What Egypt Can Learn from Georgia's Police Reform

There is no doubt that when Egyptian activists called for mass protests on January 25th the symbolism of that date wasn't lost on all Egyptians. January 25th is national holiday in honor of the police, where former president Hosni Mubarak usually gave a speech and decorated fallen police officers posthumously. To many, the Egyptian police force was a symbol for all that was wrong with the Mubarak regime: corrupt, brutal and above the law. The death of Khaled Said, who was beaten to death at the hands of two police officers in the street six months earlier was on the minds of many who marched onto Tahrir square on that fateful day. If there was any doubt on how Egyptians felt about the police, such doubts were crushed on the "Friday of Anger" three days later, where in merely four hours the entire security apparatus of the Mubarak regime broke down, leaving the people to fend for themselves against thugs and looters.

After Mubarak's ouster, police reform became a priority in the eyes of most Egyptians, but due to political uncertainty and the incompetence of The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), so far the changes that occured within the ministry of interior has been cosmetic. The fact that the police still operates under the Egyptian emergency law, which has been in effect since Anwar Sadat's assassination and gives the police the ability to imprison any suspects without proper evidence or a trial, is a big concern. Some argue that it is impossible to root out corruption and brutality completely from the Ministry of Interior, and that by doing so there might be a risk of completely losing all sense of security, something that many Egyptians would rather avoid.

States of the former Soviet Union faced a similar problem with their polices forces after the fall of the USSR, and perhaps the most impressive and successful example of police reform took place in Georgia. Of course, it didn't hurt that they now have an elected president, Mikheil Saakashvili, who is Western educated and committed to nation-building and consolidation of liberal democracy.

The first thing they did was to form a new normative base for the ministry of interior according to the principles of international law and human rights protection. Fighting corruption was the priority of the ministry and accordingly a new structural unit was formed. The main aim of this unit is to expose the crimes conducted by state officials, including the representatives of their own unit. In 2005, 120 high-rank state officials are detained and arrested convicted in taking bribes. The Ministry paid special attention to protecting human rights; so it created the Human Rights Protection and Monitoring Main Division, which checks the record and the health condition of suspects, held in temporary detention cells. Since then no fact of mistreatment of prisoners has been reported in the temporary detention cells, which for decades have been a place of torture. The leadership of the Ministry keeps under strict control every violation of human rights by the police officers. After introducing human rights protection mechanism in the Ministry of Internal Affairs many police officers have been penalized for torture and other ill-treatment related crimes. In particular, 4 police officers were arrested, 13 were dismissed from work and 113 were put under investigation for mistreating detainees.

Of course, there can be no reform if the officers themselves weren't committed to reform. Recognizing the necessity of creation of professional and educated staff has attached special attention to the reform of police and security academies. The latter was liquidated and the academy of police was equipped with the newest devices and literature.The system of training and recruiting of police absolutely changed. Starting September 1st, 2005 the MIA together with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and other donors began realization of the projects of assistance to the Georgian police.

As a result of reforms, 87% of Georgian people have trust in the police (Only the Orthodox Church supasses that number). For comparison, the president's administration gets 57%, the rest of the government 56%. In the past the noted indicator was below 10%. Now a Georgian police officer receives a salary of $ 500-700 (which is higher than the national average), doesn’t take bribes, is polite and punctual.

Stephen Sestanovich, an influential Russia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote on the merits of Georgia’s police transformation and advised Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to follow suit. “Only one political leader in any post-Soviet state has ever attempted this kind of institutional upheaval, and the comparison is an ironic one for Medvedev. For that leader is … Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, who soon after becoming president in 2004 fired more than 80% of the country’s police officers…But however awkward the parallel may be, there are lessons in it for Medvedev. Saakashvili’s reform succeeded precisely because it was so radical.”


Below are pictures of several police buildings in Georgia. All new police stations are made as transparent as possible so that any passer-by could see what was happening inside.

Inside the Georgian DMV. It's shocking how organized it is, isn't it?

How can you be a brutal police officer if this is where you dine?

Sources:

1. Success of Georgia's Police Reform Is A Function of Sovereignty, Jamestown Foundation Blog, April 12th, 2010, http://jamestownfoundation.blogspot.com/2010/04/success-of-georgias-police-reform-is.html

2. Reforms at The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, http://police.ge/index.php?m=196&lng=eng 

3. Georgian Police Before and After Reform, English Russia, August 20th, 2011, http://englishrussia.com/2011/08/20/georgian-police-before-and-after-reform/

You're Either With Us or Against Us?!

While scrolling through my twitter timeline, a guy I follow, a hard-core Egyptian leftist, retweeted what I found to be a very offensive tweet. It wasn't offensive in that it was an attack on a certain group of people per se, but it was offensive due to its aggressiveness. A translation of that tweet is below. I will not mention the name of the quote's author because this post isn't about him.

"To my fellow leftists, please don't align yourself with liberals and raise your independent banner if you still have any self-respect"

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that politics is the art of compromise. I thought that anyone who's been following politics for a few months in any vibrant democracy would come to realize that fact. To me, politics is about a group of people who, while having a common desire to see their country better, see different ways and ideologies are best at reaching that goal, and in order to decide on what is THE way to fulfill their goal, politicians decide to give a little, take a little.

Now to some people that might sound like you're selling out, that you're giving in, and in a country where the electorate is getting more and more polarized, politicians find it easier to appease their constituents rather than try to sell the idea of compromise. The results when no compromise solution is agreed upon are there for everyone to see. Not only bad for the chances of those politicians getting re-elected, but also bad for a country that is desperate for progress. A prime example of a broken parliament is the US Congress. Almost every single vote on any subject (whether it's related to foreign policy, the economy, education, healthcare, you name it..) has become a routine job where the elected official caucuses with people who have similar political views, and as a bloc they vote Yay or Nay. Party-line votes are a sham, and they're often not the wisest. I thought decision should be decided by thoroughly studying the case at hand and making an informed decision. Silly me.

So how does that bode for Egyptian politics if every political force decided to walk alone, to stay pure? I say they will suffer, and the country would suffer would them. I don't want trickle-down economics, but I don't want socialism either. I don't want normalizing with Israel, but I don't think not working with them to solve the Palestinian struggle is a good idea. Some people think that middle of the road solutions makes everybody a loser. I say it makes everyone a winner. That person you work with who doesn't share your economic philosophy might not work with you on increasing the standard of living for the poor if you're not going to work with him on issues of freedom of speech and women's rights. Politics is not for simpletons. Politics is not for puritans. If you don't want to compromise your "principles", you'll be marginalized, and you'll get farther from your ultimate goal for this country, not closer.

People laughed, and cried, at George W. Bush when he said in his speech to the joint session of Congress on September 20th, 2001  "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." regarding his planned invasion of Afghanistan. To most of the world the statement seemed foolish and reckless. And his decision was obviously not the wisest since this war is now officially the longest in US history.

I sincerely hope Egyptians are spared this sort of mentality and rhetoric.

Rage Against The Elite

 It's April 2008. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are engaged in a fierce battle for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Hillary is way behind in the delegate count and is desperately trying to rally support from white-blue collar Democrats, which is a demographic group that Obama is having difficulty winning over.

Then a recording comes out from a San Fransisco fundraiser that featured Obama as the keynote speaker. He said: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

To heartland conservative Amercian's, these statements sounded "elitist", and Clinton herself used the e-word that has been used for decades by Republicans against Democrats, from Nixon to Bush 43, to vilify Obama and paint him as an out-of-touch liberal. Long story short, Obama survived the controversy and went on to secure the nomination. The rest, as they say, is history.

Today, in Egypt, we keep hearing the word elite (nokhba) and elitist (nokhbawy) a lot these days, and it's used by politicians and political activists of every stripe. But what do these words really mean? According to Merriam-Webster, elite is "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence". At first glance, this definition does not sound offensive. In fact, it sounds flattering. So why is it that the word has such a bad reputation?


I believe it's because of our inclination as human beings to find someone who we can blame for all our misfortunes and frustrations in order to deflect criticism from ourselves, and also because the elite, in any society, are always a minority. In short, elites are the punching-bags of society. No one will rise up to defend them because defending a minority, especially one that has power and influence whether by wealth, education or position, won't score you political points or endear the not-so-elite masses.


And this is where we are today in Egypt. Leftists calling economic liberals elite. Liberal calling Muslim Brotherhood leadership elite. Islamists calling secularists elite. No wonder the word has lost all its meaning and has become a symbol of all that is anti-democratic and offensive.


So in today's political landscape, who are the true elitists? Well, it's simple: It's the talking heads on TV. Those, who through the no.1 media tool in Egypt that is Television, have filled the airways with nothing but noise and vitriol. Leftists who shout "elite" are themselves being elitist because they have appointed themselves guardians of the working class. Liberal who shout "elite" are being elitist when they claim that their way is the only way civil liberties will be the norm in Egyptian society. Islamists are being elitist when they take the moral high ground for no reason other than their belief that because of their religion they have all the right answers to solve Egypt's problems.


So here's my appeal to all of them talking heads: We don't want your egos to get in the way of our aspirations. Egyptians have a lot in common, and listening to you people talk in TV it sometimes makes me wonder how we as a people are even able to stand each other.


Being elite isn't bad. Ahmed Zewaill and Farouq el Bazz are elites because of their great scientific minds, and we are damn proud of them.Magdy Yaqoub is elite because he is one of the top surgeons in the world and we are proud of him. And yes, El Baradei, who I still don't support for president up to this point, is elite and we are proud of him.


It's not the elites that are the enemy, it's those who think elite is a dirty word. Elites are our pride and joy. Elites give us hope for a better future and bring out the best in us. Elites are those who inspire their fellow countrymen to be elites themselves. That's not so bad, is it?

First Things First

OK, so this is officially my first post ever. Who am I? I'm just a liberal Egyptian. I've always been into politics, but since politics was dead in Egypt prior to the January 25th revolution, I was merely a spectator. But now there are no taboos in Egyptian society anymore right? Well, no. And that's where this blog comes in.

Egypt is a conservative country. Egyptians are religious, conservative people. One might think, especially someone who is not familiar with MENA (Middle-East and North Africa), that after the revolution we have been liberated from all the shackles that have been holding us back as a country and as a people. Things like religious freedom, tolerance, gender discrimination, ignorance, poverty, religious fanaticism.

Addressing these taboos will be what this blog is about. Everyday there seems to be an new controversy spurring dialogue (or to be more precise, argument and bickering and name-calling). Controversies that are either political, social or economic in nature. What I'll be trying to do in this blog is address these issues from a liberal standpoint.

I believe in liberalism. I believe in its logic and its practicality. Ideologies that are impractical are doomed to fail, because the world has real problems than need real solutions. Most Egyptians don't know what liberalism is, probably due to the fact that the old regime scored political points by labeling liberalism as closet-atheism. That liberals are people who fornicate and drink and party with no regard to cultural norms. This blog will try to give its readers and idea to what liberalism would look like in a conservative society like Egypt's, and try to address everyday problems that we as a people need to solve, rather than sweep under a mat.

Thanks for taking a few minutes of your time to read this opening post. Now let's get to work.