Given the recent chaos in the Egypt, the short term outcome has been about as positive as one could hope to expect. Authoritarian strong man Hosni Mubarak was forced to leave office with little violence. The military has taken control providing stability and vowing to honor peace agreements with Israel, accompanied with the realistic hope of early elections. However, the final outcome of revolutions is difficult to predict with certainty. The American and French Revolutions occurred in the same era and employed much the same language. The American Revolution brought us George Washington, while the French Revolution resulted in Napoleon Bonaparte.
Fortunately, we have experience over the last hundred years or so that points to optimism in the case of Egypt. This case for optimism must overcome some serious concerns. Although the peaceful revolution came from the streets, that the radical Muslim Brotherhood did not seem to lead, they are perhaps the most organized and passionate party. One could easily imagine that they use the current instability to move Egypt to a theocracy rather than a liberal democracy. Moreover, if Zogby is to be believed, Egyptians cling to some disturbing ideas. About 90% believe that Israel is a threat to them, and a strong majority believe åçthat clerics should play a larger role in government. However, consider the reason for optimism.
The number of democratic countries has exploded. Polity IV, of the Center for Systemic Peace and Colorado State University, scores countries on a scale of -10 to 10, where -10 is an hereditary monarchy and +10 is a stable democracy. The plot below shows the number of countries scoring higher than eight from 1800 to 2003. Clearly, while not always successful and with setbacks, the move to governments underpinned by the consent of the governed is Zeitgeist of the last century or so.
Studies of this growth in democracies suggest that economic development and the presence of a middle class are the determining factors on longevity. A 1997 study by Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi of the world from 1950 to 1990 concluded that if the per capita income of a fledgling democracy was less than $1500, the democracy had a life expectancy of less than 10 years. Above $6000 in per capita income, a democracy essentially lives indefinitely. Indeed, they found that the “relation between levels of development and the incidence of democratic regimes could explain 77% of the observations. Some of the deviations from the relation have to do if the wealth is associated with a middle class. In cases where a countrys wealth comes primarily from natural resource extraction as opposed to more diversified commerce, per capita income did not necessary translate into a middle class.
Egypt currently has a per capita income of $6200. Even with inflation, this gives Egypt a reasonable chance of achieving a long-term democracy. Despite wide-spread poverty, if the middle class is large enough the tendency to authoritarian rule can be mitigated. The depressing part of this sort of analysis is not related to Egypt. Iraq and Afghanistan have a per capita incomes of $3600 and $1000, respectively. The prospect of long-live democratically-based regimes in these countries would appear to be dependent upon rapid economic growth.
Not Atticus Finch, Not Even John Yoo
Sunday, March 14th, 2010There is a noble tradition in the legal community to provide legal aid pro bono for ill-disposed defendants unable to secure legal representation. The archetype attorney is this regard is the fictional Atticus Finch in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mocking Bird. Atticus Finch engaged in a professional and vigorous defense of Thomas “Tom” Robinson, a black man wrongly accused of raping a young white woman. Finch defended Robinson despite the fact that the defense earned him the anger and disapprobation of his community. Why Did Finch defend Robinson? Most probably from a conviction that Tom’s was innocent. Perhaps Finch believed that, innocent or not, criminal defendants are entitled to a defense. Perhaps Finch believed that the procedures used against Robinson violated his rights. Most readers of To Kill a Mockingbird would believe that all three factors were involved.
For an attorney to seek a case, pro bono, when not directed by a court is a deliberate choice. It is a choice that involves a commitment of resources and time. Hence, the nature of the choice says something about the priorities, perspectives, and beliefs of the attorney. This issue has recently been raised with respect the attorneys selected by Attorney General Eric Holder. Apparently, seven of these attorneys defended detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Eric Holder has refused to disclose the names of these political appointees (not civil servants).
Now there are any number of reasons that these attorneys were involved in these cases. They may have been directed by the firms to do so. They could have believed in the innocence of those involved. They could have believed that the detainees ought to be tried in civilian rather than military courts. There are a host of possible reasons. Defending someone certainly does not imply any sympathy for the underlying crime or even a belief on the part of the attorney that the argument used for defense is ultimately valid.
If, however, these choices were made because the attorneys had a disagreement (perhaps a very reasonable ones) with US policy, this disposition is certainly a subject of reasonable inquiry. If these attorneys — now political appointees — are of the legal opinion that, for example, people seized overseas by the military are criminals rather than prisoners of war that does not make them bad people sympathetic to the Taliban. But it does make their positions legitimate political issues and indicative the Administration’s policy with regard to detainees.
If Attorney General Eric Holder believed that this politically-appointed attorneys had a popular legal approach with regard to detainees, he would not be shy about their names and positions. Holder’s reluctance to publicly name his staff is a concession Holder’s conviction that the positions of his appointees might be politically difficult to defend. Atticus Finch had the courage to publicly stand behind his choices, not hide behind anonymity.
In To Kill a Mocking Bird, Atticus Finch stood up against his life-long friends and neighbors to defend Tom Robinson. Although some of the attorneys hiding in the Department of Justice may be politically embarrassed now, among their professional peers at large firms, their was a mad scramble to get “street creds” by challenging the Bush Department of Justice.
Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney are over the top in referring to the lawyers at the “Al Qaeda Seven,” perhaps implying a sympathy with Al Qaeda. However, this criticism is far milder than the attacks experienced by John Yoo, the attorney who wrote legal analysis for the Bush Administration, on the what what is or is not torture. John Yoo is willing to not only to be public about his opinions, but for making his best efforts he was accused in the popular press of war crimes and awarded a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility investigation run by Obama politically appointees in the DOJ. It took a career a DOJ attorney, David Margolis, to counterman the recommendation that Yoo be referred for disbarment.
It is very legitimate to criticize Yoo on his legal opinions, just as it is legitimate to critique the policy perspectives of the current DOJ political appointees after they emerge from behind the skirts of AG Eric Holder. But Yoo, who is willing to publicly argue for his positions, must do so in an environment that requires real intellectual courage.
Posted in Iraq, Law, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »