stable state

Liberal presumptions re Egypt offer textbook examples of “logocentrism,” but in this world one book bounces against another.

William Partlett (@WPartlett) points to Mohamed Ibrahim’s offer of support for the proposed Egyptian Constitution: “yes for stability and sharia.” The “stability arg[ument] has worked throughout history,” says Partlett. Other observers concur, though with varying degrees of approval of what they deem the likely near-term course of Egyptian events.

The reason the “arg” has worked is that “achieving stability” and “forming a state” are two different expressions for the same thing. The words “stability” and “state” refer us to the Indo-European “sta-,” the phoneme in “stand,” “status,” “statement,” “structure,” and “strategy.” This deep etymology is a visit to the roots of Western and so-called Near Eastern languages that is simultaneously a visit to the roots of civilization, the historical form of the same essential process of “seeking the foundation of the state” ((…a seeking of the foundation of foundation and the legitimization of legitimacy)). The “sta-” will, for instance, re-appear in whatever next observations ((For that matter, the sta– re-appears in “for instance,” too.)) we might wish to make as to how different sides in the Egyptian debate under-st-and the st-ate, in the st-ruggle to con-st-ruct the st-atutes that would e-st-ablish and con-st-itute a st-able one.

These critical terms appear to be in flux for Egyptians and for ourselves observing Egypt: Such is the nature of “in-st-ability.” If everyone already recognized or was prepared to recognize the state in the same way, as states recognize a new state in international law, or according to the precepts of Western liberal democracy or according to the precepts of Islamist democracy, or according to some of the precepts of one or the other in some adequately intellectually as well as functionally st-able melange, there would be no instability, by definition: The st-ate would already be “con-st-ituted” in fact, and constitution-writing would be easy, if not a mere formality, or, to extend the lexical redundancies even further, all would understand “the state” in its actual “state” as “stably” “constituted” and “e-st-ablished.”

The stability of the state would be established, the establishment would be constituted, the status of the constituted establishment would be understood, and so on: The point of the word game is not to make an absurdity of Egyptian difficulties – since the decision on the state will directly affect the lives of millions as whatever new stability or Egyptian state of things emerges. The state is not just the government. The struggle is properly understood to be over the very possibilities, the shape down to the day to day experiences, critical decisions, greatest dangers and highest aspirations of life. That also means or should remind us that the “state” and the “stability” in question will far exceed, but also must precede, its merely written constitution.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

2 comments on “stable state

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. No, it means nothing of the kind, and we’re not going back to the tradition of consultation as Bernard Lewis, described in Ottoman times, you agree that Sharia is the objective, ‘welcome to the party, pal,’

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins