Friday, November 19, 2010

The Elusive Myth of Democratic Egyptian Elections-Mirette F. Mabrouk

Later this month, Egyptians will go to the polls, or attempt to, in order to vote in the country’s parliamentary elections. The elections will unlikely be a democratic affair in the Western sense. In fact, opposition candidates, voters, citizen groups—essentially everyone other than government representatives—are fully expecting the elections to be a violent and rigged episode. For easy reference, one can look to the June elections for the Shura Council, or upper house of Parliament, in which the governing National Democratic Party (NDP) managed to land 80 out of a possible 84 seats. Those elections were marked by violence and allegations of rampant violations.


Elections in Egypt are not generally democratic, they do not necessarily reflect the will of the people, and they will invariably usher in a house in which the NDP has an unshakeable majority. More so, the elected body has very little control over the government and none over the president, who, thanks to some creative constitutional amendments in 2007, can dissolve the Parliament at will. Election results are apparently so preordained that many have questioned the wisdom of participating at all. Opposition groups, among them the National Alliance for Change (NAC), led by former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head and current political reformer Mohamed ElBaradei, have been calling for a boycott. ElBaradei told reporters at a Ramadan Iftar meeting on September 7 that voting “would go against the national will.” Many political analysts and some members of the opposition have echoed the belief that participation in the elections only gives credence to a fundamentally flawed system and perpetuates the state myth of a democratic nation.


The above argument certainly has its merits, but it misses the point. Elections in Egypt are not about who wins seats—that is usually a foregone conclusion. They are about the “how and the what,” in the sense that they are oases of political activity, demand, and dissension in an otherwise arid climate. In that way, every election fought represents losses and gains for the respective participants in ways that invariably influence the following elections. Also, the ballot boxes can yield surprising results—as in the case of the 2005 elections when the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) gained a jawdropping 88 of 454 seats in the elections for the lower house. This outcome certainly would not have come about if the Brotherhood had not participated. To be sure, there are also significant, detrimental changes that happen as a direct consequence of the elections, among them constitutional amendments designed to hobble the opposition’s ability to field candidates and campaign. Still, for opposition parties and movements, boycotting the elections is the equivalent of throwing away the only political participation they have.


It would mean relinquishing any visibility or influence and it would mean admitting to their supporters that they are essentially mere window dressings in the democratic façade. Arguably, this is a reason why these elections have only ever been boycotted once, in 1990. The Egyptian political arena is one where contestants scrabble for the smallest patch of ground. The high moral ground simply does not figure into it.

*************************************************************************





The Brookings Institution

L'éloge de la colonisation est de retour-François Gèze, Gilles Manceron, Le Monde


 Dans la continuité des propos tenus par Nicolas Sarkozy durant sa campagne électorale de 2007 sur le thème du "refus de la repentance" à propos du passé colonial de la France, trois faits témoignent de ce que l'éloge de la colonisation et les tentatives de réhabiliter les plus farouches partisans de son maintien sont, de manière inquiétante, remis à l'ordre du jour.
D'abord, la loi du 23 février 2005, qui demandait que "les programmes scolaires reconnaissent en particulier le rôle positif de la présence française outre-mer, notamment en Afrique du Nord", vient d'être exhumée et réactivée. Bien que, devant les polémiques qu'elle avait suscitées, le président de la République d'alors avait eu la sagesse de faire retirer cette phrase de son article 4 et, en même temps, de ne pas appliquer son article 3, qui prévoyait la création dans le même esprit d'une Fondation pour la mémoire de la guerre d'Algérie, le secrétaire d'Etat aux anciens combattants, Hubert Falco, a installé, le 19 octobre, à l'hôtel des Invalides, ladite Fondation, avec pour vice-président celui qui avait été le principal artisan de la loi de 2005, Hamlaoui Mekachera.
Parmi les quinze membres de son conseil d'administration, il a annoncé que siégeait, outre Mekachera et cinq représentants de l'Etat, un quarteron de généraux signataires en 2002 d'un manifeste affirmant que "ce qui a caractérisé l'action de l'armée française en Algérie ce fut d'abord sa lutte contre toutes les formes de torture" : les généraux Bertrand de La Presle, François Meyer, Jean Salvan et Pierre de Percin. Le Livre blanc de l'armée française en Algérie dont ce texte constitue la préface, paru la même année, dénonce, comme au plus fort de la bataille d'Alger, la prétendue "campagne de désinformation" sur le recours par l'armée française à la torture, dont se rendraient coupables des quotidiens comme Le Monde, L'Humanité et Libération. Et déplore que des instances universitaires aient permis la soutenance en 2000 de la thèse de l'historienne Raphaëlle Branche, L'Armée et la torture dans la guerre d'Algérie, pourtant primée à l'Institut politique de Paris par la mention très bien et les félicitations d'un jury unanime et qualifié.
C'est à ce conseil d'administration qu'il reviendra de choisir le conseil scientifique de ladite Fondation, en nommant, selon les termes d'Hubert Falco, "les chercheurs qui lui sembleront le plus à même d'apporter leur pierre singulière à l'édifice de la mémoire". Rien d'étonnant qu'en raison de la défiance des historiens face à une telle institution, il ne soit pas encore parvenu à annoncer la composition du conseil scientifique.
Rapprochement alarmant
Bien qu'il mette en avant les thèmes de la réconciliation et de la recherche de l'apaisement, il apparaît que l'objectif réel poursuivi par ce secrétaire d'Etat, par ailleurs maire de Toulon, est de tenter de gagner les faveurs des jusqu'au-boutistes de l'Algérie française et anciens de l'Organisation armée secrète (OAS), nombreux dans la droite extrême, en lesquels il voit une réserve de voix utile pour les prochaines échéances électorales.
Deux autres faits récents témoignent de la même recherche d'un rapprochement alarmant. A Marignane, en 2005, le maire UMP, ex-Front national, Daniel Simonpieri avait, à la demande des anciens de l'OAS regroupés dans l'Amicale pour la défense des intérêts moraux et matériels des anciens détenus et exilés politiques de l'Algérie française (Adimad), permis l'érection dans un cimetière municipal d'un monument en hommage aux tueurs de l'OAS jugés et fusillés, monument dont le tribunal administratif de Marseille avait ordonné en 2008 le retrait (en raison de l'absence d'un vote en conseil municipal).
Le nouveau maire divers droite, Eric Le Dissès, avait appliqué la décision de justice et défendu l'idée que seul un monument voué à tous les morts de la guerre d'Algérie serait légitime. Puis, changeant d'avis à l'approche de prochains scrutins, il a fait voter le 27 octobre par son conseil municipal la réinstallation de la stèle "aux combattants tombés pour que vive l'Algérie française". Tandis que le chef local de l'UMP Simonpieri faisait l'éloge en plein conseil de "ceux qui ont choisi la voie de l'honneur, combattant celui et ceux qui avaient renié leur parole", et qui se sont "engagés dans l'OAS, commandée par le général Salan".
Peu avant, le 22 octobre, à Pau, dans l'enceinte de l'Ecole des troupes aéroportées (ETAP) et en présence du colonel qui la commande et des représentants de diverses autorités militaires, a eu lieu une cérémonie en l'honneur du colonel Pierre Château-Jobert, l'un des organisateurs du putsch d'Alger d'avril 1961, puis commandant de l'OAS dans le Constantinois, au cours de laquelle un buste à son effigie a été inauguré. Cela en présence aussi de plusieurs membres de l'Adimad venus avec leur drapeau, dont son président, Jean-François Collin. Ce dernier a été à l'origine, en février 1962, de la tentative d'assassinat, sur son lit de l'hôpital militaire du Val-de-Grâce, d'Yves Le Tac, compagnon de la Libération et frère d'un ministre gaulliste, alors soigné pour avoir subi plusieurs attentats de l'OAS en Algérie, dont il avait réchappé.
Quand, sur différents thèmes relatifs aux Roms ou à l'immigration, on a vu les chefs de la majorité présidentielle chercher à recueillir les faveurs de la droite la plus extrême, de nombreuses voix se sont levées. Serait-il concevable que cette façon de réhabiliter ceux qui ont dérivé vers le terrorisme pour tenter de maintenir à toute force l'Algérie française ne suscitent pas la même indignation ?
**********************************************************************************
François Gèze, éditeur et Gilles Manceron, historien et vice-président de la Ligue des droits de l'homme Article paru dans l'édition du 11.11.10



Ce qui fait courir les Occidentaux à Alger- Tahar Fattani

A chacun ses raisons et ses objectifs
A chacun ses raisons et à chacun ses objectifs, les dirigeants des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, de la Grande-Bretagne, de l’Espagne et de la France intensifient leurs visites en Algérie.
Entre soutien stratégique, intérêts commerciaux et économiques et ambition politique, de nombreux hauts responsables politiques et militaires occidentaux défilent, ces derniers temps, en Algérie. A chacun ses raisons et à chacun ses objectifs, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Espagne, la France et même la Russie et le Portugal courtisent l’Algérie. Elle est sollicitée, notamment sur le volet économique, sécuritaire et politique. La première puissance mondiale, les USA, souhaite renforcer avec l’Algérie sa coopération en matière de lutte antiterroriste, tout en gardant un pied dans le volet économique. A travers le principal adjoint de l’assistant du secrétaire à la Défense, chargé des Affaires de sécurité internationale, Joseph Mc Millan, qui a séjourné le week-end dernier en Algérie, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique réitèrent leur soutien à la politique algérienne en matière de lutte antiterroriste. Il s’agit évidemment, d’un soutien stratégique. Mais, derrière la chose sécuritaire, Washington semble buter sur le volet économique et commercial proprement dit. Au mois de septembre dernier, une délégation composée d’une cinquantaine d’hommes d’affaires américains ont abordé avec les dirigeants algériens les possibilités d’investissement. Ces rencontres et discussions à un haut niveau visent à booster les échanges déjà existants entre l’Algérie et les Etats-Unis, en apportant, notamment aux investisseurs américains plus de visibilité dans les stratégies respectives d’investissement. Les investisseurs américains sont concernés par les secteurs de l’industrie pharmaceutique, l’agroalimentaire, la construction et l’habitat, les ressources en eau, les technologies de l’information et de la communication (TIC), les services technologiques, les transports, les hydrocarbures, les énergies renouvelables ainsi que la formation en matière de gestion des entreprises. Dans le domaine sécuritaire, les USA souhaitent décrocher un marché avec l’Algérie portant sur la vente des armes et concurrencer, ainsi, la Russie, principal fournisseur d’armes de l’Algérie. Les responsables US espèrent assister Alger en matière de logistique nécessaire pour «lutter» contre le terrorisme. Jamais les Etats-Unis n’ont dépêché autant de hauts responsables à Alger comme cette dernière année. La Maison-Blanche a accru le rythme des visites de ses officiels. Outre M.Mc Millan, Vicki Huddleston, sous-secrétaire adjointe à la Défense pour l’Afrique et Jeffrey Feltman, sous-secrétaire d’Etat chargé des Affaires du Moyen-Orient se sont pointés dans notre capitale il y a de cela une année. Cela témoigne de «l’intérêt» que portent les Américains aux opportunités que représente l’Algérie. C’est la même ambition qui est affichée par la Grande-Bretagne. Londres a dépêché, jeudi dernier, son ministre chargé des Affaires du Moyen-Orient et de l’Afrique du Nord, Alistair Burt, à Alger. Emboîtant le pas à M.Mc Millan, M.Burt annonce le soutien entier du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord à la politique de l’Algérie criminalisant le paiement de rançons aux groupes terroristes.
Derrière cet appui, Londres cherche à avoir sa part de gâteau dans le marché de l’armement.
M. Burt a d’ailleurs affirmé que son pays est prêt «volontiers» à satisfaire les besoins de l’Algérie en équipements militaires. «Nous sommes prêts à répondre à toute demande de l’Algérie, si elle exprime des besoins en armement et autre équipement militaire», a affirmé M.Burt, à Alger.
Et d’annoncer que les compagnies britanniques sont intéressées par le programme de modernisation des Forces armées algériennes. Dans ce sens, Londres vient de réussir à décrocher un important marché avec l’Algérie portant sur le sujet en question. L’hôte de l’Algérie a confirmé l’existence d’une commande de l’Armée algérienne pour l’achat d’hélicoptères auprès du groupe anglo-italien Augusta Westland.
La France, quant à elle, souhaite décrocher la part du lion de l’enveloppe d’investissement retenue pour le prochain quinquennat et qui dépasse les 280 milliards de dollars. Comme première étape, le président français, Nicolas Sarkozy, a désigné l’ancien Premier ministre français, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, qui sera à Alger le 24 novembre prochain, pour «négocier» la part de la France en matière d’investissements. On notera que les relations politiques et économiques entre Alger et Paris ont connu une traversée du désert ces dernières années, même si Paris reste le premier partenaire commercial d’Alger. Les grands projets d’infrastructures lancés par l’Algérie au titre du quinquennat 2005-2009, tels l’autoroute Est-Ouest, la construction de un million de logements, l’érection des barrages, etc, ont bénéficié beaucoup plus aux entreprises chinoises, portugaises, espagnoles et autres. Aussi, la France ne souhaite pas revivre cette «mauvaise expérience», bien au contraire, elle tente de se racheter dans le cadre du quinquennat en cours et arracher des marchés. Le Portugal, de son côté, garde un oeil vigilant sur ce même chapitre et compte défendre ses intérêts économiques, outre la centaine d’entreprises portugaises activant en Algérie dans différents domaines, tel le Btph. Afin de renforcer cette coopération, les deux pays ont signé, la semaine dernière, une dizaine d’accords de coopération portant sur les différents domaines d’investissement, comme les travaux publics, le bâtiment et les équipements hydrauliques. L’Algérie est également, sollicitée par l’Espagne. Le chef du gouvernement, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, a chargé son envoyé spécial, Angel Moratinos, pour aborder avec les dirigeants algériens l’avenir politique de l’Union pour la Méditerranée. Conscient du rôle important qu’occupe l’Algérie dans ce processus, Madrid espère réussir le deuxième sommet qui se tiendra à Barcelone au cours des deux dernières semaines du mois en cours. Un éventuel boycott des pays de la rive Sud de la Méditerranée, à l’image de l’Algérie, fera subir un échec à ce deuxième sommet de l’UPM, que l’Espagne assumera aux côtés de la France. C’est ainsi que M.Moratinos a tenté de convaincre les dirigeants algériens de prendre part à ce rendez-vous. Enfin, que la chose politique ou sécuritaire soient à l’origine de la course que mènent les Occidentaux en Algérie, les intérêts économiques et commerciaux constituent la principale motivation de leurs dirigeants pour prendre la destination Algérie.
**********************************************************************************************
Is this Neo-Colonialism in Algeria??
Isma'il ibn Bilal

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Libertés religieuses en Algérie : les omissions des Américains ! by Hameza Bensaadi

Selon l’APS, dans son rapport mondial annuel sur les libertés religieuses, le département  d'Etat américain estime que les statuts du respect des libertés religieuses s'étaient "améliorés" en Algérie en 2010 ! Sur cette évaluation, beaucoup d’Algériens pourraient y émettre quelques réserves car notre pays est loin d’être un havre de tolérance pour ses citoyens. 

Présenté mercredi par la secrétaire d'Etat américaine, Mme Hillary  Clinton, au cours d'une conférence de presse,  "ce rapport mondial note, selon l’APS, dans sa  partie consacrée à l'Algérie que la Constitution algérienne proclame que l'islam  est la religion d'Etat, mais que d'autres lois et règlements permettent aux  non-musulmans la liberté de pratiquer leur religion dans la mesure où elle est  en harmonie avec l'ordre public, la moralité et le respect des droits et des  libertés fondamentales d'autrui, tout en précisant qu'en général, la société  algérienne tolère les étrangers qui pratiquent d'autres religions que l'islam".
Toujours selon l'APS, "citant les dignitaires chrétiens vivant en Algérie, le rapport souligne  que ces derniers affirment avoir de meilleures relations avec le gouvernement  algérien, ajoutant que plusieurs dirigeants des églises en Algérie reconnaissent  avoir reçu l'aide du ministère algérien des Affaires religieuses pour les procédures  de demandes d'enregistrement des groupes religieux non-musulmans en vertu des  lois en vigueur".
 Tout va donc bien en Algérie ? C’est du moins ce que laisse entendre l’APS en s’appuyant sur ce rapport qui, bizarrement, ne fait aucune mention des multiples procès intentés récemment contre des citoyens non jeûneurs.
Les Américains, pour les besoins de leur rapport, ont-ils demandé l’avis des neuf jeunes d'Ighzer Amokrane qui ont été poursuivis en justice pour avoir cassé la croûte dans leurs commerces ? Les rédacteurs de ce rapport à Washington ont-ils réellement suivi de près l’affaire des deux chrétiens d’Ain El Hammam avant de décrire les "changements positifs apportés dans le traitement des minorités  religieuses" ?
Ces mêmes minorités n'ont guère cessé de dénoncer le climat d'inquisition qui s'est installé en Algérie ces dernières années. Récemment, le chef de l’église protestante en Algérie, Mustapha Krim, a appelé les hautes autorités du pays à intervenir pour mettre fin à ce qu’il a qualifié de "dérive", suite à l’arrêté du wali de Tizi Ouzou, portant sur l’arrêt des travaux d’extension de l’église sous huitaine. 
A Larbaâ Nath Irathen, quatre chrétiens ont été également poursuivis en justice pour  “création d’un lieu de culte sans l’autorisation des pouvoirs publics” alors que ces derniers, dénoncés par leur voisinage, se rencontraient uniquement dans le domicile d'un ami pour prier ensemble !

Les Américains ont-ils alors pris connaissance de tous ces épisodes malheureux avant de rédiger leur rapport sur les libertés religieuses en Algérie ? On aimerait vraiment bien avoir une réponse à cette question.... 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

United States/Jordan Trade Agreement Action Update

A. Guest Workers Ask for Solidarity at Jordan Sweatshop Producing for Wal-Mart

NOVEMBER 10, 2010  |  SHARE
DATE:  Wednesday, November 10, 2010
TO:  NLC Contacts
FROM: Charles Kernaghan
RE:  Guest Workers Ask for Solidarity at Jordan Sweatshop Producing for Wal-Mart
In an unprecedented step, thousands of foreign guest workers from Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh andNepal have come together to struggle for their basic rights at Jordan's largest garment factory, Classic, which produces clothing for Wal-Mart and Hanesbrands.  Nearly nine years into the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, thousands of workers are still stripped of their passports, forced to work grueling 80 to 90-hour work weeks, including mandatory 24-hour all-night shifts, while being shortchanged of their wages, beaten and housed in primitive dorms infested with bed bugs.
If the guest workers win this struggle for their basic rights, word will spread well beyond Jordan to reach tens of thousands of guest workers working in similarly deplorable conditions around the world.  This could be a huge step forward! 
The workers are asking representatives of Wal-Mart, Hanes and Macy's, as well as U.S. and Jordanian Government officials, to participate in a joint meeting in the Al Hassan Industrial Park in Jordan.  Eight hundred to a thousand guest workers have already committed to attend the meeting.  Finally, the labels and the government officials will hear directly from the workers!
Tell them to meet with the guest workers and guarantee that their rights will finally be respected.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Past is Prologue and President Obama's Mandate

Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
June 27, 1936
A Rendezvous With Destiny

President Roosevelt:

"Senator Robinson, Members of the Democratic Convention, My Friends: Here, and in every community throughout the land, we are met at a time of great moment to the future of the nation. It is an occasion to be dedicated to the simple and sincere expression of an attitude toward problems, the determination of which will profoundly affect America.

I come not only as a leader of a party, not only as a candidate for high office, but as one upon whom many critical hours have imposed and still impose a grave responsibility.

For the sympathy, help and confidence with which Americans have sustained me in my task I am grateful. For their loyalty I salute the members of our great party, in and out of political life in every part of the Union. I salute those of other parties, especially those in the Congress of the United States who on so many occasions have put partisanship aside. I thank the governors of the several states, their legislatures, their state and local officials who participated unselfishly and regardless of party in our efforts to achieve recovery and destroy abuses. Above all I thank the millions of Americans who have borne disaster bravely and have dared to smile through the storm.

America will not forget these recent years, will not forget that the rescue was not a mere party task. It was the concern of all of us. In our strength we rose together, rallied our energies together, applied the old rules of common sense, and together survived.

In those days we feared fear. That was why we fought fear. And today, my friends, we have won against the most dangerous of our foes. We have conquered fear.

But I cannot, with candor, tell you that all is well with the world. Clouds of suspicion, tides of ill-will and intolerance gather darkly in many places. In our own land we enjoy indeed a fullness of life greater than that of most nations. But the rush of modern civilization itself has raised for us new difficulties, new problems which must be solved if we are to preserve to the United States the political and economic freedom for which Washington and Jefferson planned and fought.

Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history. This is fitting ground on which to reaffirm the faith of our fathers; to pledge ourselves to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776 - an American way of life.

That very word freedom, in itself and of necessity, suggests freedom from some restraining power. In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy - from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.
The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

For more than three years we have fought for them. This convention, in every word and deed, has pledged that the fight will go on.

The defeats and victories of these years have given to us as a people a new understanding of our government and of ourselves. Never since the early days of the New England town meeting have the affairs of government been so widely discussed and so clearly appreciated. It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.
We do not see faith, hope, and charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout supports of a nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization.

Faith - in the soundness of democracy in the midst of dictatorships.

Hope - renewed because we know so well the progress we have made.

Charity - in the true spirit of that grand old word. For charity literally translated from the original means love, the love that understands, that does not merely share the wealth of the giver, but in true sympathy and wisdom helps men to help themselves.

We seek not merely to make government a mechanical implement, but to give it the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity.

We are poor indeed if this nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dread fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.

In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.
It is a sobering thing, my friends, to be a servant of this great cause. We try in our daily work to remember that the cause belongs not to us, but to the people. The standard is not in the hands of you and me alone. It is carried by America. We seek daily to profit from experience, to learn to do better as our task proceeds.
Governments can err, presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that Divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales.

Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.

There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.

In this world of our in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy.

I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.

I accept the commission you have tendered me. I join with you. I am enlisted for the duration of the war."

The Birth of the Second Bill-excerpts from Cass R. Sunstein's 'The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More Than Ever

Roosevelt sought, and obtained, constitutional change; he wanted the founding document to be interpreted so as to permit his programs. Roosevelt did not argue that the Constitution should be amended to include a second bill of rights. In speaking of the second bill, he did not even mention constitutional amendment. What, then, was Roosevelt proposing? To answer that question we need to distinguish between constitutional rights and what I shall call a nation's constitutive commitments. Roosevelt was attempting to redefine the latter without affecting the former. Some rights can be located in a founding document; they are constitutional rights in the sense that the prevailing interpretation of the document finds them there. Some of these rights, like the right to free speech, are explicitly mentioned in the American Constitution. Other constitutional rights are not mentioned expressly, but they are understood to be encompassed by the Constitution's terms. Consider the right to travel from one state to another or the right be free from discrimination on the basis of sex-neither explicitly in the Constitution, but both found there by way of interpretation...Compare, for example, the right to join a labor union without losing your job-a right created in the Roosevelt administration. Congress could abolish this right tomorrow, since the American Constitution does not protect it. But the right to join a labor union is so deeply ingrained that its elimination would require a large-scale change in public judgments-something akin to a constitutional amendment...

Columbia law professor Louis Henkin notes that 'the United States is not a welfare state by constitutional compulsion'. But he goes on to say, correctly, that the 'welfare system and other rights granted by legislation (for example, laws against private racial discrimination) are so deeply embedded as to have near-constitutional sturdiness...And Americans have begun to think and speak of social security and other benefits as matters of entitlement and right'. This 'near-constitutional sturdiness' and a sense of entitlement and right were what Roosevelt sought. 'We put those payroll contributions there', he explained, 'so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program'. Americans are perfectly able to distinguish between rights and privileges. In 1991 a sample of the nation's citizens was asked whether certain goods were 'a privilege that a person should have to earn,' or instead 'a right to which he is entitled as a citizen'. By strong majorities, the respondents answered that a college education, a telephone, and an annual salary increase are privileges, not rights. But by equally strong majorities, they said that the following were rights: adequate housing, a reasonable amount of leisure time, adequate provision for retirement years, an adequate standard of living, and adequate medical care. Strong majorities endorsed many of the items on the second bill. In 1990 Americans were asked whether the government 'should provide a job for anyone who wants one'. Of those who expressed an opinion, an overwhelming 86 percent agreed. In 1998, 64 percent of Texans agreed that the 'government should see to it that everybody who wants to work can find a job'. Constitutional rights should be seen as a subset of the broader category of constitutive commitments. Some of the nation's constitutive commitments appear in its Founding Document, but many do not...Consider the ban of sex discrimination. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, and it is ludicrous to think that those ratified the bill of rights sought to forbid that form of discrimination. Nonetheless, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is now understood to ban government from treating women worse than men. In proposing the second bill, Roosevelt was not arguing for any change in constitutional interpretation but for new constitutive commitments...

In the words of Roosevelt's adviser Charles Merriam, 'Hunger, sickness, unemployment, insecurity, dog-housed dwelling places, inadequate educational, recreational, cultural advantages, unfair shares of production-these are wrongs of our day, which will not in the long run be denied a remedy in the common judgment of mankind. These conditions are wrong, but they have their complementary rights' This was the spirit in which Roosevelt urged the second bill-not as an effort to alter the Founding Document but as a concrete account of the nation's understanding of what citizens were entitled to expect...

In building toward the second bill, Roosevelt emphasized that government was not an enemy of liberty or individualism. All rights, including the rights of property, depend on government. It was necessary to define rights in a way that went well beyond the founding period and provided better protection of human liberty under modern conditions. Above all, the second bill emerged from a synthesis of New Deal reform with an appreciation of the need to develop an account of liberal democracy that would respond to the threats from fascism and communism. In the 1930's, Roosevelt spoke, with increasing firmness, of the need to develop a new conception of freedom with the same level of ambition as the Constitution's founding...

he precursor to Blue Dog Democrats of 2010] were rumored to be mounting their own attack from the right, perhaps as part of a third party. Left-wing forces were setting up their own party. In June, Roosevelt's popularity was dropping.

For whatever reason [and I would say simple Moses generation Political Courage] Roosevelt opted for a crusade...[he said]: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident-that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are: (1) Protection of the family and the home; (2) Establishment of a democracy of opportunity for all people; (3) Aid to those overtaken by disaster' Roosevelt delivered his acceptance speech at Philadelphia's Franklin Field. Over 100,000 people were in attendance. It immediately became clear to all that this would not be a defensive campaign:

'The rush of modern civilization itself has raised for us new difficulties, new problems which must be solved if we are to preserve to the United States the political and economic freedom for which Washington and Jefferson planned and fought...Philadelphia is a good city in which to write American history...to restore to the people a wider freedom; to give to 1936 as the founders gave to 1776-an American way of life'...The purpose of the Revolution of 1776 'was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy-from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown'. The goal was to put 'the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his destiny through his own government'. Hence 'it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought'. The victory meant that 'political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.' But a new challenge had arisen in the form of economic powers that 'sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property'. With the industrial revolution, 'economic royalists carved out new dynasties'...a 'new industrial dictatorship' had concentrated 'into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives...Because of new control, 'the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality'

**********************************************************************************

President Barack Obama must summon his manhood and his political courage and finish the crusade against avarice, or we will continue to suffer under the tyranny of economic despotism.

And please purchase Cass R. Sunstein's book, in particular, if you are a Muslim for the Second Bill of Rights is in accordance with the Economic Theories of Social Justice in Islam.