I wanna say something about elections and political parities and new countries.
I’m reading John Adams by David McCoullough, and the original Continental Congress convened in delegations apportioned by themselves (the size of their respective states, to be specific). These men were "Representatives", prominent lawyers and businessmen, local leaders who truly were the overwhelming consensus of the states and the people who lived there.
All the delegates understood they were there to represent their people and interests, to form a permanent new agreement to form the basis of an independent, new country — well, at first, simply to form a collective response to British encroachments on freedom (dissolving state assemblies, removal of rights of due process, taxes). When the Continental Congress first formed, it wouldn’t have immediately agreed on independence. If you had an election, constitutional separatists wouldn’t have won 10% of seats. (Public opinion truly turned after the siege of Boston harbor and French entry to the war after the victory at Saratoga.)
Having elections to form a government, to form a country, is stupid. Elections are precisely a feather in the wind, a finger to the wind.
The parties of the revolution must hammer out a temporary or permanent make-up of the legislature, say, youth party 25% of seats, Islamic parties split but collectively 45% of the seats, make sure everyone has "a piece of the action" before permanently forming the country by a single political party, (worst case scenario: a religious puritanical party which permanent enshrines the nation in shari’a law, difficult to undo once passed, a sort of third rail for Islamic politics).
Of course, if the United states does this, it is accused of puppet-wielding, but surely, the relevant parties involved can agree to an agreement to provide basic quotas for minority parties. — Note, this solution does not promise peace and stability, as Lebanon and Bahrain incorporate religious/communal positions such as a Christian President and Muslim prime minister, or Sunni monarchy and Shi’a parliamentary leader; it only claims to provide a "fair", working system in which every political party which took part of the revolution, can be provided a voice in the revolutionary government they caused to happen.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, <aufarooqui> wrote:
"So there was the reporter from Syrian television asking what I thought of the situation in Syria, and there was I saying that you can no longer infantilise Arabs, that the uprisings/revolts/revolutions/unrest in the Arab world were all different; but that dictatorship didn’t work, that if there were – if – a serious new constitution, pluralist political parties and real and genuine free elections, Syria might just climb out of its tragedy but that the government was running out of time, fast."