Food and failed Arab states (Egypt is backward, not because the Mubarak, but because of Islam)

Asia Times ^ | 02/04/2011 | Spengler

[SeekAndFind]

Even Islamists have to eat. It is unclear whether President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt will survive, or whether his nationalist regime will be replaced by an Islamist, democratic, or authoritarian state. What is certain is that it will be a failed state. Amid the speculation about the shape of Arab politics to come, a handful of observers, for example economist Nourel Roubini, have pointed to the obvious: Wheat prices have almost doubled in the past year.

Egypt is the world's largest wheat importer, beholden to foreign providers for nearly half its total food consumption. Half of

Egyptians live on less than $2 a day. Food comprises almost half the country's consumer price index, and much more than half of spending for the poorer half of the country. This will get worse, not better.

Not the destitute, to be sure, but the aspiring and frustrated young, confronted the riot police and army on the streets of Egyptian cities last week. The uprising in Egypt and Tunisia were not food riots; only in Jordan have demonstrators made food the main issue. Rather, the jump in food prices was the wheat-stalk that broke the camel's back. The regime's weakness, in turn, reflects the dysfunctional character of the country. 35% of all Egyptians, and 45% of Egyptian women can't read.

Nine out of ten Egyptian women suffer genital mutilation. US President Barack Obama said Jan. 29, "The right to peaceful assembly and association, the right to free speech, and the ability to determine their own destiny … are human rights. And the United States will stand up for them everywhere." Does Obama think that genital mutilation is a human rights violation? To expect Egypt to leap from the intimate violence of traditional society to the full rights of a modern democracy seems whimsical.

[fabian]

wow, that is one screwed up religion. I will say that Mubarak and his police should have prosecuted anyone mutalating women like that and it would have deterred it a lot more!

[JadeEmperor]

I do not fulfill the Constitutional requirement to be President, although in a true dictatorship we can make up our own rules, can't we? Heh-heh. Seriously, I would grudgingly accept a moderate authoritarian society where I was a part of a reasonably protected social class as an alternative to chaos and anarchy, but not as an alternative to a Constitutional Republic. Many others would settle for much less, I'm afraid.

[JadeEmperor]

Throughout history, the people have always wanted a king, a good king. I believe most Americans wanted George to become the American king for life. I believe most Americans wanted George to become the American king for life.

And when, throughout history, has such a state existed? Reality was never like the stuff of the legends, king Arthur and the Knights. Sadly, a lot of people, if not the outright majority, at any given time will simply submit to the strongman du jour, who merely has the means and the inclination to be ruthless. Most are passive. Some are outright submissive. None of that means we should set our goals on such a society. Does anyone think in a true monarchy they will be automatically granted nobility status, or something? The nobles and royalty were few and most were underclass of some sort. No strong middle class before the industrial revolution, either. I do not see a future for myself in such a society.

[PA Engineer]

Long, but interesting read. BTTT.