Hossam Badrawi Official Website
Since I like learning all the time, and I analyze the past and the present to see the future, I am sharing you the Philosophy of Half in ruling the country.
Every regime has advantages and disadvantages that we see and know. Despite we do not support dictatorship, it has advantages sometimes. Despite we call for democracy, it has disadvantages sometimes. Dictatorship might lead the country in backwardness through a shortcut sometimes. Democracy can make the majority of ignorance chooses the worst of society or do not offer taking significant actions that could be in line with the moment majority, but it can serve the country’s future more.
Let us consider the example of Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and China’s rulers in their mighty economic revival, Kamal Ataturk in Turkey. I dare to say the example of Adolf Hitler in Germany post-WWI, before the madness of WWII.
If we take examples from our region, Gamal Abdel Nasser was a dictator. However, his fans, and even those who suffered or were imprisoned in his era, still praise his achievements, in Egypt and outside. Habib Bourguiba was a dictator, but he did a great civilizational shift in his country to woman’s rights, education, etc.
The reign of most dictators ended with a disaster or disorder. Reforms of a few of them sustained in their countries.
Mahathir Mohamad, the legend of Malaysia, was not a democratic ruler in the sense we currently call for. Mohamad was more like a fair dictator who takes fair swift national decisions, disregarding his opposers inside and outside his government.
Mahathir built the Malaysian economy by determination, security control and providing a growth promoting investing environment. He forced all Malaysians to be patient for a few years of hardship, until their country became an irresistible Asian tiger on the world map. If Mahathir, who ruled for 22 consecutive years, were democratic as we seek now, he would not be able to transform his country to what it is now.
Singapore came to existence as an independent country only in 1965. Could it have reached what it is now without its founder Lee Kuan Yew? He said, “Countries start with education. This is what I started when I assumed the office in a very poor country. I gave attention to economy more than to politics and to education more than to regime. I have built schools and universities, sent youth abroad to learn and then benefitted from their studies to develop the Singaporean in-house. Singapore continued achieving its distinguished economic growth. Since early 1980, it was able reduce the unemployment to 3%, GDP increased from 7bn USD in 1965 to 87bn USD in 2000. Per capita income increased from 435 USD to 30,000 USD per annum, during the same period.
Was what has been done in China in the modern era possible within a democratic context that would allow backwardness to continue because it was a majority, or ignorance to prevent technological advancement because it did not know it? Would China, which daily national income exceeds the United States’, grow and invest within a formal equality that makes the entire country poor and opposes the ruling party’s decisions that would have never been taken in a western democratic atmosphere?!
Absolutely not.
Yew was a dictator in many actions, but he led his country to welfare and growth. Mahathir was a dictator when he prevented multiple minorities from clashing to focus on development, when he imposed teaching technology and science in English, despite the opposition’s refuse, and other examples.
Of course, I am not calling for dictatorship, but I observe the events.
Does dictatorship have advantages sometimes, especially in the countries where corruption, poverty, slums and scientific underdevelopment are rampant, as they simply represent the majority that votes against change and wants the conditions to remain as are, despite they complain about it, because they do not have a vision for the future?
Does democracy have disadvantages, especially in the absence of rule of law, widespread of controversy and every discussion ends with no decision and no direction? Yes.
Without strict application of law, I cannot see a building or district association, local council or department council in a university capable of taking a decision and imposing it on others, but rather a division, and, more likely but for a few, all hover in the middle.
After January revolution, we witnessed an increase in the number of the unemployed in the state, under the stress that the street is against the nation interest, in hypocrisy or fear of minorities revolting or threating in the name of democracy.
We took the side of keeping the public sector that loses billions, refused domestic and foreigner investment and creating job opportunities under the slogan of protecting the poor and we had a middle position in the name of democracy.
The state says that it promotes the private sector. Everyone that works in the private sector suffers delaying his/her business or taking his rights, and media consider his profits a punishable theft.
We were not capable of changing the education system in favor of our future or prevent the corruption in its administrations for mo excuses but difficulty of harming interests of some, fearing of facing the quavering who fears change, despite their complaining about the reality. We are in-between. We say but we do not do. We call for education priority but hinder its development, fearing to prejudice some people’s rights.
Could Mubarak, with all his extensive powers, eliminate slums, reform education, extend medical care network, eradicate corruption and improve Al Azhar, despite any opposition? Yes.
Could Abdel Nasser and his successors fully and gradually apply democracy with strong and unselective enforcement of the law for the citizens’ benefit, intervene, when necessary, in order not to hypocrite the people in other than their interest, so we could enjoy its advantages? Definitely yes.
In an attempt to satisfy everyone, we chose half democracy that makes it impossible to take any decision. The result was everyone’s anger.
We were satisfied with half democracy and half dictatorship. Hence, we did not benefit from either.
As Gibran Khalil Gibran said, freely quoted by me:
“Do not love half lovers. Do not entertain half friends. Do not indulge in works of the half talented. Do not live half a life and do not die a half death. Do not choose half a solution. Do not believe half truths. Do not dream half a dream. Do not fantasize about half hopes. If you choose silence, then be silent to the end. When you speak, do so until you are finished. Do not silence yourself to say something and do not speak to be silent. If you accept, then express it bluntly. Do not pretend to have a half acceptance. If you refuse, express your refusal, for a half refusal is acceptance. Half a life is a life you did not live, A word you have not said, a smile you postponed, a love you have not had, a friendship you did not know. A half is what makes you a stranger.
A half is to reach and not arrive, work and not work, absent to be attending. It is you when you are not, for you did not know who you are.
Half the way will get you nowhere. Half an idea will bear you no results, the half is a mere moment of inability, but you are able, for you are not half a human; you are a human that exists to live a life, not half a life.”
So, are we ready to make a choice, ready for political determination that serves economy? Or do we want a half opening and a half closing?
Do we want a strong job opportunities-creating private sector? Or a public sector controlled by the state and its organs? Or a half of this and a half of that?
Do we want to eradicate poverty and be wealthy, or do we want to be equally poor, since we are in-between?
Do we want a strong secular society and sustainable NGOs that support and grow, or do we come up with legislations that kill them in their cradle and prevent them under the claim of security?
We are in-between, we want and we do not want.
Are we a secular or religious state? All incidents in front of me say we are in-between. We are neither a religious state in its full meaning nor a secular state in its full meaning that prevents religion and clergy from interfering in politics. We are in-between. We get the religion control over politics without declaring it. We call for citizenship while our actions have an absurd discrimination among citizens that differ in religion. We do not accept anyone that dares to say otherwise. We are in-between.
Do we want to reward the committed capable manufacturer or do we want to favor everyone and divide profits to those who do not earn, work and excel? We are in-between.
Do we really want tourism or do we need tourists we choose according to our mood that accept our bad treatment to them, even if it is for their protection, as we want them and don not want them at the same time?
The country that owns the treasures of the earth, which history is taught to all the world children, in order to be touristic, does not leave itself in the hands of beggars and those controlling its touristic places, but makes a choice and does not stand in-between.
Do we want a reform in education or hypocrisy to stakeholders?
No matter how the good intention and patriotism are, a half is slackness, idleness and not going in a direction; it destroys everything.
Let the government say its word, declare and implement economy, development, education, health, services, rights and reform. Let it declare its purpose and what it deserves, and take a side despite some will be angry and some will disagree and not getting absolute majority.
Do not stand in-between, so we will not get the advantage of dictatorship, but all its sins, or the advantage of democracy, but its malfunctions in taking decisions that can lead us through the tunnel of ignorance, poverty and disease.
Half is useless to the country now.
