Wis. rallies renew history of political activism (AP)

MADISON, Wis. – A birthplace of the progressive movement is crackling with a fervor not seen in decades, as students from the famously liberal University of Wisconsin team up with unionized state workers for demonstrations against changes to collective bargaining rights pushed by the state's new Republican governor. The biggest rally yet is expected Saturday, along with an influx of conservative counter-protesters.

As many as 40,000 people swarmed the Capitol on Friday, raising the noise in its rotunda to earsplitting levels as they rallied to block Republican Gov. Scott Walker's efforts to ease Wisconsin's budget woes by cutting many government workers' pay, benefits and bargaining rights.

No stranger to political unrest, Madison has seen activists take to the streets to protest the Vietnam war, support civil rights and oppose cuts in social services. Riots ensued 15 years ago when police clamped down on an annual block party that began as an anti-war protest in 1969.

Some say this week's rallies are unmatched in their sustained, impassioned energy — bolstered by Senate Democrats who fled the state to delay action on Walker's proposal and threatened to stay in hiding for weeks if calls for negotiation go unheeded. State troopers were sent to retrieve the Democratic minority leader from his home Friday, but their knocks went unanswered.

"That's jaw-dropping. This is uncharted," said Mordecai Lee, a UW-Milwaukee political scientist and former state lawmaker who said he's been reminded this week of when motorcycle riders' protest of a helmet law in the late 1970s persuaded legislators to overturn the measure.

Democrats who stayed in Madison on Friday scored their own victory, forcing the state Assembly to adjourn until at least Tuesday without taking a vote on Walker's bill. Republicans, however, have more than enough votes to pass the measure once the Legislature can convene.

The vast majority of the protesters who have for four days filled the Capitol with chanting, drum-beats and anti-Walker slogans have been union workers and their supporters. Tensions could rise Saturday, when conservative counter-protesters are set to arrive by the busload to demand that the bill be passed. Protests are organized by groups including the Tea Party Patriots, the movement's largest umbrella group, and Americans for Prosperity.

Paul Soglin, who has been at the Capitol all week and spent at least one night on the floor, didn't seem concerned about clashes with the opposition, saying he's been struck by protesters' positive enthusiasm.

"A joy, yes, in the way people greet one another, the way they're energized by one another," said Soglin, who described himself as a veteran of more than 100 protests since the 1960s. "They're excited that even though there's a grim prospect of the bill being adopted, that in the long run they're building something that can be strong for the working class."

Walker insists the concessions he is seeking from public workers — including higher health insurance and pension contributions — are necessary to deal with the state's projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall and to avoid layoffs. Eliminating their collective bargaining rights, except over wage increases not greater than the Consumer Price Index, is necessary in order to give state and local governments and schools flexibility to deal with upcoming cuts in state aid, Walker said.

Sarah Palin weighed with a Friday night posting on her Facebook page that urged "union brothers and sisters" not to ask taxpayers to support "unsustainable benefits packages."

"Real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin said in her post, which did not indicate whether she would join conservatives in Madison this weekend.

Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney predicted crowds could swell to as many as 70,000 people on Saturday and said his department planned to add 60 deputies to the 100 who patrolled during the week.

The throngs of protesters — including teachers, prison guards and many students — have been largely peaceful. Police reported just nine citations for minor offenses as of Friday. Schools throughout the state have closed this week after teachers called in sick, including in the state's largest district, in Milwaukee.

The leader of the state's largest public employee union said workers were prepared to discuss financial concessions but not to give up bargaining rights. Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, said protests would continue until Walker agrees to negotiate.

But neither Walker nor the Republicans who took control of both the state Senate and Assembly in November appear ready to make concessions. Walker has called on Senate Democrats to "come home" and rebuffed a request to sit down with them to seek a compromise.

___

Associated Press writers Scott Bauer, Todd Richmond and Jason Smathers contributed to this report.

View the original article here

A Brief History of Military Takeover (Time.com)

The resignation of Hosni Mubarak prompted widespread euphoria in Egypt's cities, where millions had massed on the streets for nearly three weeks to bring down Mubarak's three-decade-old regime. His departure is the product of an unprecedented display of courage and defiance by Egypt's people, but the hopes of many in the country still hinge on the actions of its military, which has assumed power and will preside over whatever transition that takes place.

Generals are used to delivering commands from top-down with the expectation of total obedience - unsurprisingly, they don't make the most natural democrats. Following the 1952 toppling of Egypt's British-backed monarchy by a group of young army officers, political authority in Cairo has always depended upon the military's backing. Never before has it sanctioned the development of a real democracy in the country.

But examples of coups elsewhere offer cause for optimism. In 1974, a coordinated revolt by disaffected officers in the Portuguese army against the country's repressive quasi-fascist government brought out tens of thousands into the streets. It was dubbed the Carnation Revolution as residents of Lisbon festooned the weapons of mutinous troops with flowers. Portugal's authoritarian regime collapsed, its overseas colonies - beset by violent insurgencies - were granted freedom, and elections led to a civilian-run center-left government. Democracy followed a year later in neighboring Spain, and has flourished in both countries since. Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, endured 16 years of iron-fisted military rule, but its top brass eventually relented, allowing for a new constitution in 1999 that ushered in a credible, durable democracy. While the country is still burdened by corruption and longstanding ethnic and religious tensions, the army looks to have receded into the background. (See what was left behind after Tunisia's revolution.)

In Egypt's case, that may be hoping for too much. It boasts the largest army in Africa and the military as an institution is deeply embedded in the workings of the state. Unlike the reviled security forces of the Interior Ministry, guilty of decades of arbitrary arrests, intimidation and torture, the army is well-regarded as a patriotic and proud custodian of the nation. But while many of the army's rank-and-file conscripts may be on the side of the protesters, some among its current top brass - as well as former key generals like Vice President Omar Suleiman - directly helped preserve Mubarak's reign and were its beneficiaries. It's too early to tell how they will adjust to the new political calculus.

Movements toward democracy have been sidelined by similar personalities in the past. In 1977, Pakistani General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq stepped in during a rancorous political crisis and arrested Pakistan's elected Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on the pretext of returning order to the country. Bhutto was executed a year later and Zia stayed in power until his death in 1988. In the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia became a key ally of the U.S., directing American aid to the anti-Moscow mujahedin while maintaining a draconian grip on Pakistan's politics throughout.

Over the decades, perhaps no military is more guilty of meddling with its country's fledgling civilian democracy than that of Thailand, the Southeast Asian land of smiles and coups. In 2006, the Royal Thai Army launched its latest intervention, ousting the controversial populist Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and declaring martial law. Civilian rule has returned, but Thailand's political landscape is deeply polarized and fractious - a product, in part, of a society far too accustomed to seeing tanks on the streets at the first instance of crisis. (See a brief history of people power.)

Of course, there's a limit to how instructive these external comparisons may be for Egypt, which is in the grips of a truly epochal moment. Commentators in the West have tended to place the protests in two vastly different historical paradigms. For some, the events in Egypt parallel the 1979 Iranian Revolution, where a mass uprising against a U.S.-backed dictator brought about an illiberal, Islamist theocracy. For optimists, Cairo represents the long-awaited Arab Spring, when, like the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe, democracy would bloom as authoritarian rule crumbled. In the first case, fears of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood gaining the same political traction as Iran's Shi'ite mullahs have been considerably overblown. In the latter, the hope for any sort of peaceful democratic transformation still awaits the license of Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

That may yet come. The famous 1986 protests that toppled Ferdinand Marcos, the longtime dictator of the Philippines, gave to global lexicon the term "people power" - a phrase which has been repeatedly invoked when characterizing events in Tahrir Square. But for all the incredible scenes of mobilization and protest, little would have been achieved had it not been for the mutiny of a prominent general and the defense minister in Marcos' camp. In the beginning, the military bought into the post-Marcos democracy but, later, factions within the army launched a number of botched coups and even the attempted assassination of the country's sitting elected President. As ever, the men in uniform can be real arbiters for change, but democracy is rarely secure when preserved just through the barrel of a gun.

See TIME's complete coverage: "The Middle East in Revolt."

See photos of the celebration in Tahrir Square.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

A Brief History of Military Takeover (Time.com)

The resignation of Hosni Mubarak prompted widespread euphoria in Egypt's cities, where millions had massed on the streets for nearly three weeks to bring down Mubarak's three-decade-old regime. His departure is the product of an unprecedented display of courage and defiance by Egypt's people, but the hopes of many in the country still hinge on the actions of its military, which has assumed power and will preside over whatever transition that takes place.

Generals are used to delivering commands from top-down with the expectation of total obedience - unsurprisingly, they don't make the most natural democrats. Following the 1952 toppling of Egypt's British-backed monarchy by a group of young army officers, political authority in Cairo has always depended upon the military's backing. Never before has it sanctioned the development of a real democracy in the country.

But examples of coups elsewhere offer cause for optimism. In 1974, a coordinated revolt by disaffected officers in the Portuguese army against the country's repressive quasi-fascist government brought out tens of thousands into the streets. It was dubbed the Carnation Revolution as residents of Lisbon festooned the weapons of mutinous troops with flowers. Portugal's authoritarian regime collapsed, its overseas colonies - beset by violent insurgencies - were granted freedom, and elections led to a civilian-run center-left government. Democracy followed a year later in neighboring Spain, and has flourished in both countries since. Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, endured 16 years of iron-fisted military rule, but its top brass eventually relented, allowing for a new constitution in 1999 that ushered in a credible, durable democracy. While the country is still burdened by corruption and longstanding ethnic and religious tensions, the army looks to have receded into the background. (See what was left behind after Tunisia's revolution.)

In Egypt's case, that may be hoping for too much. It boasts the largest army in Africa and the military as an institution is deeply embedded in the workings of the state. Unlike the reviled security forces of the Interior Ministry, guilty of decades of arbitrary arrests, intimidation and torture, the army is well-regarded as a patriotic and proud custodian of the nation. But while many of the army's rank-and-file conscripts may be on the side of the protesters, some among its current top brass - as well as former key generals like Vice President Omar Suleiman - directly helped preserve Mubarak's reign and were its beneficiaries. It's too early to tell how they will adjust to the new political calculus.

Movements toward democracy have been sidelined by similar personalities in the past. In 1977, Pakistani General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq stepped in during a rancorous political crisis and arrested Pakistan's elected Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on the pretext of returning order to the country. Bhutto was executed a year later and Zia stayed in power until his death in 1988. In the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia became a key ally of the U.S., directing American aid to the anti-Moscow mujahedin while maintaining a draconian grip on Pakistan's politics throughout.

Over the decades, perhaps no military is more guilty of meddling with its country's fledgling civilian democracy than that of Thailand, the Southeast Asian land of smiles and coups. In 2006, the Royal Thai Army launched its latest intervention, ousting the controversial populist Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and declaring martial law. Civilian rule has returned, but Thailand's political landscape is deeply polarized and fractious - a product, in part, of a society far too accustomed to seeing tanks on the streets at the first instance of crisis. (See a brief history of people power.)

Of course, there's a limit to how instructive these external comparisons may be for Egypt, which is in the grips of a truly epochal moment. Commentators in the West have tended to place the protests in two vastly different historical paradigms. For some, the events in Egypt parallel the 1979 Iranian Revolution, where a mass uprising against a U.S.-backed dictator brought about an illiberal, Islamist theocracy. For optimists, Cairo represents the long-awaited Arab Spring, when, like the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe, democracy would bloom as authoritarian rule crumbled. In the first case, fears of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood gaining the same political traction as Iran's Shi'ite mullahs have been considerably overblown. In the latter, the hope for any sort of peaceful democratic transformation still awaits the license of Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

That may yet come. The famous 1986 protests that toppled Ferdinand Marcos, the longtime dictator of the Philippines, gave to global lexicon the term "people power" - a phrase which has been repeatedly invoked when characterizing events in Tahrir Square. But for all the incredible scenes of mobilization and protest, little would have been achieved had it not been for the mutiny of a prominent general and the defense minister in Marcos' camp. In the beginning, the military bought into the post-Marcos democracy but, later, factions within the army launched a number of botched coups and even the attempted assassination of the country's sitting elected President. As ever, the men in uniform can be real arbiters for change, but democracy is rarely secure when preserved just through the barrel of a gun.

See TIME's complete coverage: "The Middle East in Revolt."

See photos of the celebration in Tahrir Square.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

View the original article here

A Brief History of Military Takeover (Time.com)

The resignation of Hosni Mubarak prompted widespread euphoria in Egypt's cities, where millions had massed on the streets for nearly three weeks to bring down Mubarak's three-decade-old regime. His departure is the product of an unprecedented display of courage and defiance by Egypt's people, but the hopes of many in the country still hinge on the actions of its military, which has assumed power and will preside over whatever transition that takes place.
Generals are used to delivering commands from top-down with the expectation of total obedience - unsurprisingly, they don't make the most natural democrats. Following the 1952 toppling of Egypt's British-backed monarchy by a group of young army officers, political authority in Cairo has always depended upon the military's backing. Never before has it sanctioned the development of a real democracy in the country.
But examples of coups elsewhere offer cause for optimism. In 1974, a coordinated revolt by disaffected officers in the Portuguese army against the country's repressive quasi-fascist government brought out tens of thousands into the streets. It was dubbed the Carnation Revolution as residents of Lisbon festooned the weapons of mutinous troops with flowers. Portugal's authoritarian regime collapsed, its overseas colonies - beset by violent insurgencies - were granted freedom, and elections led to a civilian-run center-left government. Democracy followed a year later in neighboring Spain, and has flourished in both countries since. Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, endured 16 years of iron-fisted military rule, but its top brass eventually relented, allowing for a new constitution in 1999 that ushered in a credible, durable democracy. While the country is still burdened by corruption and longstanding ethnic and religious tensions, the army looks to have receded into the background. (See what was left behind after Tunisia's revolution.)
In Egypt's case, that may be hoping for too much. It boasts the largest army in Africa and the military as an institution is deeply embedded in the workings of the state. Unlike the reviled security forces of the Interior Ministry, guilty of decades of arbitrary arrests, intimidation and torture, the army is well-regarded as a patriotic and proud custodian of the nation. But while many of the army's rank-and-file conscripts may be on the side of the protesters, some among its current top brass - as well as former key generals like Vice President Omar Suleiman - directly helped preserve Mubarak's reign and were its beneficiaries. It's too early to tell how they will adjust to the new political calculus.
Movements toward democracy have been sidelined by similar personalities in the past. In 1977, Pakistani General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq stepped in during a rancorous political crisis and arrested Pakistan's elected Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on the pretext of returning order to the country. Bhutto was executed a year later and Zia stayed in power until his death in 1988. In the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia became a key ally of the U.S., directing American aid to the anti-Moscow mujahedin while maintaining a draconian grip on Pakistan's politics throughout.
Over the decades, perhaps no military is more guilty of meddling with its country's fledgling civilian democracy than that of Thailand, the Southeast Asian land of smiles and coups. In 2006, the Royal Thai Army launched its latest intervention, ousting the controversial populist Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and declaring martial law. Civilian rule has returned, but Thailand's political landscape is deeply polarized and fractious - a product, in part, of a society far too accustomed to seeing tanks on the streets at the first instance of crisis. (See a brief history of people power.)
Of course, there's a limit to how instructive these external comparisons may be for Egypt, which is in the grips of a truly epochal moment. Commentators in the West have tended to place the protests in two vastly different historical paradigms. For some, the events in Egypt parallel the 1979 Iranian Revolution, where a mass uprising against a U.S.-backed dictator brought about an illiberal, Islamist theocracy. For optimists, Cairo represents the long-awaited Arab Spring, when, like the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe, democracy would bloom as authoritarian rule crumbled. In the first case, fears of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood gaining the same political traction as Iran's Shi'ite mullahs have been considerably overblown. In the latter, the hope for any sort of peaceful democratic transformation still awaits the license of Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
That may yet come. The famous 1986 protests that toppled Ferdinand Marcos, the longtime dictator of the Philippines, gave to global lexicon the term "people power" - a phrase which has been repeatedly invoked when characterizing events in Tahrir Square. But for all the incredible scenes of mobilization and protest, little would have been achieved had it not been for the mutiny of a prominent general and the defense minister in Marcos' camp. In the beginning, the military bought into the post-Marcos democracy but, later, factions within the army launched a number of botched coups and even the attempted assassination of the country's sitting elected President. As ever, the men in uniform can be real arbiters for change, but democracy is rarely secure when preserved just through the barrel of a gun.
See TIME's complete coverage: "The Middle East in Revolt."
See photos of the celebration in Tahrir Square.
View this article on Time.com
Most Popular on Time.com:
View the original article here