military

The military government that replaced Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak is now moving to reverse recent reforms that gave Egypt solid economic growth in the last several years. It wants to curb free-market competition with military-run enterprises that dominate parts of Egypt’s economy.

As The New York Times reported on Friday, economists say the military “has already begun taking steps to protect the privileges of its gated economy, discouraging changes that some argue are crucial if Egypt is to emerge as a more stable, prosperous country.”

Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the minister of defense and military production who now leads the council of officers ruling Egypt, has been a strong advocate of government control of prices and production. He has consistently opposed steps to open up the economy. . . already there are signs that the military is purging from the cabinet and ruling party advocates of market-oriented economic changes, like selling off state-owned companies and reducing barriers to trade. . . the military-led government also struck at advocates of economic openness, including the former finance minister Youssef Boutros-Ghali, who was forced from his job, and the former trade minister Rachid Mohamed Rachid.

The young protesters who helped bring down the Mubarak government are short-sightedly not criticizing these measures. Indeed, the Times reports that “some of the young revolutionaries at the vanguard of the revolt identify themselves as leftists or socialists.”

Egypt’s economy had long been a moribund socialist backwater after much of the economy was nationalized by the founder of Egypt’s ruling party, Gamal Abdel Nasser. His successors Sadat and Mubarak had largely continued those policies. But in the last five years, Mubarak finally embarked on serious economic reform, resulting in sustained economic growth. The reforms made property rights more secure, and made it easier to start a business — although much of Egyptian industry remained government-owned.

Ironically enough, this economic liberalization made possible the recent demands for political liberalization that contributed to Mubarak’s ouster, by giving Egyptians access to cell phones, the Internet, and other means of mass communication, and increasing their political consciousness. As Marshall Stocker noted:

Egypt today evidences Milton Friedman’s ‘Capitalism and Freedom’ thesis that a large measure of political freedom only comes when economic freedom exists. The World Bank’s 2006 “Ease of Doing Business index” scored Egypt 165 of 175, among the worst countries for business. After several years of economic liberalization, Egypt is 94 of 183 this year, more economically free than Brazil, India and Russia. The number of days it takes to start a business legally has dropped 85%. It now takes me 10, not the 500 days it took Mr. de Soto in 2004. The World Bank says that property registration now takes 72 days, down from 193, and now costs 90% less.  Economic liberalization permitted Egyptians to afford the tools of freedom: cell phones, satellite TV, Facebook and Twitter. Economic liberalization facilitated this revolution.

The economic regression occurring in Egypt is mirrored in more backward Yemen, where the longtime ruler of Yemen, one of the world’s poorest countries, has sought to shore up his popular support in the face of mass unrest by promising rigid “price controls” and an expansion of welfare to cover 500,000 more people. President Ali Abdullah Saleh has promised to expand his bureaucracy to hire more “college graduates,” and is increasing the pay of government employees. These measures will wreak havoc with his country’s finances, resulting in massive deficit spending. They will further stifle his country’s slow-growing economy, which has failed to keep pace with rapid population increases. Yemen’s lousy economy has helped make it a fertile ground for Al Qaeda recruiters.

In Libya, the viciously bloody and oppressive longtime dictator Muammar Qaddafi is shoring up his support base in the face of public protests by promising to double public-employee pay, even though public employees are much richer than the average Libyan. Egypt recently increased government employee pay by 15 percent to buttress their loyalty, a decision sure to increase its budget deficit and aggravate its economic problems.

We wrote earlier about how ethanol subsidies and mandates were fueling Islamic extremism and contributing to unrest in Egypt’s slums by driving up wheat prices, and thus shifting the locus of opposition to the Mubarak government away from Egypt’s small pro-democracy movements towards the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood, which is popular in the slums because of its relief efforts there.

Image credit: Muhammad Ghafari via Wikimedia Commons.

The Washington Post‘s “Senate Panel Ban Seen as Double Standard” deals with the latest attempt to eliminate so-called “conflicts of interest” between appointees to government defense-related positions. Appointees must divest themselves — often at great cost — of all investments in any firm that does business with the military.

The article notes this same prohibition has not been extended to federal legislators serving on military committees. A more relevant point is that this policy discourages individuals knowledgeable about military procurement (that is, those involved in the process) from serving in government. This point was raised recently in a C-SPAN interview with Lord John Wakeham, a distinguished parliamentarian from England.

He argued that before going into politics, an individual should first make some money, learn how the world operates.  Banning links to the market weakens the ability of legislators to make reasonable policy decisions. Lord Wakeham instead favors “disclosure.” And he, in my view, is quite right. A vigilant media can be expected to scrutinize the decisions of individuals in government in any event.

The recent trend to ban “conflicts of interest” threatens many things. The challenge is not to eliminate such conflicts, an impossibility in any event, but rather to manage them to achieve more creative outcomes. Moreover, the bias which sees only economic conflicts as meriting policy reform means the relative weight given ideological conflicts is exacerbated. History suggests there are much greater risks involved in enhancing the power of ideology than in economic scandals.

Unfortunately, the power of ideology has increased greatly in the last few decades. Those worried about the bitterness of partisan conflict in recent years should reconsider. After all, the tyrants of history were not primarily motivated by money, but rather power. Do we wish these “public servants” to be our role models for the future?

Liberal judges insist that it’s racist to keep prison inmates from voting, because inmates are disproportionately members of minority groups.  See the dissents of liberal judges Calebresi, Sotomayor, and Katzmann in this appeals court ruling upholding New York’s law prohibiting prison inmates from voting (Hayden v. Pataki).

But some liberals are not very enthusiastic about soldiers voting.  As noted earlier, Illinois officials missed the deadline to mail ballots to U.S. troops overseas, but they hand-delivered ballots to inmates in liberal Cook County, Illinois, and the Obama administration is failing to enforce federal laws that require states to mail ballots to overseas troops in a timely fashion.

Sadly, to a few liberal commenters, the soldiers who protect America are just “right-wing neanderthals” who lack the “intellectual” capacity to “vote intelligently” and fail to appreciate the need for “social change.”

The irony is that soldiers are a bit more likely to be black than the general population (see this graph for the percentages of army recruits by state), so failing to protect the votes of soldiers also has a “racially disparate impact.”  If liberals really care about such “discrimination” — as they claim in arguing that prison inmates should be allowed to vote — why aren’t they defending the voting rights of soldiers, rather than turning a blind eye to violations of their voting rights?

Presumably, the answer is that soldiers aren’t liberal enough for them — the way inmates are perceived as being.

Separate votes” are expected “in the House and Senate later this week on legislation repealing the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ restriction on gays serving openly in the military.”

I wrote earlier about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy here.

Law Professor Dale Carpenter discusses the legislation to overturn DADT here.

I discuss some of the problems caused by DADT here; a commenter responds here. Cost-benefit analysis seems to support repeal of DADT.

A Muslim solder, Nidal Hasan, shot dead 13 people at Fort Hood yesterday. Hasan had earlier exhibited extremist, anti-American propensities, including applauding terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers. There are different theories as to how this could have happened.

One school of thought attributes the tragedy to politically-correct double standards imposed on the military that kept the alarm bells from going off.

Other commentators point to a gun-control policy that disarms soldiers while on military bases to create “gun-free zones,” leaving them defenseless in the face of an attack.

These explanations are not mutually exclusive. Doubtless other factors could have contributed to the tragedy as well.