A short story about the Russian soul

“From the southern seas to the polar lands
Spread are our forests and fields.
You are unique in the world, one of a kind –
Native land protected by God!”

(Excerpt from the national anthem of Russia)

During its history Russia has seen turmoil, upheaval, wars, revolutions, pain and suffering that is almost unfathomable to a western observer. Yet after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 there was hope that democracy may take a firm hold and at long last the people who live in the vast country stretching from Saint Petersburg to Vladivostok would be able to enjoy the benefits of open elections, free press, right to express their opinion and achieve their dream for peace and prosperity.

The announcement made by Dmitry Medvedev at the congress of the ruling “United Russia” on September 24^th, 2011 to propose Vladimir Putin (current prime minister and former head of state for two consecutive terms) as a party candidate at the upcoming presidential elections in March 2012 effectively shattered those dreams and ended even the slightest hope for democracy. What is even more disquieting is the statement made by Mr. Putin that he and Medvedev have agreed “years back” on a power swap at the end of the term of the current president. One can’t help but wonder what else they may have agreed upon and why such a pact has not been discussed publicly as it would be normal in a functioning democracy. As it seems democracy as such has fallen off the agenda in Moscow and Vladimir Putin is essentially solidifying his grasp on power (some predict that legally he can be a president until 2024 based on the current constitution). It seems that the rest of the world is simply myopically watching as a bystander the events occurring in Moscow without understanding that what happens in Russia will have a dramatic effect on the other countries in the region, which have always been under heavy Russian influence-both cultural and political and who may see the Vladimir Putin model of authoritarianism as something they can mimic in their respective areas. Studying and getting a better grasp of Russia therefore may prove beneficial for the world to plan accordingly for the years to come.

Many have tried (unsuccessfully) to understand Russia and its people. Former president George Bush even once said after his meeting with Vladimir Putin: “I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” (BBC News, June 16^th, 2001). This statement could not have been farther from reality. As a matter of fact it sounds hilarious and preposterous to those of us who have grown to be part of the Russian people and culture. The truth is, it is next to impossible to see trough a Russian soul at a first glance. After centuries of oppression, serfdom, forced relocations, lack of freedom and heavy-handed approach by its rulers, the Russian soul is hidden deep inside where no one can ever penetrate.

In order to understand it one needs to learn the language, read Chekhov, Pushkin and Dostoyevsky, be accepted as “a Russian” as the humble author of this article was. Chekhov’s magnum opus “Three sisters” for instance offers an interesting insight into the Russian soul. Just like the main characters in the play dreamed all their lives of a better future but never really achieved it and became mired in a dull life, that’s how many Russian ordinary citizens feel-freedom is elusive as authoritarian rulers always seem to have their own agenda that doesn’t include liberty and democracy.

Another approach to understand Russia and its soul would be to study its history as it shows a pattern that repeats itself century after century.

The first Russian state appeared in the 9^th century-the so called Kievan Rus. In 988 it adopted Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire and that fact has had dramatic consequences on the way the Russian society developed. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow claimed the title of “Third Rome”, essentially picking up the torch as an Eastern Orthodox defender from the fallen Byzantine. In the following centuries the Russian tsars proclaimed their messianic purpose-to defend Orthodoxy and along with that stand as a bulwark against any hostile invader. They did just that-it may have been the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Napoleon, the Ottoman Empire or Germany, they tenaciously defended their land and expanded it majestically across Europe and Asia. The Russian rulers developed almost sacred aura-even their title “tsar” originated from the Roman “Caesar” meaning the ultimate autocrat sent from God.  The communist leaders that followed the tsars actually continued the pattern of becoming “revered” and claiming that their rule was infinite and untouchable.

After the self implosion of the Soviet Union there appeared to be a glimpse of hope as elections were held and the press was freed from any communist shackles. The economy however collapsed and people went months without getting paid. In the mean time some wily (well connected) oligarchs managed to privatize large portions of the Russian oil and raw materials industry and became billionaires almost overnight. The corruption was omnipresent and the mafia took firm hold of any profitable business activity.

When the transition of power between Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin- a former KGB officer occurred in 1999, the people were ready for a change. Mr. Putin gave them just that even though he himself was probed for possible corruption in the 90’s he appealed to the voters as a tough talking politician who meant business. Under his guidance the economy grew at a rate of average 7% a year, the GDP rose from 24.8 trillions of rubles to 39.6 trillions of rubles. He introduced tax reforms that helped business attract foreign direct investment and in doing so generate jobs and higher salaries. He did however introduced a system which relied on friendly oligarchs and destruction of hostile ones-as was the case with the Russia’s richest man at the time-Michail Khodorkovsky, president of YUKOS. Additionally Mr. Putin slowly put a lid on freedom of press in order to ensure benevolent reports on his rule. It seemed that Mr. Putin was becoming a “tsar” of his own right and building an empire again based on economic and political allegiance to him and his “party” United Russia.

When his two terms in office ended, he handpicked Dmitry Medvedev as a successor. Rumor had it that there must have been a secret arrangement between those two so Mr. Putin will remain in power, but no one was the wiser until the infamous congress of United Russia on September 24^th of this year.

All this comes to show that Russia has a complex soul that can’t be fathomed easily or with simplistic approaches. More importantly the influence of its rich culture and language is still rather substantial in the former Soviet republics. I can attest to that as during business meetings in Washington with representatives of countries like Uzbekistan or Azerbaijan it was curious that we reached agreements only after we switched to speaking Russian, even though those states have been independent for some time.

I can see that the world has become a less safe or predictable place nowadays. Once in 1992 Francis Fuquyama wrote the book “The end of history and the last man” which stipulated that after the fall of communism and the end of the cold war history essentially ended as there was nothing left to fight over. It seems that history didn’t end it just repeated itself as in the case of Russia. A new “tsar” has emerged and the future seems divided and antagonistic as it has been since times immemorial.

What I do also know is that my heart is Russian and it will always bleed with the struggles of the people to throw off the chains of authoritarianism and dictatorship that have plagued them century after century. It has been a great honor to become part of the Russian culture and understand the Russian indigenous soul when so many others have failed. This I consider the greatest achievement that there ever could be. I will always hope that the “three sisters” as in Chekhov’s literary work who represent the Russian society will rise one day and stand up to the challenge of proving to the world that even a country as vast could be a democracy.

To all Russian people in the world: a sincere “Thank you” for letting me be one of you and Godspeed!

Why is the Arab Spring not reaching Belorus?

When I think about Belorus I can’t help but refer to an episode of a popular TV show of late-Seinfeld. There is a line between the two main characters Jerry and George when discussing what their work was going to be about. George answered to Jerry: “Nothing, the show is about absolutely nothing”.

The recent political developments in Belorus bear a resemblance of the abovementioned line as stalemate and lack of any kind of change has described the country’s political landscape for the last seventeen years(or it is about “nothing” in George’s words” so to speak).

Yet the world has witnessed an amazing array of grass root revolutions as the ones that occurred in Tunisia, Egypt and currently in Syria to name a few.  It is mind boggling as to how it is possible for so many dictatorial regimes to be overthrown in a matter of weeks by their discontent respective populations and a country like Belorus to be still mired in a dead end politics concocted by its heavy handed and erratic president of seventeen years Mr. Lukashenko.

I have even tried to ask people born in Belorus what their vision is as to why the country wouldn’t move towards democracy and progressive development and I have always received a lukewarm response that: “the state and the people there aren’t ready for a change”. This prompted me to study it in depth and see if there is any reasonable answer to its current predicament.

World history shows that nation building follows a pattern that involves creation of educational, cultural, religious, economic and ultimately political institutions that all when put together form the foundations of a state. The order in which those institutions develop naturally differs from one country to another but as a rule they all contribute to the functionality of any given polity. The success of a nation building process is often affected by the determination of a population to participate and support willingly the formation of cultural, educational or political institutions that represent the state. If we take Bulgaria for example its history reveals some interesting steps that are an indelible part of a nation building. In the 19^th century, long before it gained independence from Turkey the Bulgarian population developed its own schools where the classes were taught in Bulgarian. Additionally it worked towards creation of its own church which resulted in the initiation of the Bulgarian autonomous “Echsarchy”(a form of self governing church body based in Constantinople and separate from the Greek Patriarch). When the independence movement started under the leadership of the national hero Vasil Levsky who developed a network of grass root revolutionary committees that were active participants in the struggle against Turkish rule, the Bulgarian population reached a point of awareness of being part of nation and it was just a matter of time when the goal of creation of a state would be achieved. This explains to a large extent the quick pace with which Bulgaria was able to form an army, parliament and government structure after the Russo-Turkish war in 1877-1878 which resulted in the formation of a Bulgarian state.

 Belorus on the other hand has largely lacked, due to various historical reasons, a popular national movement that would lead naturally to the formation of cultural, educational or political indigenous Belorussian institutions.  In the Middle Ages it was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which led to a distinctive culture gravitating to Vilnus as its land was a portion of the Lithuanian section of the state.  Following the final partition of Poland in 1795 it became largely part of the Russian Empire. The national policy of Pan-Slavism that developed in Russia created an atmosphere of general russification of all conquered lands. Belorus was considered the inferior partner in the empire and no outlets of Belorussian culture were allowed. That is the time when Belorus started to russify itself so to speak to the point of no distinction between the people living in Minsk or Moscow.

Yet at the end of the 19^th century and beginning of the 20^th century there were signs of Belorussian revival. The newspaper “Nasha Niva” published in Vilnius in Belorussian language had writers like Uladzimir Zylka, Zmitrok Biadula and Maxim Haretsky contributing to the development of a Belorussian self awareness.

Ultimately Belorus was split between Poland and the Soviet Union after the World War I. Historically it turned out that its population has always been affected by the will of some major neighboring power that would impose its own vision and strategy.

After World War II Belorus was incorporated into the Soviet Union. The official policy was to suppress any irredentist behavior and promote the “Russian” language and feeling of belonging to a “superior” culture-namely the one coming from Moscow. The Belorussian language as such became almost extinct in a way-it was an oddity, a feature of the folklore or the past never to return.

When independence came in 1991 it was a total surprise for the general population. It was something that just happened due to the fact that the Soviet Union disintegrated. No one in Belorus had any idea prior to that fact that they would be forced to form an independent country and be separate from the mighty Russian neighbor.

The country of Belorus had to start from scratch building some form of statehood and promoting a Belorussian identity for the first time in hundreds of years. When Mr. Lukashenko came into power in 1994 the general population gave a sigh of relief-finally there was a strong person who would surely guide everyone to prosperity. What occurred though was a steady establishment of a dictatorial regime. The authoritarian president showed signs over the years of being pro-Russian, then pro-West, ultimately he switched back and forth until he confused everybody in the international community. He preserved the state nature of the main factories and businesses in order to maintain a firm grip on the economy. He developed a populist approach in order to keep the general populace happy-for instance he increased the public service employees’ salaries by 50% right before the “elections” in 2010. Yet he took all that added wealth back in 2011 (after the elections) by devaluing the Belorussian ruble (the national currency) by almost 50% which wiped out the savings of the working class. For instance as of May 25^th the ruble was trading 4930 rubles per dollar as opposed to the previous 3155. The perceived value of the local currency is considerably lower however-on the black market it takes 6000 rubles to buy a dollar.

Additionally Mr. Lukashenko jailed all responsible for the protests after his “overwhelming” victory in the presidential elections last year, which were considered mired by fraud by all independent organizations monitoring them. For instance Nikolai Statkevich, Dmitry Uss and Andrei Sannikov all received various prison sentences for participating in unsanctioned demonstrations against the current strongman of Belorus.

The opposition as such is facing an uphill battle due to its lack of reasonable ideas as to what the future after Lukashenko would be.  Additionally they are failing to capture the momentum of general discontent with the detrimental economic policy established so far as well as to utilize the resources available online as Facebook, Tweeter, etc. As the revolutions in the Arab world showed people like Wael Gonim (the Google representative in Egypt) played a major role in inspiring the population to revolt against the dictatorship. Basically the public used Facebook to update each other when there will be a demonstration and what it would be about. The opposition in Belorus so far has been unable to utilize that great source of information to its full extent.

When studying the historic evolvement of Belorus as a nation in retrospect one can’t help but notice that it hasn’t reached the maturity necessary to develop a viable and stable democracy yet. However the very fact that there are people opposing the regime at this time shows that sooner or later an uprising similar to the one that occurred in the Arab world will happen. The nation of Belous may seem supine and lethargic at the moment but this is only calm before the storm.

In closing I would like to quote to all Belorussians in the world a line from the United States Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

The truth is that the right for liberty and natural strife for happiness is so overwhelmingly important for the functionality of any society that no one, not Lukashenko, or Saddam Hussein, or Bashar Assad, or Hosni Mubarak can take it away from its subordinate populations. Sooner or later freedom will prevail and the people of a proud country like Belorus will be able to establish a viable and flourishing democracy. The Belorussian equivalent of Vassil Levsky (the Bulgarian revolutionary) or Wael Gonim (the Egyptian) will surely appear at some point and lead the nation to a revolt against the dictatorship. Let’s hope that this time will come to Minsk sooner rather than later.

Case study-"what justifies the use of force in world affairs?”

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

History bears many an example of schools of thought attempting to find the ultimate solution how to end the use of force in international relations. The works of authors like De Saint-Pierre, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham go as far as suggesting “Perpetual Peace” as the panacea that could cure all ills that exist in the way states relate to each other. Their idealism notwithstanding the world has and still is experiencing military conflicts of different varieties that are being fought for large range of reasons as the current events in the Middle East show. It would be interesting to reflect on the driving force behind nations’ decision making process to participate in a conflict in one part of the world and not the other.

Military intervention usually led by a coalition of forces has occurred in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Libya. The overwhelming reason has been to protect civilian lives from the abuse of rogue dictators, to prevent ethnic cleansing or to oust religious fanatics from causing harm. This seems to be a valid casus belli for the international community to interfere. Yet places like Rwanda, Congo and Zimbabwe have also experienced severe conflicts and loss of lives of civilians without substantial military engagement by the rest of the world.

The reality is that the international society is experiencing changes on its path to maturity not seen since the French Revolution which reverberated in the hearts and minds of people for generations. For years and years in the 20^th century the predominant doctrine in international relations has been the idea of non-interference in any country’s internal affairs irrespective how corrupt or dictatorial its leadership could be. During the Cold War many undemocratic regimes survived due to the fact that they could always lean on one of the super powers in exchange for political “favors”.  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the process of democratization that ensued in Eastern Europe and Asia however brought a completely new set of realities that found the repressive regimes unprepared. Suddenly it was clear that they were no longer at liberty to oppress their respective populations or to prevent them from seeking freedom of speech and independence as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Additionally erratic dictators like Saddam Hussein found out the hard way that the international community was no longer indifferent to his megalomaniac and disastrous war mongering and usage of brutal force to suppress dissent. What happened in Iraq (the controversial claim for weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding) and the riddance of a brutal dictator caused an unprecedented ripple effect in the whole region. In the years to follow the young population of the Middle East became more restive as the citizens realized that it was possible for dictators to fall. The eventual uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya rubberstamped the new reality in international order-oppression is no longer safe from international condemnation that could include force at times to protect the people’s struggle for freedom.

There are several factors that seem to influence countries to interfere when making decisions for the use of force against a brutal dictatorial regime. Libya for instance is a clear case of an erratic dictator that has caused a tremendous hardship for its people and the world for over 41 years. Additionally the Arab League played a major role in condemning Moammar Qadhafi’s actions to use brutal force against its own population. The participation of regional states as Qatar in the international effort against the Libyan regime is a clear sign of the new reality in the Middle East and its evolution from a rigid and intransigent block of undemocratic countries to a slow but steady liberalization in the making.

The reason behind the international community decision to act against a brutal dictator seems to be the existence of clearly defined goals of the population to achieve freedom. Here lies the difference between the conflicts in Somalia or Congo where it was difficult to determine which faction was fighting against whom and for what reason, and countries like Libya or Kosovo where it was rather obvious for the independent observer to see long time dictators fighting to suppress people’s natural desire for freedom.

The current events in the Middle East are just the start of the new development and evolution of the way the international community handles conflicts. What is certain is that the old status quo is gone forever and dictators across the globe are no longer safe when trying to suppress people's free will. Only countries that adapt quickly to the new reality in world affairs will prosper and reach stability. It is possible that during this process of evolution and steady democratization the world will finally achieve the goal set by De Saint Pierre, Rousseau and Immanuel Kant-namely the coveted “Perpetual Peace”.

  

Case Study-Bulgaria and Lebanon: "Communitarian and Civic Humanistic approach"

The communitarian theory has evolved over the years as a philosophy which places community and social values as the driving forces behind a developed society.  Authors as Charles Taylor, Alasdair Macintyre and Amitai Etzioni looked into classical republicanism and civic humanism for inspiration in expanding on a theory that individual life and liberty can only prosper within strong and vibrant communities which as a rule take into consideration and are responsive to shared social values.

Central to communitarian school of thought is the idea of “positive rights” which are guarantees for access to a “common good” which could be for instance education, housing, health care, safe and secure environment, etc.  A wide spread objection to that thought is that by focusing on the citizen’s positive rights it is possible to infringe on people’s “negative rights” namely rights to “not” have something done for you. The ongoing discussion about the idea of universal health care is a perfect example of the controversy in having something as individuals’ participation in health care being regulated by the government. Yet it could be argued that having access to affordable health care is so important for the vitality of any society that it could be perceived as something that an elected government could potentially participate in and play a major role in to insure fairness and broad accessibility.

There is an interesting link between the aforementioned communitarian ideas and the thoughts expressed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his magnum opus “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on Inequality”.  The philosopher of the 18^th century states that man must enter into a “social contract” with others in order to achieve the highest levels of societal development. He argues that every human being will be naturally “free” if it forfeits the same amount of freedom for the sake of the community and share certain moral “duties” in order to be part of a successful establishment. The idea is that by sharing strong common will, the group receives each individual as part of the indelible whole.

There are numerous examples of challenges that new democracies are facing due to their lack of shared common moral values and a balance between positive and negative rights in the society as such. For the purpose of this study I would like to focus on Bulgaria and Lebanon as two countries with very different cultures and yet rather distinguished problems in the very nature and functionality of their political systems when analyzed in line of the communitarian school of thought.

During its communist past Bulgaria was a typical example of a country governed by a totalitarian regime that imposed severe restrictions on any perceivable rights the population may have. Even such trivial matters as relocation from one town to another had to be approved by the government authorities. No one was allowed to express any type of a dissenting opinion to the official communist party line. After the regime change in 1989 there was a dramatic reversal of the way people lived their lives.  Interestingly enough the common thought, that became wide spread, was that  liberty meant not paying attention to any type of restrictions that a society would normally impose on its members, for instance respect for others’ ideas and property, being polite and caring. Even criminal behavior became something to be proud of as the society was looking for new ways to live well. The fact is that the people in their search for new values, supposedly opposite to the totalitarian regime, lost touch with some very basic humanistic ideas of behavior. They started to forget that any society requires certain level of morality in order to be successful. For instance general denouncement of vices as theft, robbery, murder, corruption, taking advantage of the weak in order to achieve material gains are rather  symptomatic of a harmonious society. The years after 1989 in Bulgaria were rather emblematic of the general decay of the very moral values that had sustained the nation during so many challenging moments in its history. The lack thereof of any shared humanistic vision of the people could explain the country’s difficulties in reaching the type of society that would be considered developed. There is a common misconception that Bulgarians have lost their “human” features due to poverty. I tend to disagree wholeheartedly. Being poor, is not a sin by any means. It also can’t be used as an “excuse” for failures.  I would like to give an example of the community I currently reside in. It’s located deep in the mountains of Western North Carolina-the Appalachian region that is considered one of the poorest in the nation. Yet the people are polite and friendly and they wave at each other when passing on the road! That comes to show that poverty by itself is not the reason for lack of manners or propensity for crime. I would never forget an episode from one of my travels to Bulgaria when a taxi driver in Sofia was openly bragging about his opportunity to swindle diesel fuel from his "day" job in the railways and use it for his "moonlight" occupation as a cab driver later. He had no moral trepidations that what he was doing was theft whatsoever. As a matter of fact he sounded quite proud of his resourceful scheme! The reason people in Bulgaria feel “unsuccessful” and deprived of opportunities is in their general failure to adhere to basic common moral values that could be established as essential to the very existence of the society as such. Only after agreeing on a “Social Contract” within the society would Bulgaria or any country for that matter reach a level of development that would allow its people to feel “prosperous” in moral terms, which would eventually lead to financial gains as well. What the politicians of the post-communist Bulgaria will be held responsible for, is not their plunge into blatant corruption and helping establish a culture of cynicism into the country, but for their failure to encourage the population to reach a basic “Social Contract” of shared moral values that would lead to a strong and prosperous society in the long run.

Another example of a country failing in its political development in terms of civic humanism and communitarianism is Lebanon. It is an example of a “contract” gone wrong when focusing on “negative” versus “positive” power in any given society. During its movement for independence Lebanon established the so called “National Pact” of 1943 (later on inscribed in stone in the constitution) that stipulated that the president of the country will always be Maronite Christian, the prime minister will be Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will be Shiite Muslim and the deputy speaker will be Greek Orthodox. This provision seemed to be reasonable in guaranteeing the rights of all groups representing the Lebanese population based on historical realities. In fact what occurred was a severe division in the society among ethnic and religious lines. How can a functional democracy be achieved when a Shiite or Sunni Muslim can never be a president or vice versa a Christian can’t think of being a Prime Minister? The followers of communitarian thought claim that in order for a society to be successful in its “Diversity Within Unity” all groups should in this case perceive themselves as being Lebanese first and then Christian, Shiite or Sunni. What the ill fated “National Pact” of 1943 did was divide the population further along sectarian and confessional lines. The civil war that occurred from 1975 to 1990 is just a tip of the iceberg compared to the very existential challenges facing the Lebanese society in the near future. As long as it does not share any type of common moral values and cohesive understanding of political and communal development it would fall into violence and deadlock as the recent establishment of a government dominated by Hezbollah showed.

The studies of countries like Bulgaria and Lebanon could enhance the general understanding of society as such and what forces make it functional and prosperous. The perspective of Communitarianism  and Civic Humanism may be controversial but it does give an insight into the very forces that keep any given society together and make it vibrant and prosperous. The fact that individual life and liberty are only possible within a strong and vital community based on shared social and moral values will always resonate deeply in new democracies during their plight for democracy and harmony. Both Bulgaria and Lebanon could achieve their level of prosperity if the political leaderships show signs of understanding of their respective societies and embark on a true course of reconciliation and social advancement. Their success will be judged of course by the future generations. We can only hope it will be something to be proud of and not a failure.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall in the Arab World

What happened on February 11^th, 2011 in Cairo will enter the history books as the victory of the “Nile Revolution” that put an end to an era of repression, lack of freedom and omnipresent fear. On that day the people of Egypt, representing all strata of society achieved something that would have been unthinkable just a short while ago-they ousted the dictator who had been in power for 30 years, who had all conceivable forces of power at his disposal and yet lost the battle with the unrelenting wave of democratic uprising.

The feeling that one gets, when watching the news from Tahrir Square bears striking similarity with the overwhelming joy and jubilation of the people in both East and West Germany, who tore through the infamous Berlin Wall in 1989 and declared to the world that the old world order of suppression of free will had departed forever.

The Berlin Wall epitomized the division between East and West, between communist dictatorships and liberal democracies, between governments that relied on fear to stay in power and ones that obeyed the rule of law. In October of 1989 when watching the Germans destroy the wall that had separated them for so many years the world knew that it was witnessing something that was so profound that our lives would never be the same for the years to come. The “wind of change” had started and its power was about to sweep through and lay waste to those regimes that stood in the way of freedom. What happened next was a fascinating chain of events that brought down all communist regimes in Eastern Europe and even caused the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union to disintegrate.

The Revolution on the Nile that followed the democratic upheaval in Tunisia carries a similar aura of an era coming to an end and a new beginning for the whole region of the Middle East. What makes it so prophetic is the fact that an invisible psychological barrier has been crossed. The people of Tunisia and Egypt bravely faced the worst of their fears-the authoritarian regime of dictators whose very names used to cause people to cringe. They learned how powerful they could be when gathered together.  One will always wonder if the young Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in front of a local government building in the city of Sidi Bouzid to protest his treatment by the police, had had any idea how his sacrifice would open the floodgates of democratization in the entire region.

It is almost comical if it wasn’t  sad how an array of Middle Eastern governments all bearing shades of an undemocratic rule , are breathlessly coming forward to declare their sudden desire to appease their respective populations. The long term president of Yemen Saleh announced that he would not run for re-election in 2013, the Palestinian Authority decided the time had come to call the long overdue national elections in September, the government of Bahrain started to give out cash to its citizens in hope they wouldn’t dare start  openly proclaim their legitimate grievances. Additionally the opposition groups in Algeria are planning an anti government demonstration that has already been banned by the authorities.

It will be a shot in the dark to predict at this time how politics in Egypt will unfold in the near future and what the denouement will be. The stern and somber faces of the interim (for now) rulers Omar Suleiman and the minister of defense Mohamed Tantawi that could be seen during the announcement of the departure of Mubarak certainly do not portray democratic enthusiasts.

The former foreign minister and long term Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa has the appeal of a professional who could run for president in the future elections.  There is also the former head of the International Atomic Agency Mohamed El-Baradei who returned to Egypt in the middle of the uprising in order to be a part of the anti-government movement. His true intentions are still to surface though as he does seem to exude a level of hard to conceal political opportunism. The person who was a true leader of the insurgency in fact was the Google representative in Egypt Wael Ghonim whose tearful address to the world after being released from detention provided the final spark that ignited the Egyptian nation to push forward in its relentless strive for democracy.

Once president Ronald Reagan said in his interview with the Bulgarian National Television in 1990, when the Eastern European nation was preparing for its first free and open elections after communism: “Building a viable democratic society is like planting a tree-you have to support it, nurture it and look after it. Only then it will grow and succeed in its growth”.  It would be interesting to dwell a bit more on Ronald Reagan’s metaphor -there is a small nation in the North Sea on the fringes of Europe, Faroe Islands which a lot of people probably don’t even know exists.  The climate there is so inhospitable and windy that no trees have ever been able to grow. The people wanted to be able to grow some there for environmental purposes and perhaps just to prove they can. As much as they had tried no trees were able to survive in that climate. Finally they found a species that is native to Southern Patagonia in Argentina that could survive in that environment and after so many years of trying they were able to plant and grow their first ever trees.

The young and fragile process of awakening in Egypt also needs nurturing and support like the tree that Ronald Reagan was referring to. It is next to impossible to know if the Egyptian nation has found the right democratic “tree” that could grow in the arid political climate of the Middle East. What is certain though is that its people managed to break through their own psychological Berlin Wall that straddled the Nile for so many years. They deserve to succeed and we as citizens of the world should help them in the process of planting and growing their first ever democratic society.

Bulgaria and the plight of its lost generation

I hail from a generation that graduated high school in the 90’s. That coincided with the transitional period in Bulgaria between communism and a democratic society.

One of my unforgettable childhood memories is the day of November 10^th, 1989. I still recall myself sitting in the living room with my mother and watching something unbelievable-there was a live coverage on the national TV of the regime change. Todor Jivkov, the long term communist dictator was being replaced peacefully, mind you, and a new leader was being elected!  We saw the long time dictator Todor Jivkov sitting in the sidelines, pitiful and humbled for the first time in our lives.

The reason this memory has stuck with me is that up until then, his name (Todor Jivkov) was spelled with reverence and fear.  He was the ultimate ruler-the “chosen one” to give us guidance and wisdom and there was not even a thought of the possibility of changing the status quo.

When I was very young I had a chance to be a Bulgarian communist “pioneer”-it was an approximate equivalent to the “Boy Scouts” in the US. I was proud to be one. Aside from the mandatory indoctrination It gave us a “purpose” in life to be good people and useful to society. I had given a pledge to do honorable things and I was serious about it.

When the change of November 10^th, 1989 came about in Bulgaria it was a total surprise. No one had ever thought of challenging the regime. The truth is that Bulgaria from the early 80’s was in fact doing quite well in comparison to other countries from the Eastern Block. For instance Poland was going through a tremendous economic hardship, Romania was in the middle of a “economic belt tightening” and the Soviet Union itself was experiencing significant difficulties in meeting its obligations in its war in Afghanistan and the military race with America. In reality Bulgaria was doing well based on preferential agreements with the Russians and its tourism which was thriving as a popular summer vacationing spot for all eastern countries, not to mention the increasing travel from Western Europe.

The truth to be held is that the political change in the Eastern Block was sparked by the development in the Soviet Union. Mikhael Gorbachev’s initiatives of “glasnost” and “perestroika” caused a tremendous ripple effect on all nations that were under communist dominance at the time.

It had appeared that the Soviet leadership had instructed its cronies in Eastern Europe to reform and adopt a “social-democratic” agenda. The fact is that some eastern governments as the one in Bulgaria took that directive from the “supreme” soviet power literally. So the communist party there decided to weather the storm by proactively initiating the peaceful coup d’etat of November 10^th, 1989.

Shortly after, the ruling party declared the opportunity of a national consensus via the so called “Round Table” (which by the way could be implemented in Egypt in order to get all opposing parties together in an open discussion) and national free elections were called. The communist party simply changed its name to the “Bulgarian Socialist Party” and performed exactly in the line of directions given earlier by Gorbachev. It became a social-democratic party that “cared” about people and won the elections in 1990. Being very young at the time but already understanding things in politics I was appalled at the perspective of living in a “quasi” communist and semi socialist state.

The former communists and new “pseudo-socialists” decided to explore the opportunity of gaining wealth while they had a chance of being in power. The following years bore many an example of the so called “privatization” of state owned factories and industries, being run down in order to be purchased below market value by individuals “approved” by the regime. The pillaging of the economy caused it to finally collapse during the unfortunate government of Jan Videnov.

The opposition forces gathered together and decided to take a stand and bring a change to the already disgruntled country. The college students took to the streets of the capital Sofia, built barricades and refused to go back to their Universities until the government resigned.

I was a sophomore in the University of National and World Economy in 1997 and participated wholeheartedly in the democratic uprising. We gathered in downtown Sofia and demanded the resignation of the government. We built barricades on the famous “Orlov Most” or “Bridge of Eagles” in the middle of Sofia and faced riot police. It’s interesting that the government forces-both police and army actually refused to fight the demonstrators and this caused the socialist government of prime-minister Jan Videnov to fall.

We the students who made that government change happen were extremely idealistic and democratically leaning. We thought that a new era was coming as now Bulgaria could truthfully embark on a path of sincere democratization and development.

Unfortunately the years to come proved that the Bulgarian society had not grown to the challenge. What occurred was a criminalization of the nation as such. The so called “groups” of criminals led by former government security individuals and “wrestlers” from the sports community of all people created clandestine economic and later political pressure formations to take advantage and go on a foray of economic grabbing. This is the time of the infamous “insurance” agents who would steal your car if you don’t pay an indemnity to the “insurer”.  The “groups” of economic interests blatantly went on a rampage to secure all financially viable enterprises.

That’s the time a large number of people from my generation decided to vote with our feet and left our home country. We just didn’t think at the time that it was worth “tilting at windmills” as in Don Quixote and decided to leave and pursue other opportunities.

In the years to follow, just to make the circus complete, the former king Simeon Saxe-Koburg decided to participate in the Bulgarian political development. The people thought that he would bring a stable and clearly pro-Bulgarian stance, as the general populace still had some fond memories of his father- King Boris III who was extremely popular in the country. It turned out however that “king” Simeon had an agenda of his own-namely to re-acquire the properties his family had lost during the communist regime.  His unpopular governance led to another power shift with the formation of the triple coalition of Simeon’s party, socialists and DPS (Movement for Rights and Freedom)-the organization of the Turkish minority.

These are the years when corruption and ill-management took firm hold of the Bulgarian reality. The criminalized entities grew wealthier and bolder in their stance. Daily show murders became a reality of life for many Bulgarians.

Additionally the society grew quite cynical and started using profane language that I would have been ashamed of if used during my youth years. People lost faith in government, police and values and started looking for “alternative” ways of making ends meet since the official power holders didn’t seem to care.

Ultimately Boiko Borisov’s GERB movement came into the picture. He seemed to be the resolution to all previous deficiencies-he was tough talking, meaning business type of a leader. In fact he adopted somewhat of a “Vladimir Putin” aura with his pro-Bulgarian nationalist talk and anti-mafia rhetoric. The warning signs flashed immediately after his ascendance to power however. Mr. Boiko Borisov is a “private security” specialist and long term protégé of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is inconceivable that his “company” Ipon-1 didn’t get involved in the mafia wars that occurred in Bulgaria in the 90’s and the beginning of the 21^st century.  Mr. Borisov is using some sort of pseudo nationalistic stance against Bulgarian minorities as Roma and Turks which seemed to fit in somewhat with the general Bulgarian public at the time. The truth is that the society as such is far from nationalist and Mr. Borisov’s attempts at that are quite artificial and frankly dangerous. Bulgarian society is in fact quite tolerant and forgiving. I can attest to that as my family hails from the area of Nikopol on the banks of the river Danube where Bulgarians, Vlachs (Romanians) and Turks have lived together in harmony for hundreds of years. It was common for Bulgarians (Orthodox) to visit Muslim Turks for Ramadan and vice versa Muslims to visit Bulgarians for the Feast of Saint George in May.

What Mr. Borisov is doing is inciting a religious and ethnic intolerance in the Bulgarian society in hope that this tension would give him an upper hand while imposing his regime upon the people.  

Additionally he seems to be an absolute dilettante in terms of International Relations. When he came into power he decided to suspend or revise the ongoing international projects including the Nuclear Power Station in Belene, the Bourgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline and the South Stream gas line. Interestingly enough all of the aforementioned projects had some degree of Russian participation. This could and would cause a significant change in the Russian strategy towards Bulgaria. It is rather inauspicious that just recently Russia decided to pull out of financing the Belene Nuclear plant. It is obvious that the price of the endeavor is not the deciding factor-even junior students in International Relations know that building of nuclear plants is the Russian way of Realpolitik-as we have seen it in Iran, Armenia and Belorus-in diplomacy it is often referred to as “quid pro quo”.

The fact that Bulgaria is losing potentially economically important source of income has quite ominous signs for the general state of relations between Russia and Boiko Borisov (I detest referring to the country with Boiko Borisov’s name but that’s the reality).

Currently my contemporaries from the “lost generation” that left are performing rather well in Belgium, the United States, the UK and Australia.

We will always wonder if we could have made it in Bulgaria if we had stayed. The thought will always haunt us-probably for the rest of our lives.

The reality is that we who left had an opportunity to learn new skills and be able to think “outside of the box”. We are the true “unorthodox” Bulgarians who can bring change one day. We hope that such day will come and we’ll be able to help with our democratic knowledge and expertise. We “the lost generation” have not fallen through the cracks, we won't give up, yes we can and yes we will succeed however daunting our plight might be.

Egypt-the hope for democracy in the Middle East

It’s been a long time coming-the Middle East developing a basis for even a resemblance of a democratic society.

Historically the area has been marred by backwardness in terms of human development. Ironically the unresolved conflict with Israel only caused a stultification and expansion of the most retrograde and dysfunctional of all middle eastern type of societies-extremist, leaning towards dictatorship (on the basis of so called “stability”) and staunchly anti-Israel.

The peace treaty that occurred between Israel and Egypt in 1978, though turned the tide of the entire Arab world. For the first time a typical Muslim country signed an accord with the “enemy” Israel. By doing so in terms of “Raison D'Etat” (Richelieu would certainly have been proud) Egypt achieved something that so many prior wars have not been able to-it regained a lost territory-the Sinai peninsula. Even more importantly the country by the Nile gained enormous advantage in terms of promised and promptly delivered American aid reaching an average of $1.5 billion a year.

The creator and mastermind behind this development was Anwar Sadat and eventually his protégé Hosni Mubarak.

Coming after some disastrous wars with Israel it was quite understandable that the Egyptian leadership was eager to create some “stability” and work on possible re-match with Israel. The irony is that by doing so they actually tasted for the first time the success of re-gaining territory and receiving an enormous amount of material and monetary aid by concluding a peace agreement.

The huge achievement in terms of national strategy could be assessed by comparison with Syria’s intransigent (and largely unsuccessful) position towards Israel which has not been able to make any progress on its Golan Heights issue.

The overall success in international politics led by Anwar Sadat and later on by Hosni Mubarak gave some “borrowed” time for the regime to recuperate as it actually managed to achieve something no one in the Arab world has ever done before-get territory back from Israel.

This process allowed for the dictatorial regime from the 70’s (that started with military emergency rule in 1952) to establish itself and continue its suppression of dissidents based on the general thought of “stability”

The government, however, didn’t realize that the Egyptian society of the 21^st century is intrinsically different from the one in the 70’s. As the years passed by after Sadat and Mubarak came into power, the young people of Egypt received access to the internet, facebook, tweeter and generally more information about the world. They are well informed and keep tabs of the events occurring  in America and other countries and how people in developed nations live.

The breaking point for the Middle East came from an absolutely unsuspecting country-Tunisia. Interestingly enough the youth in Tunisia has grown internet and facebook savvy somewhat simultaneously with the ones in Egypt. The difference is that Tunisia is relatively small country with 10 million people while Egypt is much more populous, with close to 80 million.

Additionally the outgoing elite of Tunisia, has never been militarily trained or involved as much as the one in Egypt. Naturally that explains the differences between the developments in Tunisia where the dictator Ben Ali left quickly and Egypt where Mubarak seems to be digging in. He seems to be trying to employ the array of measures available to dictatorial governments-encouraging his “supporters” which are largely cronies paid by his regime to attack the people who protest against him.

What will happen in the near future in Egypt is some sort of a “stalemate”. That’s exactly what the ruling class is hoping for-“a no man’s land” where they can deploy the army to supposedly “restore order”.

Those politicians as Mubarak of the 70’s don’t understand that the Egyptian society is quite grown and different from what they are accustomed to. It also shows that they have lost touch with the very people they claim to represent.

They will be gone eventually after an enormous pain and suffering and after the military who is thought to be the real “king maker” in Egypt makes up its mind.

The world is hopeful that the proud country of Egypt will truly rise to what today’s global society expects from it-to be a democratic establishment with opportunities for its young citizens.

As for the “Muslim Brotherhood”, as much as they are feared, they are not near the head of the current rebellion. The regime change is being instigated by the “people” not by the islamists. This could be the only chance the world has to encourage a democratic development in the Middle East as the new democratic movement does need encouragement and support.

In light of that, the American and European leadership should certainly embrace the wave of democratization in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and not be afraid to clearly state its commitment to people’s free will and the right to choose its own government.

Waiting idly in the sidelines would not only encourage dictators to hold on to power as it happened in Belorus but also have a devastating effect on the hopes of people for better lives and freedom.

“The ideas expressed in the article are sole property of the author”