Tripoli - Palestinians forgotten northern refuge

Lebanon's second largest city Tripoli has been the focus of an unexpected escalation of factional clashes in the last few days. In the worst violence since the end of the 1976-1990 civil war, Lebanon's army have fought radical Palestinian off-shoot Fatah Al-Islam. In the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp north of Tripoli, the militant group with supposed ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syrian intelligence amongst others, has opened new fissures in Lebanon's multi-confessional matrix. Tripoli is one of the most northerly fringes of the Palestinian diaspora, and has particular resonance for Lebanese Palestinians. PLO leader Yasser Arafat withstood an Israeli onslaught during the siege of Tripoli in December 1983 before an exodus to Tunis, enhancing his legendary status amongst the Palestinian people. Arafat would survive and Israel's primary objective to eradicate the PLO had failed, although their presence ended in Lebanon. PLO-Fatah absence from the occupied territories allowed Islamists to flourish - Hamas played a key role in the 1987 intifada - creating the factional conflict now seen in Gaza.

Although we should be careful about viewing 1980s Palestinian resistance through rose tinted shades. There is a contrast to the radicalism of today that selfishly hinders their nation's progress, with the more noble resistance of Fatah - although they were accurately described as terrorists at the time. Hamas are creating problems but their popular mandate is thin, only 44% of voters chose them in the 2006 election with turn out under a quarter of the total Palestinian population. And now in 2007, as rockets fire at Sderot, splinter groups battle in the north and Hezbollah wait and re-arm, another summer of war seems highly probable once again.

Read on here in this excellent article: http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-debate_97/report_gaza_4632.jsp

Algeria - the long road to democracy

Fifteen years after the military junta cancelled the democratic process paving the way for a brutal civil war, voters return to the polls today for the latest step in Algeria's torturous democratic process. Although parliamentary and presidential elections have been every few years since 1995, underlying tensions remain. Recent terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda linked militants have added an extra edge, and despite a reconciliation process, the return to the dark days of the 1990s is not far from the minds of weary Algerians. The development of Algerian democracy is an often cited case, as it was one of the first attempts to bring popular representation to the region. The victory for the Islamist movement - FIS - and subsequent military coup show what can happen when democracy and Islam combine, and what can go wrong. As the seminal Islamist electoral success story, FIS bitterly divided Algeria. Opinion of the movement ranged from fear of the imposition an undemocratic Iranian style theocracy, to representing vital salvation after years of decline under socialist rule. The leadership symbolised the dilemma facing Algerians and international observers at the time. Abassi Madani projected a moderate image - promoting democracy as the best way of ending Algeria's economic and social decline. Ali Belhadj, his deputy, led the salafi radical wing who rejected democracy - “Democracy is a stranger in the House of God. There is no democracy in Islam” - but at the same time encouraged Algerians to use democracy to end FLN rule. These contradictions did not inspire confidence and the international community's perception of “One man, one vote, one time” - meant that there was little condemnation of the 1992 coup. A similar situation to the Hamas victory last year, but FIS had not been designated as a terrorist group, making the silence less understandable. How democratic FIS would have been in full power is debatable. The extreme level of resistance in the civil war to the military junta firstly by the AIS (Islamic Salvation Army) and then the GIA, shows how militants had the potential to dominate FIS' political agenda. The salafi wing of FIS rejected democracy as it conflicted with the Islamic concept of Tawhid, but for moderates like Madani - FIS had a nationalist and pluralist agenda that looked to create economic and social reform through democracy.

The Age of Brown

After yesterday's long awaited farewell and the flood of era-ending analysis, we have now moved into new territory, unchartered waters, the land of Gordon, the age of Brown. He has had approximately 13 years to make this speech and you cannot doubt his intent by the following statement: "I want to build a shared national consensus for a programme of constitutional reform that strengthens the accountability of all who hold power; that is clear about the rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in Britain today; that defends the union and is vigilant about ensuring that the hard won liberties of the individual, for which Britain has for centuries been renowned round the world, are at all times upheld without relenting in our attack on terrorism." His opening gambit in Knebworth was overshadowed (literally) by a misplaced autocue screen. But maybe this was deliberate, we have had far too much presentation in the last decade and Cameron has the same obsession. The image isn't important, it is the substance and this organizational blunder has inadvertently highlighted this. The second major speech of the day included a few Nixon and Reagan jokes, maybe created a bit of early distance with Republicanism? Opinion polls on tonight's Newsnight show him a fair way behind Cameron, but having played second best to Blair for so long, and having an obviously lower media profile has meant that the electorate just don't have an informed view of him, even though he has been the country's number 2 for 10 years. There won't be a snap election so Brown has a free run for the next few years to change those views - or not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6646349.stm

The Hand of History

The ten year anniversary has just past and the announcement has been made today, it is time for the hand of history to give Blair the judgement he has been waiting for. Blair has an ambiguous relationship with history: he uses it when it suits - to justify decisions; but is overtly conscious of his historical place within Labour party and British history. "Historic third term" and "legacy" have been Blairite mantras since 2005. So prepare yourself for a political cottage industry as despite our apolitical tendencies, the last ten years will be trawled over in the finest detail until you're wishing that John Major won a second term in 1997. Standby for a barrage of Blair's soundbite gems ("shoulder to shoulder"; "elected as New Labour; govern as New Labour"; "I can apologise"), endless repetitions of Oasis / D:Ream montages of 1997 euphoria and early attempts to create a political revolution, and Blair and Bush taking that pointless red carpet walk before denouncing the Left, Islamists and all the other Iraq doomsayers. Prepare to undergo a re-appraisal of your entrenched views and conclude that despite spin, failed public sector reforms, cash for honours, government resignations, ID cards, crime and Middle East policy, we could have done a lot worse. Blair for all his failings has not plumbed to Thatcher - Major dark depths and Cameron will only seem like TB2 with a quiff. Gordon's enigmatic nature gives him a clean slate to take over and I think he will represent a beautiful three year interregnum. So the Blair era has coincided with dramatic global political, social and cultural changes, which he has surfed upon and reacted to very well, but as a visionary, a revolutionary or a great leader - he hasn't come that close.

Shifting Plates

The tectonic plates of British politics are shifting this week through immense gravitation and friction. Within the space of 7 days (a week is a long time in politics I hear you cry), the SNP achieved a parliamentary victory for the first time in their history, power sharing is finalised in Northern Ireland with old foes McGuiness and Paisley united, and Tony Blair will announce his resignation paving the way for Gordon Brown to assume the leadership. Now these developments have not arisen out of the blue and I will not analyse the historical context here, rather let's consider what this means for the future of British politics. Well - one word - regionalisation. The tide of devolution that has broken over British shores since 1999, has received its largest fillip this week. Now political structures and true devolved power are in place, economic and cultural prosperity can flourish. Well that's the idea. England, sitting in the middle of this upheaval, will in some ways be heading in an opposite direction: a Scottish leader, the ever present burden of centralised power and an identity crisis on the horizon. But the reverse might happen, multiculturalism has been England's substitute for devolution in our cultural barometer, a leader not embroiled in South East England's Middle Englishness could challenge the population in new and rewarding ways (the West Lothian question reversed and answered), and globalisation - already rampant - will continue as English identity and political influence stretches further afield. So devolution empowers, but also liberates.

Now given the predictably intractable nature of British politics, these shifts of power will probably face complications: the SNP need to play coalition politics to make anything from their victory, Paisley and McGuiness hold diametrically opposed views, Brown is facing a demoralised Labour party and Conservatives in the ascendancy pressuring for an early General Election. So the political tectonic plates are moving in a similar way to Earth's: convergent (two political plates moving towards each other - Northern Ireland), divergent (two plates moving apart - Scotland) and transform (two plates sliding horizontally past each other creating cataclysmic stresses along the way - Blair to Brown to Cameron of course!). This might be a very unscientific geography lesson, but I hope it sums up the historic events of the last week.

Democracy Update

In 2002, the United States National Security Strategy (NSS) declared that democracy was America's mission for "every corner of the world", but first and foremost the urgent necessity was in the Middle East. The so called Bush Doctrine asserted that democracy would be a panacea for Islamic terrorism, Iraq would be the model for others to follow. Five years on and with Iraqi democracy hanging by a thread, Islamists elected in Palestine, and untransparent restricted democratic pretensions in other Arab states, what progress has been made?

Historically democracy in the Middle East is sparse. Colonial rule working in tandem with strict regressive monarchies, then one party state socialism with dubious definitions of "democratic", have smothered any progress for pluralism and popular representation. The region is split between these two strands authoritarianism: King Abdullah vs Mubarak, King Hussein vs Bashar al-Assad, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi vs Saddam Hussein. In addition to the politics and this far from democratic tradition, religion is arguably a stumbling block. Democracy and Islam are not compatible as sovereignty lies with God not man. But Islamic movements have participated in elections and adhered to democracy, albeit with reservations. Algerian Islamists achieved electoral success in 1991, Muslim Brotherhood candidates running as independents gained 20% in Egypt's 2005 elections. Here is the update:

Algeria

18 million Algerians are registered to vote in the upcoming legislative elections set for May 17

Bahrain

parliamentary elections held on 25 November 2006 with major gains for Shia and Sunni Islamist parties. The election was preceded by a political realignment in which opposition parties that had boycotted 2002's poll agreed to take part. Turnout was 72%. Salafists Al Asalah came third.

Egypt

President Hosni Mubarak has won three elections unopposed since 1981, but in 2005 for his fourth contest - under US pressure - he changed the system to allow rival candidates. Mubarak's National Democratic Party won 68%, while independents Muslim Brotherhood gained 19.4%. Concerns were expressed after the 2005 elections about government interference in the election process through fraud and vote-rigging. In addition, violence by pro-Mubarak supporters against opposition demonstrators and police brutality were evident during the elections.

TBContinued