A Global Marshall Plan Power to the People

"Power to the People" is a beautiful slogan and is sometimes overused for its ambiguity in meaning and difficulty in implementation. We are now in the midst of what is a public outpouring of the people seeking to overthrow autocratic leaders and governments. The bottom line appears to be economic in nature - food, employment, and, of course, rights of freedom, no matter whatever that may mean or consist of. It appears to be an empowerment in action - hopefully one which can become a truth.

When I was growing up, there was a mayor named Frank Hague of Jersey City, NJ. It seemed to me as though Jersey City never had another mayor. He retired, and the mayors after him became stained by allegations of corruption and all such good things. Of course, all of those who analyzed his reign came up with the reason for Hague's durability - namely, "He shared with the People." He built hospitals, parks and community programs. He is reported to have said that his successors were trying to become rich in a few years, while it had taken him many years of service.

Apparently sharing with the people was never the policy in the Middle East. "The People" seem to have determined after one of them decided to immolate himself and become a martyr to take to the streets. With such an outpouring, the Tunisian president left his office and his country. The momentum started to spread to Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran [hopefully] and definitely to Egypt where the 30-year despot has finally stepped down after 18 days of a 24/7 insurgency.

There appears to be a uniqueness about the turnover since it is not a coup d'état by an opposition party in the country or by the success of different religious factions. It is secular in nature to the extent that it appears to be rudderless, with protesters calling for the autocrats to step down and give them democracy. There is no singular or charismatic leader [other than the military], although the Muslim Brotherhood sits by like a vulture awaiting the opportunity to swoop down and take over control as a theocracy.

To dump the long-term autocratic leader is easy to understand, and the assumption is that all good things will come forward in the economy and public representation. Unfortunately, that doesn't follow since democracy is still a rather misleading concept to those who have lived under a totalitarian leader and undemocratic government. They see freedom as an avenue leading to economic redemption and a secular society allowing them freedom of movement and of expression without actually realizing that it has restraints - the measure of those restraints will be the key to the scope of the freedom.

Now into this pot of confusion comes technology which was not in existence when the autocrat took possession of the nation 30 years earlier. The people at this moment have used and extensively communicated on the internet, Facebook, Twitter and all sorts of social access to transit the slogans and the fervor needed to propel themselves onto the street and affect a change in government or as an instrument to spark change [maybe?]. Youth and others with staying power seem to have their day to seek and to express a new opportunity.

Two interesting aspects of the Egyptian revolution are that it has been a peaceful non-violent gathering and secondly that it has not as yet blamed Israel for all for the ills imposed upon the Egyptian society. A most important concern must be that both of these elements of revival of democracy not seek to make a scapegoat of Israel for all past ills. The continued existence of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel would signal a benchmark of the new democracy.

It is vital that the transformative aspects find within them a trust, internal and external, which had been lacking for the last 30 years. That trust must be reciprocal both within and outside Egypt.

The playing field has changed, and the United States must motivate with it in diplomacy and possible foreign involvement in political and economic assemblages. Alliances thought to have existed between us and another government are not absolute - especially in the Middle East. We can no longer guarantee stability or economic gain. This is especially true when tear gas canisters being thrown at protesters show them to be made in the USA. True, when our troops are on the ground supporting leaders who continue to seek deals with their so-called enemies to the exclusion of the United States. True, when US monies contributed find their way into the pockets of corrupt government. True when terms of democracy are spoken of in terms of dollars rather than in the expenditure of American lives.

Yet, after saying all that, the United States must remain a major player in that area. But, the United States must not be the only one obligated to expend money and lives. The Past is gone, and technology has spread the messages quickly and fully to mobilize the rallies of protesters. It has made them attuned to each other in almost an immediate development of a bonding to accomplish change.

Watching the protesters reminded me of the Displaced Persons [DPs] who after World War II were homeless and rudderless after release from the concentration camps and a controlled society. However, the United States is no longer able to solely undertake to guarantee economies and support the development of democracies as it did under the Marshall Plan for Europe.

What is necessary now is a coordinated Global Marshall Plan. Such an undertaking must require monies from not only the United States, but from other countries, especially from the Middle East, such as the Saudis who have been supporting the despots and the terrorists with extensive amounts of money and creating rather than positively working to solve the problems existing - such as making nomads of the Palestinians. It should immediately be worked on and put before the world’s major economic nations. Such a global line of attack and credit would not be limited to the Middle East but has to be universally designed as well.

Such a universal approach could be initially staged starting in Egypt, which at this point is a major player of the need in the areas of economics, democracy and military. The immediate area of involvement would appear to be agriculture, which will provide food and income to many of the protesters. The ultimate decision as to the realization of a political democracy must be with the Egyptians themselves together with the Army [which in reality has been a fundamental part of the secular society for the past 30 years].

There must be no requirement for the introduction of ground troops to accomplish this purpose and should be resolved within Egypt itself. Iraq and Afghanistan have already shown how hollow such an approach is. Technology and the more current tactics allow for the implementation of drones, SWAT teams, computer-generated programs to interfere with nuclear progress, the use of social networking sites and the internet as a means of mass communication and the like.

In a column by Thomas L. Friedman, he quotes an engineer from Tunis who just about says it all: "Don't burn yourself up; burn up the fear that is inside you."Those, both young and old, who rallied in Independence Square, proved the reality of that quote.

The final question: In actuality, is there ever going to be Power to the People???? Doubtful!!!