New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

Paul Amar provides a superb treatment of Egyptian political economy factions within the state

The article linked in the previous post treated political forces in the pro-democracy forces; this article, by Paul Amar, Associate Professor of Global & International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, treats various factions within the state, now jockeying for position in the "transition,"  with regard to their political economy interests. This is a must-read. Here is the intro to the piece:

The "March of Millions" in Cairo marks the spectacular emergence of a new political society in Egypt. This uprising brings together a new coalition of forces, uniting reconfigured elements of the security state with prominent business people, internationalist leaders, and relatively new (or newly reconfigured) mass movements of youth, labour, women's and religious groups. President Hosni Mubarak lost his political power on Friday, January 28.

On that night the Egyptian military let Mubarak's ruling party headquarters burn down and ordered the police brigades attacking protesters to return to their barracks. When the evening call to prayer rang out and no one heeded Mubarak's curfew order, it was clear that the old president been reduced to a phantom authority. In order to understand where Egypt is going, and what shape democracy might take there, we need to set the extraordinarily successful popular mobilisations into their military, economic and social context. What other forces were behind this sudden fall of Mubarak from power? And how will this transitional military-centred government get along with this millions-strong protest movement?

Excellent primer on the political forces in Egypt

Gilbert Achcar is Professor of Development Studies at SOAS in London. His  post at ZCommunications is one of the best I've read so far. Excerpts: 

... all the regime's key institutions are now denounced by the movement as illegitimate––the executive as well as the legislative, i.e. the parliament. As a result, part of the opposition is demanding that the head of the constitutional court be appointed as interim president, to preside over the election of a constituent assembly. Others even want a national committee of opposition forces to supervise the transition. Of course, these demands constitute a radical democratic perspective. In order to impose such a thorough change, the mass movement would need to break or destabilise the regime's backbone, that is the Egyptian army.

I love Rachel Maddow, but ...

Last night's insistence, complete with a picture of Gandhi, that the only proper stance for the pro-democracy forces in Egypt be non-violence is simply wrong. When they first took Tahrir Square from the police, and when they held it from the thugs -- indeed, when they routed the police and the thugs, sending them scurrying away -- it was revolutionary violence, and it should be recognized and applauded for that.

There is a festive atmosphere in the square now -- that is the joy of collectivity, the joy of sharing your life with others, the joy of forming a political movement on the spot -- but that joy should not be confused with passivity in the face of attack. The name of the event is the Battle of Tahrir Square, and the praises of its heroes, which will be sung for generations, will be praises for brave warriors, as well as praises for "peaceful demonstrators." That the two are not mutually exclusive is the paradox that reveals the poverty of the US media's conventional wisdom when it comes to the Egyptian Revolution.

UPDATE: They are singing in Tahrir Square. You don't have to know Arabic to love this. The joy of revolution is infectious, palpable: 

nbsp;