Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Freedom born within us
No more fear, Rights by the Law, Respect for the other, All united. A New future.
Wisconsin public workers: “Fight like an Egyptian”
Wisconsin public workers: “Fight like an Egyptian”
February 16, 2011 by William Rogers 7 Comments
Wisconsin public employees, whose rally cry has become “fight like an Egyptian” continued their second day of protest against Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to impose $300 million worth of benefit cuts on public workers and break their unions. Today, 40 percent of public school teachers in Madison called in sick so they could attend today’s demonstrations causing the district’s superintendent to close schools for the day.
Yesterday, more than 10,000 public workers and their supporters rallied at the state Capitol. After the rally, thousands of public workers swarmed into the state Capitol to talk face-to-face with their lawmakers. Workers packed a hearing room where legislators were hearing testimony about Gov Walker’s bill. Public workers, one after another, testified about its impact on their lives until 3:00 am when Republicans called a halt to the testimony.
Democrats on the committee hearing the testimony, however, remained in the room to listen to speakers who continued to speak until 8:00 am Wednesday morning. The Democratic lawmakers adjourned briefly but said that they would resume hearing testimony at 9:00 am.
Wednesday morning, workers gathered outside of Walker’s office chanting calls for his impeachment. Buses also began arriving early in the morning with public employees who live outside of Madison, the state’s capital, for another round of rallies and direct talk to lawmakers.
While spirits remain high, the workers are fighting an uphill battle. Several sources have told reporters that Walker has enough votes to pass his benefit cuts and union busting bill. But the Associated Press reports that after the demonstrations on Tuesday, several Republican lawmakers were meeting to discuss the bill. When asked by an AP reporter where Republicans stood on the measure, Sen Dan Kapanke, a Republican from LaCrosse said, “I don’t know.”
The two days of rallies, sick outs, and protests have been the largest and most sustained public action in Madison in decades.
If the bill does pass, it’s not likely that the fight will be over. Last night a group union activists in the Madison area met and made plans to continue the fight. The Pierce County Herald reported that at the meeting Madison attorney Lester Pines told the labor activists that true bargaining power results from people “coming together and organizing,” and it does not come from any laws. Baptist pastor Scott Erlenborn said activists must build on the union solidarity being shown by the thousands protesting Walker’s plans. He called it quote, “political theater” and said it should keep going as long as possible.
http://leftlaborreporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/wisconsin-public-workers-fight-like-an-egyptian/
February 16, 2011 by William Rogers 7 Comments
Wisconsin public employees, whose rally cry has become “fight like an Egyptian” continued their second day of protest against Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to impose $300 million worth of benefit cuts on public workers and break their unions. Today, 40 percent of public school teachers in Madison called in sick so they could attend today’s demonstrations causing the district’s superintendent to close schools for the day.
Yesterday, more than 10,000 public workers and their supporters rallied at the state Capitol. After the rally, thousands of public workers swarmed into the state Capitol to talk face-to-face with their lawmakers. Workers packed a hearing room where legislators were hearing testimony about Gov Walker’s bill. Public workers, one after another, testified about its impact on their lives until 3:00 am when Republicans called a halt to the testimony.
Democrats on the committee hearing the testimony, however, remained in the room to listen to speakers who continued to speak until 8:00 am Wednesday morning. The Democratic lawmakers adjourned briefly but said that they would resume hearing testimony at 9:00 am.
Wednesday morning, workers gathered outside of Walker’s office chanting calls for his impeachment. Buses also began arriving early in the morning with public employees who live outside of Madison, the state’s capital, for another round of rallies and direct talk to lawmakers.
While spirits remain high, the workers are fighting an uphill battle. Several sources have told reporters that Walker has enough votes to pass his benefit cuts and union busting bill. But the Associated Press reports that after the demonstrations on Tuesday, several Republican lawmakers were meeting to discuss the bill. When asked by an AP reporter where Republicans stood on the measure, Sen Dan Kapanke, a Republican from LaCrosse said, “I don’t know.”
The two days of rallies, sick outs, and protests have been the largest and most sustained public action in Madison in decades.
If the bill does pass, it’s not likely that the fight will be over. Last night a group union activists in the Madison area met and made plans to continue the fight. The Pierce County Herald reported that at the meeting Madison attorney Lester Pines told the labor activists that true bargaining power results from people “coming together and organizing,” and it does not come from any laws. Baptist pastor Scott Erlenborn said activists must build on the union solidarity being shown by the thousands protesting Walker’s plans. He called it quote, “political theater” and said it should keep going as long as possible.
http://leftlaborreporter.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/wisconsin-public-workers-fight-like-an-egyptian/
The Egyptian revolution: Gasping for a new social contract
On the 25th of January, the police national day, millions of Egyptians demonstrated in the streets of many Egyptian cities. During the first few days, demonstrators were crying mottos like “People want the fall of the regime” and “Democracy, Liberty and Social Justice”. But it was only a matter of time before they precise their demands in mottos like “We won’t go until he goes” & “Leave and let us live”. The rising of the demands’ ceiling change -from general peaceful ones to precise aggressive and high demands- was due to many reasons. First of all, the unprecedented police brutality. This latter didn’t only use clubs, rubber bullets and water cannons against the demonstrators but also expired tear gas and live gun shots, killing 350 peaceful citizens. Moreover, five hundred have disappeared and have never been found till now. Second, the total disrespect of the government -during the first several days- to the lawful demands of the protestors. The president delivered his first speech on midnight of the fourth day after 4 days of extreme violence, mass killings and interrogations about his presence in Egypt. Moreover, the public media tended either to ignore completely the events or to terrify citizens by describing the protestors as terrorist thugs causing chaos and anarchy.
Apart from this negative violent side, one brilliant aspect of this revolution is the symbolism. It carried out two symbolic transfers. The first was the transfer of the value of commemoration of the police day from the police to the people. As the police proved -during these last few years -not to deserve a national celebration, the people stripped them off their day and marked it in history as a day of the Egyptian revolution. The 25th of January would no longer be the police day but the people’s day. The second strand of symbolism concerns the transfer of power and legitimacy from one place to another. This revolution marked the transfer of legitimacy from the presidential palace to the street and precisely to Tahrir square, where a massive sit-in started. The palace didn’t give up easily but this transfer was an inevitable result of such a popular uprising. This rough process was televised and watched worldwide. But while the eyes of the world were on Tahrir Square, the eyes of the Egyptians were on the army and its ruling military council. This latter declared being the protector of constitutional legitimacy with a promise never to conduct any offensive act against the people, to which it has always been the guardian. As the source of legitimacy shifted from the palace to the square, the army didn’t only keep its word of being non offensive to its own people, but also acted as the defender of the people’s revolution. For sociologists, this could be an original moment to study. Because the society witnessed a moment of perfect equilibrium between its members “specialized in violence” and those “specialized in production”. It is also a unique moment because the armed institution responds to the civil calls of rupturing a contract, in which the army was a dominant part. Consequently, it is paving the way to an integrally civil social contract, in which it will no longer be dominant.
In the logic of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the social contract is a deal concluded among the members of the society in which elite is designated to serve and take decisions on behalf of the others in exchange for certain compromises (finance and liberty wise) made by the rest of the society. Generally speaking, we can distinguish between several types of contracts, depending on the nature of counterparts. Dealing with social contracts, I believe we can distinguish between two different types of social contracts. On one hand, a civil social contract; as civilians choose one of them to rule them. On the other hand, a civil-military hybrid social contract where one counterpart is the vast civil society and the second is the military junta. This latter genre of contract was the one approved in Egypt throughout the last 6 decades. In 1952, the army led a coup-d’état against the royal family, liberating Egyptians from centuries of a feudal brutal system. Demonstrations spread all over Egypt welcoming the move and cheering the officers. At this point, an informal deal was done between the civil society and the military institution. Since then, only presidents from military background, and who had been supported by the army, led the country.
The terms of this informal deal was an exchange of civil and military interests. This fair deal wasn’t meant to cause any exploitation. On one hand, it seemed like the military institution should achieve the six goals of the revolution (establishing social justice, eradicating the feudal system, liberating the country from the colonizer, etc) and establish a national Arab project as promoted in the 50’s. Moreover, it would perform its regular tasks of defending the nation against the enemy and be ready for war at any time. On the other hand, the army in exchange would be granted enormous resources, whether from foreign aid or from the national budget, without any obligation to declare them or its expenditures. In addition, its personnel would be granted various advantages (the priority of generals as governors, the subsidies for transportation, the obligatory military service, etc.). And last but not least, the mystification and continuous glorifying of the army and its achievements all over the Egyptian history (in school curriculums, media, etc.). This realistic perspective isn’t by any mean a depreciation of the Egyptian army’s great role in Egyptian history as a protector and a liberator. It is just a pragmatic attempt to view things in terms of exchange and benefits.
As mentioned before, since 1952, only presidents from military background led the country. The first was legendary while the second was a liberator and a martyr and finally the third was a developer and a peace keeper. However, he failed to satisfy the needs of the people. For instance, during his last term in office, businessmen took over the government. As the rich minority became richer, the poor became poorer. Throughout the last decade, corruption has been spreading to all sectors till nepotism became the rule and state properties became exploited by the ruling oligarchy. Many catastrophes took place without any decent response from the government. The independence of judges wasn’t respected and constitutional amendments were tailored to make his son a successor to Egypt’s “throne”. Not only did this anger the street, but was also said to have angered many generals. The unlikely fraud of the last legislative elections frustrated people more and more. Many brutal police agents abused their powers, torturing and blackmailing citizens without any action from the government side. The state security department became the attack dog of the regime making Egypt a police state. The former president also kept peace with the hated Israel in a less dignified way than his predecessor who had signed the peace agreement after a huge military victory. Leaked news talked about many army generals being unsatisfied by Mubarak’s policies. As a matter of fact, most Egyptians had the feeling they had lost their dignity both domestically and internationally.
Luckily, the intelligent military council understood the popular desire of cancelling the current social contract, in which they were a part. They choose three delegates to execute their part of the deal. However, there last choice which started as hope for many Egyptians turned out to be an ugly story. Responsibly, they realized it was a huge mistake, and therefore, they accepted the new reality imposed by the street: a fully civil social contract. Despite the ongoing debates and controversies, what Egypt is witnessing now (the constitutional reforms, the technocrat ministry, etc.) is a handing over of power. In exchange, the military institution would probably keep the same privileges it always had. It even renewed its popular credit adding much more to its historic myth in the collective memory.
Other reasons could have been at the origin of this wise military administration of the crisis. On the top of the list: the obligatory military service. The military forces in the streets were mostly composed of the brothers and sons of the demonstrators, who were graduated from universities and schools last year. This made it very hard at any circumstances to open fire. On the contrary, they used extreme violence against escaping prisoners, but not always thugs. A second reason would be the good intentioned moral pressure put on the military shoulders by the civilians’ gestures and shouts. Giving roses to soldiers in front of cameras, cheering for the tanks and crying “The people and the Army are always one hand”, made it hard for soldiers to act brutally. Unlike the state security department, its history has also set criteria under which it can’t act.
One can argue, the main reason for this revolution was the civilizing of the social contract. After decades of disguised military rule, it is time to put on the chairs street men who are chosen directly by the people. But the question remains, would this rupture of the existing hybrid social contract have happened anyway even if Mubarak wasn’t the president? Was Mubarak only a catalyst for a change that would happen sooner or later?
Apart from this negative violent side, one brilliant aspect of this revolution is the symbolism. It carried out two symbolic transfers. The first was the transfer of the value of commemoration of the police day from the police to the people. As the police proved -during these last few years -not to deserve a national celebration, the people stripped them off their day and marked it in history as a day of the Egyptian revolution. The 25th of January would no longer be the police day but the people’s day. The second strand of symbolism concerns the transfer of power and legitimacy from one place to another. This revolution marked the transfer of legitimacy from the presidential palace to the street and precisely to Tahrir square, where a massive sit-in started. The palace didn’t give up easily but this transfer was an inevitable result of such a popular uprising. This rough process was televised and watched worldwide. But while the eyes of the world were on Tahrir Square, the eyes of the Egyptians were on the army and its ruling military council. This latter declared being the protector of constitutional legitimacy with a promise never to conduct any offensive act against the people, to which it has always been the guardian. As the source of legitimacy shifted from the palace to the square, the army didn’t only keep its word of being non offensive to its own people, but also acted as the defender of the people’s revolution. For sociologists, this could be an original moment to study. Because the society witnessed a moment of perfect equilibrium between its members “specialized in violence” and those “specialized in production”. It is also a unique moment because the armed institution responds to the civil calls of rupturing a contract, in which the army was a dominant part. Consequently, it is paving the way to an integrally civil social contract, in which it will no longer be dominant.
In the logic of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the social contract is a deal concluded among the members of the society in which elite is designated to serve and take decisions on behalf of the others in exchange for certain compromises (finance and liberty wise) made by the rest of the society. Generally speaking, we can distinguish between several types of contracts, depending on the nature of counterparts. Dealing with social contracts, I believe we can distinguish between two different types of social contracts. On one hand, a civil social contract; as civilians choose one of them to rule them. On the other hand, a civil-military hybrid social contract where one counterpart is the vast civil society and the second is the military junta. This latter genre of contract was the one approved in Egypt throughout the last 6 decades. In 1952, the army led a coup-d’état against the royal family, liberating Egyptians from centuries of a feudal brutal system. Demonstrations spread all over Egypt welcoming the move and cheering the officers. At this point, an informal deal was done between the civil society and the military institution. Since then, only presidents from military background, and who had been supported by the army, led the country.
The terms of this informal deal was an exchange of civil and military interests. This fair deal wasn’t meant to cause any exploitation. On one hand, it seemed like the military institution should achieve the six goals of the revolution (establishing social justice, eradicating the feudal system, liberating the country from the colonizer, etc) and establish a national Arab project as promoted in the 50’s. Moreover, it would perform its regular tasks of defending the nation against the enemy and be ready for war at any time. On the other hand, the army in exchange would be granted enormous resources, whether from foreign aid or from the national budget, without any obligation to declare them or its expenditures. In addition, its personnel would be granted various advantages (the priority of generals as governors, the subsidies for transportation, the obligatory military service, etc.). And last but not least, the mystification and continuous glorifying of the army and its achievements all over the Egyptian history (in school curriculums, media, etc.). This realistic perspective isn’t by any mean a depreciation of the Egyptian army’s great role in Egyptian history as a protector and a liberator. It is just a pragmatic attempt to view things in terms of exchange and benefits.
As mentioned before, since 1952, only presidents from military background led the country. The first was legendary while the second was a liberator and a martyr and finally the third was a developer and a peace keeper. However, he failed to satisfy the needs of the people. For instance, during his last term in office, businessmen took over the government. As the rich minority became richer, the poor became poorer. Throughout the last decade, corruption has been spreading to all sectors till nepotism became the rule and state properties became exploited by the ruling oligarchy. Many catastrophes took place without any decent response from the government. The independence of judges wasn’t respected and constitutional amendments were tailored to make his son a successor to Egypt’s “throne”. Not only did this anger the street, but was also said to have angered many generals. The unlikely fraud of the last legislative elections frustrated people more and more. Many brutal police agents abused their powers, torturing and blackmailing citizens without any action from the government side. The state security department became the attack dog of the regime making Egypt a police state. The former president also kept peace with the hated Israel in a less dignified way than his predecessor who had signed the peace agreement after a huge military victory. Leaked news talked about many army generals being unsatisfied by Mubarak’s policies. As a matter of fact, most Egyptians had the feeling they had lost their dignity both domestically and internationally.
Luckily, the intelligent military council understood the popular desire of cancelling the current social contract, in which they were a part. They choose three delegates to execute their part of the deal. However, there last choice which started as hope for many Egyptians turned out to be an ugly story. Responsibly, they realized it was a huge mistake, and therefore, they accepted the new reality imposed by the street: a fully civil social contract. Despite the ongoing debates and controversies, what Egypt is witnessing now (the constitutional reforms, the technocrat ministry, etc.) is a handing over of power. In exchange, the military institution would probably keep the same privileges it always had. It even renewed its popular credit adding much more to its historic myth in the collective memory.
Other reasons could have been at the origin of this wise military administration of the crisis. On the top of the list: the obligatory military service. The military forces in the streets were mostly composed of the brothers and sons of the demonstrators, who were graduated from universities and schools last year. This made it very hard at any circumstances to open fire. On the contrary, they used extreme violence against escaping prisoners, but not always thugs. A second reason would be the good intentioned moral pressure put on the military shoulders by the civilians’ gestures and shouts. Giving roses to soldiers in front of cameras, cheering for the tanks and crying “The people and the Army are always one hand”, made it hard for soldiers to act brutally. Unlike the state security department, its history has also set criteria under which it can’t act.
One can argue, the main reason for this revolution was the civilizing of the social contract. After decades of disguised military rule, it is time to put on the chairs street men who are chosen directly by the people. But the question remains, would this rupture of the existing hybrid social contract have happened anyway even if Mubarak wasn’t the president? Was Mubarak only a catalyst for a change that would happen sooner or later?
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
رسالة إلى رئيس الوزراء
كتب في 7 مارس 2011
معالي رئيس الوزراء,
بعد التحية,
في البداية أود أن أتوجه لحضرتكم بخالص الشكر لأنك إن كنت تقرأ هذه الرسالة, فهو دليل على اهتمام حضرتكم بالاستماع للمواطنين. وهو ما افتقرنا اليه لفترة كبيرة من الازدراء لشكاوى ومقترحات الشعب,على السواء, وتهميشها بل وأحيانا التعالي عليها.
وأود أيضا أن أوجه لحضرتك جزيل الشكر على اللفتات التي تقوم بها و التي –رغم بساطتها- لها من المغزى والقيمة الكثير. فخطبة ميدان التحرير وعرض أسماء الوزراء على الفيسبوك قبل حلف اليمين وفتح باب المقترحات وسماع مشاكل المواطنين هي من الأشياء التي جعلت قطاعات كبيرة منا تشعر بقيمتها وأن كراماتها محل احترام سيادتكم. أرجو من حضرتكم الاستمرار في هذا النهج الذي يشعرنا بأنك شخص عادي ممن نصادف في أي مكان أثناء حياتنا اليومية ولم تهبط علينا من كوكب أخر.
لكي لا أطيل على حضرتكم وأستقطع من وقتك الثمين, فإني أتمنى من حضرتك القراءة والتفكير في المقترحات الآتية. وهي عبارة عن بعض الأفكار والمشاريع التي كانت تطرق تفكيري بشكل متواصل. عزفت عن الشروع في تنفيذ بعضها لليأس ورهنت تنفيذ البعض الأخر بعودتي للوطن الحبيب. وذلك لكوني طالب ماجستير أشارف على الانتهاء من دراستي بمعهد الدراسات السياسية (Sciences-Po Aix) في فرنسا.
المقترحات التي أتقدم بها لحضرتكم هي الآتي:
1- تأسيس مركز لتقييم السياسات العامة والحكومية. وهو علم مزدهر في أمريكا وأوروبا, يقوم على منهجيات لقياس كفاءة السياسات المطروحة في مجال معين ومدى تحقيقها لأهدافها وتطابقها مع مبادئ الحكم الرشيد والشفافية, فضلا عن تقييم تكاليفها المادية وفاعليتها. هذه المراكز لا تقوم بدراسات الجدوى ولكنها تقوم بالتقييم المتواصل خلال الفترة الزمنية المقترحة لتطبيق السياسة. من المفترض أن مثل هذا العمل يدخل في اختصاصات مركز دعم القرار التابع لمجلس الوزراء, وفقا لتوصيفه. ولكن وفقا للدراسات المنشورة على موقعه, فهو لم يقم بدراسات لتقييم السياسات العامة (كل ما يؤثرعلى الحياة العامة حتى لو قامت به شركات خاصة أو جمعيات غير حكومية أو مؤوسسات خاصة) والسياسات الحكومية.. بغض النظر عن الدراسات التي اتطلعت عليها والتي تفتقر الى بعض القواعد البحثية الهامة كعلى سبيل المثال استعمال موقع كويكيبديا كمصدر من المصادر –بل أولها- (http://www.idsc.gov.eg/Upload/Documents/213/Corruption.pdf) وغيرها من بعض المشاكل المنهجبة التي تضعف من الأبحاث القيمة. بغض الطرف عن هذا فإن الأهم هوأنه في حالة قيام هذا المجلس بدراسات الجدوى والتقييم في آن واحد فإن هذا يتعارض مع مبادئ الشفافية ويعطي فرصة للفساد لأن الحكم يحكم على أفعاله بنفسه.
خلال فترة دراستي لهذا العلم, فقد أدركت أنه دائم التطور بتقديم علماؤه لتكنيكات ووسائل قياس كيفية وكمية حديثة تساهم في تصحيح مسار السياسات والزيادة من انتاجيتها وهو ما ينعكس بدوره على مراحل صناعة القرار وكذلك على التنفيذ. وأنا متأكد من وجود علماء نوابغ مصريين برعوا فيه سواء داخل أو خارج مصر, ويمكنهم المساهمة في مثل هذا المركز.
2- إدارة / هيئة تحديث الدولة: الدولة المصرية بمؤوسساتها تحتوي على بعض عناصر الترهل وعدم الكفاؤة, خاصة على مستوى الخدمات اليومية للمواطنين وقضاء المصالح. ولذا فمن المهم العمل على تحديث هذا الكيان العظيم من الناحية المؤسسية وتطوير عقيدته وأداؤه سواء على مستوى خدمة المواطنين أو السياسات العامة. بعيدا عن كلام الانشاء, من الممكن العهود لهذه الهيئة بتنقيح القواعد الادارية, التي كثيرا ما يعجز الموظفين أنفسهم عن فهمها أو تقدير أولوياتها. وكذلك يمكن العهود إليها بدور في توحيد أنظمة المحاسبات وإدخال نظم المعلومات والشبكات إلى سائر الهيئات الحكومية وإدخال الأراشيف الرقمية وغيرها من عناصر التطوير والتحديث.
3- إلغاء الحصانة البرلمانية. أعتقد أن من أهم أماكن تزاوج المال والسلطة مجلسي الشعب والشورى الذي كان يتصارع علي مقاعدهما كثير من المرشحين من أجل الحصول على الحصانة. وفي الحقيقة, أنا أعتقد أن في هذا المبدأ الكثير من الظلم وعدم الاستقامة, رغم اعتماده في كثير من دول العالم. ففكرة أن ممثل الشعب يفضل عن الشعب ويعصم عن المحاسبة بهذه الطريقة تنتفي مع مبادئ العدل. ولذا أقترح على حضرتك العمل على إلغاؤها على مستوى الوزارات غير السيادية ونواب غرفتي البرلمان. فبذلك يمكن تصفية راغبي الترشح من الانتهازيين والفسدة ويدرك الجميع أن نيابة الشعب في البرلمان خدمة وتضحية وليست ميزة ومكافأة.
4- مرصد الأداء البرلماني. هو مركز خاص لتقييم أداء البرلمانيين بشكل خاص والمجلس بشكل عام. أرى أن دوره ينبغي أن يكون رصد وتقييم وتحليل والاهتمام بمدى مشاركة النواب في الجلسات وعملهم من أجل دائرتهم خارج الجلسات. وكذلك عمل تصنيف للقضايا المثارة ومشاريع القوانين وتحليل للخطاب ودور المجلس بشكل عام في مرحلة زمنية معينة, غالبا ما تكون الدورة البرلمانية. بالطبع أتفهم لو أن حضرتكم وجدتم أن هذا المقترح يخص أكثر المجتمع المدني من الجكومة ولكني أيضا فضلت طرحه على حضرتكم, عسى تنفيذه قد يكون ممكنا ومفيدا.
5- أكاديمية إعداد للعاملين بالمحليات في إطار تطبيق اللامركزية. في ظل الاتجاهات العالمية للامركزية والتي بدأت منذ ثمانينيات القرن الماضي, عكفت الحكومات المتوالية في مصر على انتهاج هذا النهج بكل مميزاته ومساؤه. أنا لا أعرف موقف حضرتكم من الامركزية ولكني سأظل أقدم الاقتراح. عانت المحليات في مصر في الفترة السابقة من الفساد الرهيب مما جعلها تستحق اللقب الصحفي "مافيا المحليات". ومع الشروع في اللامركزية (سواء بالاعتراف بها في القوانين و الدستور أو على المستوى التنفيذي), يمنح الأفراد القائمين عليها استقلالية أكبر في التعامل مع الموارد المالية من أجل تحقيق كفاؤة أعلى في بناء الخدمات والاستجابة للمطالب المحلية. إلا أن مرحلة الانتقال والتحول من المركزية للامركزية شهدت كوارث ادارية ومالية فادحة في الدول المتقدمة والنامية على السواء. وبناءا على دراستي للحالة الفرنسية, فكثير من المشاكل كان نابع من عدم الاحترافية أكثر منه الفساد. فكان عدم تدرب العاملين والمرشحين المحليين سابقا على الادارة المستقلة وجهلهم بالقواعد الأساسية للمالية وقوانين المحليات هو أكبر سبب في حدوث مشاكل كبيرة عند تطبيق اللامركزية. وهو ما حذا بالدول الساعية للامركزية بانشاء أكاديميات خاصة للعاملين وراغبي العمل في المحليات. فلا يمكن لمن تعود أن تملي عليه الدولة كل صغيرة وكبيرة أن يدير موارد بشكل مستقل بكفاؤة. وهو ما تكشفه هيئات مكافحة إهدار المال العام والفساد بعد فوات الأوان.
6- رغم أن ربنا والحمدلله لم يبتلينا بحرب أهلية إلا أن نصيبنا من مشاكل كالاعتقال والتعذيب ليس بقليل.وللأسف لهذه المشاكل أثر دائم على ضحاياها يطول من حولهم وقد يصل إلى مقت الوطن بأكمله وبالتالي المشاركة في الاضرار بمصالحه. ونتيجة لبشاعة مثل هذه التجارب كما يرويها أصحابها (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCGulTRsfEY) فأقترح على حضرتكم عمل لجنة قومية لإعادة تأهيل وإدماج هؤلاء الضحايا ومنحهم مميزات تعويضية عن تجاربهم السابقة كالتأهيل النفسي والمهني ومحاولة ادماجهم في وظائف مع استكمال المتابعة النفسية. لقد عاينت مثل هذه التجربة مؤخرا أثناء بحث ميداني قمت به في جنوب السودان وأدركت مدى أهميته للجنود السابقين والضحايا على السواء.
لقد أنتهيت من المقترحات ولكن لي رجاء عند حضرتك رجاءا أخيرا وهو توصيل رسالة صغيرة للمجلس الأعلى للقوات المسلحة. وهي أني أهيب به, كما يهيب بشباب مصر دائما, التسارع في أخذ ردود الأفعال الواضحة الصارمة المعلنة, ليس فقط على الصعيد الأمني ضد البلطجية ولكن ضد ذيول الفساد من مؤوسسات الدولة ورجالها السابقين وكذلك أبناء الشعب. لأن تباطؤه ولواعانه في بعض الأحيان لا يثير الشك ويقسم الصفوف فحسب بل يترك فراغ يملؤه الفوضوين ومشوهي الثورة والخارجين عن القانون, وكله تحت اسم وعباءة الثورة. فهذه الثورة, التي تابعتها منذ أولى ساعتها والتحقت بها في أسبوعها الثاني, لم تقم ليتصدرها مثل هذه المظاهر (http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dl31CZ-Okfvw ) وإني أكاد أجزم أنه ليعزعلى نفس أي وطني عاقل, وعلى رأسهم سيادتكم, أن تشوبها مثل هذه التجاوزات.
سأكون ممنونا لو أعلمتني بوصول الرسالة, حتى ولو لم ينفذ من المقترحات أي شئ.
أتوجه لحضرتك بجزيل الشكر وأتمنى لك كل التوفيق في العبور بمصر من شاطئ المتطلعين للتقدم إلى شاطئ المتقدمين فعلا.
أحمد حسن أبوطالب
طالب ماجستير بمعهد الدراسات السياسية في فرنسا(Sciences Po Aix)
Friday, March 4, 2011
Ezay? (How could you?)
Lyrics How (Why)? by Mohamed Munir
How to make you happy with me, dear? Your name is beloved but you continue to upset me. How can you not feel my basic goodness?
I don't feel in your love any reason (impulse) Nor does my truth in loving you console me How is it I raise your head and you put me down?
I am your oldest street I am your hopes better than those that abuse you I am a child dependent on you Lost in the middle of the road/ life.
If love of you was my choice My heart would long ago have changed you for another But I vow I will continue to change your life for the better Till you are content with me.
How can (why do) you leave me in weakness? Why are you not standing at my side? I live my life in this condition so I don't have to see fear in your eyes. On your land and sea, how can I protect your back While sleeping with my own back exposed, humiliated and embarrassed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)