One of the most memorable images of the Egyptian Revolution is that of hundreds of people lined up for Islamic prayer in Tahrir Square in Cairo, in Alexandria, and in all of the other cities around the country. Hundreds organized into neat rows, standing, bowing, and prostrating in tandem to perform Islamic ritual prayer as they endured assaults of hot gushing water and tear gas by riot police. For a number of political analysts and commentators, such images of public religiosity and religious performance throughout the course of the Egyptian Revolution proved to be challenging, if not confusing. For some, it appeared paradoxical, if not incongruous, that despite the decidedly prominent role of expressions of Islamicity, whether through forms of expression of Islamic identity, such as collective prayer, or the invocation of Islamic symbolism, or the usage of Islamic phrases, the Egyptian Revolution was not a call for a theocratic government or an Islamic government.
Archives for April 2011
We begin by providing a brief overview of the Egyptian Constitution. We then discuss some of the main amendments that the Egyptian Constitutional Amendment Committee proposed and that were recently adopted by public referendum. Finally, we recommend a few other amendments that Egypt should consider after parliamentary elections take place.
The Egyptian people discovered, however, that in the absence of internal democracy, it was impossible to preserve the gains of the previous revolutions. The January 25 Revolution therefore affirmed the centrality of democracy to the Egyptian national movement, not just as a utopian goal—one whose practical implementation would be indefinitely deferred—but rather as the foundation for a modern, independent, and prosperous Egypt.
In order to better understand the relationship between the power of the Internet and the exercise of free speech in China, this study has chosen to examine the blogs of 42 judges and 13 public interest lawyers . . . The focus of the study, therefore, is on an analysis of these two groups of legal elites and how they have made use of their unique roles to open up a professional public sphere on the Internet and to act as a go-between in coordinating a match between the state and the people.
Blum’s normative analysis of the desirability of CDRs in IHL is exceptionally powerful, and I agree with most of her conclusions. This brief response, therefore, is intended to be more constructive than critical. In particular, I want to raise five issues that I believe warrant further exploration…