the side of Syria? Fine. That’s what I was in fact arguing. May I just point out that this is a disgraceful intellectual position and you should be ashamed of yourself? I don’t know who killed al-Hariri, and neither do you. Perhaps it was Syria, who knows? But what you are suggesting is that anyone who doesn’t immediately parrot the Bush line (i.e. who actually wants some evidence for the Bushies’ statements) is by definition a traitor. The incompatibility of this view with anything remotely resembling the democratic mindset is obvious.

As for the attempt to turn my rhetoric against me: oh grow up.

‘Analysts also noted that the Bush administration initially resisted the idea of holding elections this soon and only succumbed under pressure from Iraq’s most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The original plan, designed by then-U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, was a complicated formula of regional caucuses to select a national government, which would write a constitution, and then hold the elections. ‘

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49115-2005Jan30.html

OK if you want to split hairs this wasn’t Bush’s idea but Bremer’s, but the facts are in the public domain and are well known. Bremer crushed Iraqi local democracy and did his best to prevent the elections before taking credit for them. ‘heads i win….’

‘But your excerpt of Ibrahim doesn’t have anything in it about him talking about himself.’

Yes (he said patiently) i know that. That’s why i added that ‘seemingly’. But If Ibrahim had been ecstatic over Bush’s actions don’t you think he would have mentioned it? The fact is that he was accusing the Bush administration of massive hypocricy: coninually rambling on about democracy and rarely if ever delivering it. That does not sound to me like the talk of a man who owes Bush his freedom.

Incidentally, guys, could we please get into the habit of sourcing our comments: specifically, in this case ‘US increase in foreign aid to Egypt’ leading to Ibrahim’s release? It’s only polite. I have sourced everything I said.

I’m not sure. Reading some of the foreign press, the Syrians seem to be blaming the French just as much for meddling as the US. In fact there’s anti-French/US demonstrations scheduled for today.

It appears as though Bush has created an interesting situation, although I don’t think this was part of his original plan, it does seem to be having a positive impact. That is, while the US is bogged down in Iraq… The European nations are having this kind of competition with us, trying to outdo us on Democracy generation using means other than military.

As a result, you see changes taking place in Ukraine, and now Lebanon.

I don’t know, maybe in the end this is the secret to Republican foreign policy, as the same occured under Reagan. The wild-eyed whackadoodle pressure caused the miscreants to look at reform coming from some other group as a nice compromise.

He didn’t jump, he was pushed.

Exactly, there is a push for modernisation in the middle east, a real need for democracy, separate from US actions and interventions. Bush has only rethorically hijacked it to rationalise a pre-decided war. They will help the various movements only if it fits with the geopolitics.
I don’t know why Belle is giving in to the manichean logic of the hawks/white house (“if you’re not on our side you’re on theirs”), it’s pure PR.

On the whodunnit on al-Hariri, I don’t know whether it inspires confidence that the intrepid Garda Síochána is on the case:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0225/haririr.html

Brenden – What US ratified treaty or US law was broken by the US in starting the second Iraqi war?

Since US Presidents expected to take the blame for events outside of their control or doing. Its only natural they will attempt to take credit for positive events.

The fact that Sistani pushed for earlier elections does not invalidate the fact that Bush intended to hold elections. The real fight between Sistani and Bush was over how much influence the US would have over the new Iraqi constitution. Bush’s election plan didn’t happen in the exact order wanted by the Whitehouse. This does not exclude Bush from deserving some of the credit. The US did agree to the compromise of earlier elections and removed Saddam from power. Both actions created the situation that allowed the Iraqi people to make some sort of choice.

Brendan,
Where are you getting your news? The CFR reports that “human rights groups” protested Bush’s action? No human rights group would protest a despot being attacked for “crushing” democracy. Surely CFR mislabeled them, as they should have been called “NGO’s who hate Bush more than helping the oppressed”. And didn’t CFR get this wrong also “this resulted in the exact opposite outcome intended.” I thought Bush wanted Ibrahim released, and the trial granted after the press release is what granted that release. Or did those Mubarak courts grant the release for some other reason?

So what have we learned today? Bush has taken concrete action against Egypt making it known that 1% of Egyptian GPD (US foreign aid) is threatened and dependent on reform. The press called the action incompetent, yet Bush’s first goal was achieved immediately. NGO’s said the action was counterproductive, yet first moves towards reform are happening in Egypt.
And that “crushing” of Democracy, by definition, means disagreeing on the methods and time tables towards which a new democracy should be created. And we also learned that Bush’s actions in Iraq had zero influence on Lebanon. That there is no way that Bush’s “crushing” of democracy in Iraq caused the Syrian/Lebanese government, who used to machine gun civilians in the street, to bow to the public’s desire for a new government.

Wow, this has been enlightening. But for some reason I think a lot of people are mis-underestimating Bush.

I don’t think we should worry about our blood pressure. Apportioning credit (and blame) correctly is important.

My nutshell summary–Bush deserves some credit, but not nearly as much as his acolytes would award. He deserves blame, far more than his acolytes would acknowledge–blame for Abu Ghraib, bombing of civilian populations, delaying elections, etc…

Being a hyperpower with a cowardly mainstream press means that in this country, Bush will get lots of credit and no blame. The ratio will be reversed in parts of the leftwing blogosphere, something he can probably live with.

Jet
apologies accepted: many have done worse: i have frequently been called Brenda by hostile posters! (i think that was a mistake..hmmm….)

Anyway once more unto the breach…..

‘What US ratified treaty or US law was broken by the US in starting the second Iraqi war?’

What a charming way of putting it: it means we can forget, for example, Kofi Annan’s and Hans Blix’s (amongst others) view that the war was illegal under international lawy, for precisely the same reason that Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was illegal: you can’t just go about invading countries, regardless of your moral rhetoric.

Moreover: ‘ The Pact of Paris, or the Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, made aggressive war illegal and its initiation an individual crime. The Nuremberg tribunal sentenced Nazi leaders to death under it. (The treaty, of 1928, is better known as the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, after its promoters, Frank B. Kellogg, secretary of state under President Calvin Coolidge; and Aristide Briand, French foreign minister.)’

http://warandlaw.homestead.com/files/bushwar.htm

Richard Perle of course admitted the war was illegal.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6B65F4C9-3C3C-49B6-96CD-B111ADA2315B.htm

Moreover:

‘After the White House confirmed Wednesday that the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer had halted any further search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, some are calling for answers. This week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D – California) said, “Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war.”

With a new focus on the reasons for the Iraq war, some are questioning whether the war was legal. Under U.S. law, it was not.

The authority under which Bush purportedly acted to go to war in Iraq arose under “House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, October 10, 2002” (the Iraq Resolution). However, the ostensible “statutory authority” granted to the President to was conditional.

In fact, Congress specifically made that authority, if any, of the President to go to war with Iraq subject to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (War Powers Act or WPA). The Iraq resolution was definite. “Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.” The Iraq Resolution only granted the President the right to determine whether the standards required by War Powers Act Congress were met.

In other words, the Iraq Resolution was not an authorization to go to war, it was a mandate to follow the standards for war set forth in the War Powers Act. Congress made clear that in 2002, as in 1973, the War Powers Act was, and now is, the law of the land concerning war. Based upon the plain language of the Iraq Resolution, Bush was required by law to meet the conditions of the WPA before going to war with Iraq. He did not.

The WPA required “clear” evidence of an “imminent” threat by Iraq to the U.S. to justify war.

The words “clearly” and “imminent” are repeatedly used in the War Powers Act to describe situations where U.S. military force is lawfully permitted. (Under the section entitled “Purpose and Policy,” the word “imminent” is used two (2) times and “clearly” once (“into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances”). These words are used under the section entitled “Consultation” (“into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances”); the section entitled “Reporting” in “absence of a declaration of war” (“into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances”); and, the word “imminent” is used under the section entitled “Interpretation of Joint Resolution” (“there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities”).

Without question, the War Powers Act bound the President at the time of the Iraq war. It required a “clearly” defined “imminent” threat to America before the President could approve the use of United States armed forces in Iraq. The only authority Congress granted Bush was the authority to act pursuant to the WPA. There was no declaration of war nor specific Congressional grant of authority to go to war.

The determination as to whether these standards of evidence were met was delegated by the Congress in the Iraqi Resolution to George Bush. There is no evidence that he made any finding, decree, resolution or statement that established that the standards required of the WPA were met.

The decision to go to war is a matter of “evidence,” not hunch or opinion. Under U.S. law, war requires clear evidence of imminent threat. No more, no less. Historical precedent or that fact that a prior President may have used done something is not enough to justify a war which violates the law. Moreover, matters of opinion as to whether America will be made safer by a war are not good enough. Neither is a belief that a war is necessary to protect national security. Nor is freeing people and providing democracy.

Regardless of the number of moral or policy arguments made by the President for the war in Iraq, however noble, the Iraq war was illegal under U.S. law.’

http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm

As regards Bush in Egypt, the point made by the CFR article was that the cut in the 130 million was done in such an incompetent manner it was counter-productive.

However it would also be interesting to know the precise circumstances of this ‘moral’ intervention (sorry to be so vague, but experience has taught me not to draw huge conclusions from seemingly ‘moral’ political decisions without knowing the background).

‘The fact that Sistani pushed for earlier elections does not invalidate the fact that Bush intended to hold elections.’

This is false. Bush did not want THESE elections: i.e. elections for the body that created the constitution. It’s certainly true that the US would have allowed elections (as did the British) as long as the framework within which the government had to function was created in Washington, sorry, by ‘caucus’.

You ‘have nothing left over for those truly horrific dictators who are actually “crushing” democracy.’

Dictators like Mubarak? Is that the sort of man you had in mind?

And Finally:

‘”I never thought,” Thompson says, “that I would ever see a president worse than Richard Nixon. But he is the worst president in American history, this one. Because he is the dumbest. And because he has destroyed, in four years, what it took two centuries to build up. He has taken this country from a prosperous nation at peace to a dead-broke nation at war. We are losing this stupid, fraudulent war in Iraq and every nation in the world despises us, except for a handful of corrupt Brits, like that simpering little whore, Tony Blair.” ‘

You’re right! Oversimplification IS clarifying!

http://www.medialens.org/PHPBB2/viewtopic.php?t=943

‘Djibouti annd the Comoros are arab countries?’

Going by membership of the Arab League. They aren’t ‘ethnically pure’ of course, but then what country is?

You might as well argue that Iraq isn’t ‘arabic’ because of the presence of the Turkmen and the Kurds (amongst others).

That’s a good idea, Steve, but it was me that said it, not you. Why must you always steal credit for my ideas? Could it be because you hate America?

Actually it was C.S. Lewis who said it to my first knowledge of the idea–though framed in inverse.

Yay Belle, boo Brendan. Lighten up, will ya? Look, it’s just as facile to lay all good events at the feet of America as it is to blame us for everything bad. And I have no illusions about George W Bush or his motivations (though I voted for him). But just ask yourself: is this startling series of democratic successes large and small (Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, even Egypt and Saudi Arabia) really just a cruel cosmic coincidence? Or could the Bushies maybe somehow have a hand in it all?

If you can’t be hopeful for fear credit will be given where it’s not due, then at least stay silent.

“Bush did not want THESE elections” Wow, you mean Bush didn’t want a direct election; that he might have preferred a different method? You mean he wanted to use the same model the US Constitution was created under? How silly for him to want to use that model.

Damn straight, Jet. If it’s good enough for the US of A, it’s good enough for everybody. We’ve got to make sure the Iraqis get democracy right; if we let them decide for themselves which model is best, they’re just going to mess everything up.

Freedom marches on!

I don’t think democracy in Egypt is a good idea. I’ve never been there, but everyone I know who has, they all are saying it’s an excellent country and they would like to go work there. Why fix what’s not broken? They had democratic elections in Algeria in 1992 and look what happened…

Hopefully Mr. Mubarak is only kidding.

Well, can we at least agree to be happy about the recent developments in Togo? (No one ever talks about Togo, so I thought I would ;) )

Abb1,
You’re right. Better to live well as a slave than poorly as a free man. And why do you fight Bush so? Once he has tightened his fascists grip around us, we can all be safe and servile to the glorious Uncle Stalin Mubarak.

Uncle Kvetch,
Come on, I said the word “French”, I couldn’t have been serious. We obviously can’t communicate at any real level, so rest assured anything I say directed at you is in jest. Ease up Cap, the world may end, but probably not tomorrow.

You’re right, Jet…my bad. I must remember to stop taking anything you say seriously.

Wow! What a lot of references!

Let’s remember that Lebanon (really Beirut) is a potential competitor to Israel and Damascus as a centre for banking, tourism, money-laundering, international intrigue, etc. etc. Control is seen as important. It’s unlikely that its envious neighbours will allow any indigenous Lebanese government to control so much potential influence (and income). Any resolution of the Syrian/ Lebanese situation will imply a lot of manoevring over division of spoils, with the unspoken last resort position (on the part of the Israelis at least) that if they don’t get a satisfactory slice of the action, they’ll just either seize the place or wreck it.

Any resolution of the Syrian/ Lebanese situation will imply a lot of manoevring over division of spoils, with the unspoken last resort position (on the part of the Israelis at least) that if they don’t get a satisfactory slice of the action, they’ll just either seize the place or wreck it.

Gordon, I’m seriously curious as to how you get this impression of the Israelis. Is it Pilger, Chomsky etc.??

Please let us know and not just say “it’s obvious”.

Jet,
you’re as much a slave of the glorious Bush as any Egyptian is a slave of Mubarak.

And if I have to be a slave, I prefer my master to be a competent manager, preferably trained from birth for the task, rather than corrupt demagogue and deranged megalomaniac.

Constitutional monarchy has a very good track-record, look at the Netherlands. And now as the poster child for ‘democracy’ the old good US of A undeniably and fast sinking into barbarism, the concept seems less credible than ever.

The pedant in me notes that it’s “autochthonous”, not “authochtonous”.