The protests in Egypt, which started on 25th of January, 2011, toppled down the regime of Hosni Mubarak in 18 days. During the revolution frequent usage of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and other social networks was noticed. State-owned media and television in Egypt were controlled by the authoritarian regime, and the information given to the public was bogus and favorable for the regime. Public confidence in social networks was rapidly growing, as these networks were the only source of real news and information in Egypt. The regime constricted the freedom of speech and word. People were not allowed to discuss topics opposing the regime in public. Yet, citizens could express their opinion on social networking sites. These sites were significant for the revolution.

Social networks are decentralizing the flow of information and communication. The ties of  power of authority are moving from the vertical perspective, where decisions come from the top to the bottom, to the horizontal vector, where authority and citizens exist in the same space of information. On one hand, greater transparency in the decision-making processes of the government is ensured. On the other hand, the content and nature of information on social networks cannot be controlled – authorities can use social networks to achieve their goals, and to spread fictitious information that can confuse citizens. Social networks are also changing the nature of the modern state. The territorial factor of the modern state lost its meaning, because space and time are no longer important for communication. The accountability of the government to the public is more efficient, because communication between the government and citizens is no longer just in the form of writing letters and petitions – governments and citizens exist in the same sphere of information flow for the first time in history. The flow of information in social networks is not restricted by any gatekeepers, so the public become more actively involved in political debates and civil societies are formed. It is becoming more difficult for the government to control the flow of information and manipulate the preferences of citizens. Yet, these processes do not guarantee democracy.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were used the most during the revolution and played different roles: they were the platform of the flow of information and a communication tool for both the Egyptian society and the international community, as well as the center of the organization, coordination and mobilization for the protests. Facebook and Twitter were actively used during the pre-revolutionary processes; and in the eve of revolution for the mobilization of the society, organization of the demonstrations, and information dissemination about the situation in Egypt. Meanwhile, YouTube was a very important tool during the demonstrations for spreading and sharing information directly from the streets in Egypt.

The usage of the social networks in the post-revolutionary processes increased, but their role was not changed – the flow of information and communication remained the main functions of the social networks. Although it took just 18 days of protests to force the resignation of President Mubarak, constructing a new political culture will be a slower and more challenging process.

Egypt is still governed by army, which promised to give back the authority to civilian government after the new constitution is created and the new president is elected. The process of constitution implementation is still ongoing and caused a lot of disagreements and arguments between the army and the political parties. The new constitution is still not implemented, which means that the newly-elected president will have the same power in creating the government and ruling the country as Hosni Mubarak had. The main problem in this temporary Constitution Declaration is that the article 28 of the Constitution states: “…the decision of electoral commission for presidential elections will be final and indisputable by any political power, and it cannot be prohibited or suspended…” This means that if an electoral observer or any citizen would notice or even record the proof of election fraud or other irregularities in the electoral process, they would not be entitled to contest the results of the presidential elections. Egyptian people, political scientists, and the entire international community are seriously worried about this situation. Also, failure to write a new constitution means that the legitimacy of political transition processes, balance of power, and responsibilities of the political parties in Egypt are not clear.

The first round of democratic presidential elections after more than 60 years of authoritarian rule in Egypt took place on 23-24th May, 2012, during which two candidates got into the second round of the elections, which is supposed to be held on 16-17th June. On 28th May the election commission confirmed that Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood will face Ahmed Shafik, the former Prime Minister during the Hosni Mubarak rule. Public statements of Ahmed Shafik in which he says that “he will use executions and brutal force to restore order within a month of becoming president (end the revolution)” are causing anxiety to both the Egyptian society and the international community.

Social networks in these processes do not take such a strong and important position as they had in the revolutionary processes. Though some research showed that the number of people using social networks as their main source of information and communication increased after the revolution, five million users on social networks is a small percentage in comparison to the Egyptian population.

The role of social networks in the transformation and democratization processes in Egypt can be perceived differently. On one hand, there is more freedom on social networking sites, so they can become a communication tool for citizens, but on the other hand, that freedom is almost out of control and social networks can be unpredictable. The question remains, whether social networks can bring more benefit or harm for the state. In Egypt, it is likely that the new government will be more careful, knowing the fact that social networks can mobilize the society, as they have before. Yet, it is clear that the following weeks in Egypt will be unpredictable, full of disputes and uncertainty.

Written by Karolina Mazetyte, AEGEE-Kaunas

The article was written by Karolina Mazetyte, a member of International Politics Working Group

• IPWG Board would like to thank Karolina for her inspirational and premium article. We hope more members will follow her motivational example and will use IPWG as step of expressing their ideas and believes. 

“Racism is man’s gravest threat to man – the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason.”

Abrahah J. Heschel (Jewish theologian and philosopher, 1907-1972)

For a long time before starting this article, I was thinking about how to start it, and at last I have not found anything better than to just take a quote of Abraham Heschel, who was a Polish-born American rabbi and one of the leading Jewish theologians and philosophers of the 20th century. In his quote, dating back to the 1950s, he managed to describe perfectly the modern concept of racism. Racism is not something new or unknown to mankind; it has been developing alongside with humankind. According to Wikipedia, racism refers to the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination.

Personally I do not like speaking on some theoretical issues and problems in international politics, as in my opinion such issues are a result of uncertain and different approach of individuals to some existing issues, but during the last few months I guess many of us have witnessed numerous unknown and unheard of things, for example in sports.

Liverpool and Chelsea football teams’ star players Luis Suarez and John Terry, and the professional boxing superstar Floyd Money Mayweather Jr. have two things in common, and the first one is their recent involvement in racial scandals.

The first two racially abused their opponents during their respective football matches, and were banned from the field for several months by England’s Professional Footballers’ Association.

In his turn, Floyd Mayweather Jr., who in my opinion is really one of the best pound-for-pound boxer in history, after the New York Knicks’ basketball match, wrote down on his Twitter page, which has 2.5 million followers, the following tweet about one of the Asian basketball players: “Jeremy Lin is a good player but all the hype is because he’s Asian. Black players do what he does every night and don’t get the same praise.”

Why have I taken these examples? The thing is that all the aforementioned sport figures have another thing in common: they are super popular, and today the interpretation and concept of racism could really have an awful impact on everyday activities of many modern civil societies, of which they are an integral part. You may immediately argue with me that today there is no such state in the world where racism is officially promoted, and it is very common that individuals get involved in such scandals. Yes, God bless all of us, we have managed to successfully overcome those times when it was not possible to imagine that black and white children would be sitting in the same classroom or that black citizens would not get problems while getting citizenship of their respective states.

But the thing is that in today’s reality even a little racism abuse may bury anybody’s career and everything. In this simple, and very obvious truth on first sight, lies the whole concept of modern racism.

Of course, these racial scandals in my opinion shall not have much impact on popularity or career of people mentioned; in fact, I guess it may even get bigger. But surely after such accidents they would be under much more pressure from society and it may have an impact on their working/playing abilities. Simultaneously, it is really interesting to know their motivation or ideas by which they were guided while making such harassing comments or offenses. The answer is again very simple; as practice shows, they are really doing it intentionally, as none of them is denying their fault after, and some are even making excuses, but they also do not think to what consequences it may lead.

Nobody shall exclude the possibility that the victims of these scandals (Patrice Evra, Anton Ferdinand, Jeremy Lin) may have done something which compelled our “heroes” to make such abuses, but in my opinion, a strong-minded and composed person, especially when he/she is also very famous, shall not allow himself/herself to do such things.

Simultaneously, I could not mention another thing on this topic; such racial scandals, taking place on the football pitch, were really unknown thing for the British society, as well as to the international football community, and the replies to them were too critical and radical, but racial incidents are a very common thing in the USA and I may even agree with Mayweather Jr. that if some black player played as Jeremy Lin maybe he would not get such fame in the USA just because of his skin colour.

With no debate, we just shall state that today the interpretation of racism is much more different than it was some decades ago. The equality of the individuals and social justice in civil societies shall not recognize any racial arguments or grounds. Only when the rights and freedoms of an individual will be respected by the others, humankind will be able to fulfill the dreams of Dr. Luther King and Mr. Mandela, and as long we do not have that respect, we shall continue living while bearing in our minds the simple truth which is expressed in the starting quote of this article.

Written by Armenak Minasyants, AEGEE-Yerevan & Speaker of International Politics WG

After the elections of the new board, our first debate took place.

The first topic’s main question was whether a monetary union can exist without a common fiscal policy. The main outcome of this part of the debate was that a monetary union without a fiscal union is like one ship with different steering wheels.

The biggest part of the debate concerned the rise of nationalism which helped the participating IPWG members to understand each other and to learn about the history of different European countries. This plays an important role in the level of nationalism.

The participating members were from The Netherlands, Slovakia, Hungary, and Greece which gave us the opportunity to examine the problem from different poin of views.

Outcomes

The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, nationalism is connected to populism which is fed by the growing number of immigrants and their cheap workforce. Dutch nationalism is not directed against a specific nation, but is against immigrants and other cultures which are not historically connected to the Dutch lifestyle.

Slovakia

Slovakia is a really young country where  nationalism and populism are part of the daily politics.  According to the Slovak IPWG member, Slovak people are very aware of foreigners and  Jews, Germans and other nationalities slowly disappearing from society. At this point, the main targets of nationalist consist of (verbal) attacks against Gypsies and Hungarians.

Hungary

In Hungary, there are two kinds of nationalism. One is the healthy patriotism with the acknowledgement of the great history and achievements of the nation. The other one is a populist, revisionist radical nationalism, aiming at gaining back the lost territories of the country with the millions of Hungarians living there under oppression.

Greece

Greek nationalism has it roots in history, being one of the first European cultures and the craddle of democracy. Greeks felt superiority, a sense of inferiority, primarily mistrust for their neighbours and for foreigners in general.

Today, nationalism is a mixture of pride about a glorious history and sadness about the current situation and the two of them can hardly be compared. Untill today they raise nationalism towards populations that inhabit terrority which used to belong to Greece once upon a time.

Attention: The outcomes here reflect the opinions of the members of the debate, which is independent from the official position of IPWG and AEGEE-Europe.

The Board of IPWG would like to thank all the members present during our first debate and expressed their opinions and topics that concern them.

Yet, the main reason for such debates is to see how similar we are and how the worries are rather the same across Europe. The sooner and more precisely you identify a problematic situation, the better you can face it.

We are here to work for our rights and our right is one united Europe without the fear of immigration and the stereotypes of populism controling our lives.

Written by the IPWG Board

It is time to focus on the Nobel Peace Prize awards and to explain who received the prize and why. Have fun reading!

The 2011 Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to three women for their struggle for women’s safety and women’s full participation in peace-building work, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee said.

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, women’s activist Leymah Gbowee of Liberia and Tawakkul Karman of Yemen each share the prize. The three women will be given an equal share of the $1.5 million that accompanies the peace prize.

So what is this so-called Nobel Peace Prize? The peace prize is awarded by a five-person committee that is selected by the Norwegian Parliament; the other Nobel prizes are awarded in Sweden by a Swedish committee. The peace prize is one of the five Nobel prizes bequeathed by Alfred Nobel, a Swedish industrialist and inventor. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 91 times to 121 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2010 — 98 individuals and 23 organizations. President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in expanding global arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, and for forging an agenda aimed at achieving a nuclear-free world.

The prize committee said in a prepared statement that it “decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 is to be divided in three equal parts between Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work.”

I personally believe that we cannot achieve democracy and lasting peace in the world unless women obtain the same opportunities as men to influence developments at all levels of society.

The US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised the Nobel Committee for recognizing “the powerful role women are playing in building peace and ending conflict.”

“I am delighted to send heartfelt congratulations to Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Yemeni activist Tawakkul Karman and Liberian peace activist Leymah Roberta Gbowee for the prestigious honor of sharing this year’s Nobel Peace Prize,” Clinton said in a prepared statement.

Really, they are shining examples of the difference that women can make and the progress they can help achieve when given the opportunity to make decisions about the future of their societies and countries.

Why is this year’s Peace Prize is so important for the international community in general? The unflinching courage, strength and leadership of these women to build peace, advance reconciliation, and defend the rights of fellow citizens in their own countries provide inspiration for women’s rights and human progress everywhere. This recognition of their extraordinary accomplishments reflects the efforts of many other women who are promoting peace and security in their countries and communities.

In October 2000, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 that for the first time made violence against women in armed conflict an international security issue, according to the prize committee. It underlined the need for women to become participants on equal status with men in peace processes and in peace work in general.

During last 2-3 days I have got a lot remarks and question around Europe concerning this awards and in order to avoid any misinterpretation let’s just consider their examples one by one and you will see that the selection has been done correctly.

1) Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is Africa’s first democratically elected female president. Since her inauguration in 2006, she has contributed to securing peace in Liberia, to promoting economic and social development, and to strengthening the position of women.

2) Leymah Gbowee, who is also from Liberia, mobilized and organized women across ethnic and religious dividing lines to bring an end to the long war in Liberia, and to ensure women’s participation in elections. She has since worked to enhance the influence of women in West Africa during and after war.

3) Tawakkul Karman has played a leading part in the struggle for women’s rights and for democracy and peace in Yemen.

This leaves just one more thing to add: the positive responsibility of each state is to guarantee gender equality in society, but I simultaneously believe that it is also up to each of us to guarantee that equality in our societies.

written by Armenak Minasyants, IPWG 

For most of the readers of “The AEGEEan” this word combination is unknown, especially for new AEGEE  members. Nevertheless, we all know for sure that this is not just an empty and important-sounding word combination which cannot and does not make any difference in our lifes. Yes, there are people in our Network who have turned this word combination into a personal bet for their activities and trying to achieve it by all means.

Since the day of its establishment in 1997 the International Politics WG has been one of the key WG’s in our network and has contributed to the development of many big European level projects which in their turn have made our network more active and interested in international politics. As is widely known, AEGEE-Europe and AEGEE antennae are non-political formations and they are not pursuing political goals and tasks.  However, like all other AEGEE members, I truly believe that each citizen of our motherland Europe, and especially the youth, has to be well-informed about the various international political processes taking place around the world.  Most of the present pan-European movements and initiatives are results not only of mutual understanding of the EU member States and their partners, but they are also an expression of their political will; the will to share equal rights and freedoms around Europe; the will to establish democracy and the rule of law state in our continent; the will to have well-organised and open trade economies; the will to create and develop more a secure world without conflicts, threats and challenges. We believe that WE, the youth of Europe, have the necessary potential, knowledge, and experience and we are the persons who will shape perspectives for future.

I, as the Secretary of the IPWG and on behalf of the entire Working Group and its board, want to thank everybody for this wonderful initiative. The initiative will get a lot of feedback in future and will strengthen relations between different parts, locals and Working Groups of our network and will contribute to more involvement of AEGEE members in the European level activities.

Take this letter as just a little introduction of the International Politics WG and wait for more and much moreeeeeeee from our WG.

written by Armenak Minasyanc, AEGEE Yerevan