Isma’il Yassin was an indispensable complement in many movies. When a support actor was needed to provide comic relief, the services of Yassin were called upon. But make no mistake about it, he acted in funny but intelligent roles. Not for him were the roles of the moron or the foil. Neither do I remember him engaging in slapstick except very occasionally.

He went beyond supporting roles. He had the lead role in many features; indeed, he is famous for a series of 15 films where his name was used in the title to capitalize on his fame. Some of these films were: Isma’il Yassin In The Army; I.Y. In The Police; In The Navy; In The Air Force; In The Secret Police; In Prison; In The Mental Hospital; and so on.

It is difficult to guess as to the number of movies he participated in; my research material did not provide me with a reliable figure. Some of my favorites: Bolbol Effendi (Mr. Nightingale); El Settat Afarit (Women Are Devils); Agazah Fe Gohanam (Holiday In Hell); and Fatma, Marika, Wou Rachel (Three Women’s Names: A Muslim, A Christian, And A Jew).

He was born in 1915 in Suez. His childhood was difficult. His mother died at an early age, and his father was in jail. Thus he found himself forced to leave school and seek work before he had even completed primary school.

He started as a monologue singer and eventually headed to Cairo to join Badi’a Masabny Music Hall.

He was not particularly handsome, he had a large mouth to which he often referred to in a comic way in his movies.

In the ’60s, his health was declining. He moved to Lebanon where he participated in a number of movies, when he came back to Egypt, he was heavily in debt.

He died of a heart attack in 1972.

Sabah (which means morning in Arabic) was born in 1927 as Jeannette Gergi Fighali in Beirut, Lebanon. In confronting the Egyptian entertainment industry, I find myself quickly running out of superlatives. Therefore, I’ll just say that she was a great actress and a very prolific singer. She acted in 98 films, as well as 20 stage plays. She has released over 50 albums, and has 3,500 songs in her repertoire!

Her career started in the ’40s and she is still going strong at 81!

Her fans refer to her as Sabouha, or Shahroura, The Singing Bird. Her voice is lively and expressive, and she has been known to sustain a single note for over a minute when performing in the Lebanese’s Ataba style.

Sabah has been married a total of seven times! Her marriage to Naguib Shammas lasted five years; and she gave him a son, Sabah (the name can be used for either a girl or a boy). Next, she married a violinist, Anwar Mansy; this marriage ended after four years and resulted in the birth of a daughter, Hewayeda. Ahmed Farrag, an Egyptian television presenter, was her third husband. Abaza, an actor, was married to her for three days only; the marriage was declared invalid since he was already married and had not officially divorced his wife! The remaining three were: Joe Hammoud, Wassim Tabara, and Fadi Lubnan.

She would later say that all her husbands have taken advantage of her career. The love of her life turned out to be Joe Hammoud.

Fatima Ahmad Kamal was born in Cairo in 1929. She is better known by her stage name, Shadia. It was given to her by Helmy Rafia, a movie director. While she is now retired for many years, she acted in many movies, both comedies and dramas.

Shadia is considered one of the most popular and talented amongst singers and actresses in the firmament of Arabic movies and the Arabic recording industry. Her songs and movies are still beloved by the present generation of Egyptians.

She married and divorced 3 times: Emad Hamdy, 1953 – 1956; Aziz Fathi, 1958; Salah Zulficar, 1967 – 1969.

She acted in 117 films, and produced more than 600 songs. She also had one stage experience, Raya Wa Sakina. (Raya Wa Sakina was to Egypt what Jack the Ripper was to England).

In the course of her professional life, she received several awards and trophies. Her movie, Mrs. X. Al Mara Al Maghoola (The Unknown Woman) was played in the U.S.S.R. theaters to great acclaim.

Her singing covered a large spectrum: From everyday life, to religious, to nationalistic, and on to love songs. She also sang the long-drawn songs Egyptians are so fond off. Finally, she has to her credit many children songs; and in those songs, she expressed her love of children and perhaps the pain of never having any of her own.

She experimented with movie production but proved unsuccessful.

Regardless of the character she played, Shadia was the sweetest person one could hope to see on the screen. Nonna Bida referred to her as soukara (a piece of sugar). And soukara she indeed was as a person.

All her life, Shadia was an example to behold. She encouraged new musicians by singing their compositions. She helped and deeply cared for other people, be they members of her family, fans, or fellow professionals.

After her retirement, she went to live in Saudi Arabia. And there, in the birthplace of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), she has dedicated her remaining days to worship and to enjoy a measure of peace far away from the limelight that for so long has been a part of her daily life.

Faten (attractive) Hamama (pigeon) was endowed with great beauty, an extraordinary acting talent, and natural grace. If Hollywood had Grace Kelly, we had Faten Hamama. She illuminated the screen by her mere presence; the characters she portrayed were not easily forgotten.

She was born in El Mansoura in 1931. Her dad, Ahmed Hamama, took her to a movie at the age of 6; after the movie the two made a secret pact! Little Faten felt that the audience were applauding for her, and Ahmed promised that he would do everything in his power to make her dream come true.

After winning a contest for the most beautiful child in Egypt, her father send her picture to Mohammed Karim (pioneer of Egyptian cinema). Providence was on her side as Karim was looking for a child for a film with Mohammed Abdel Wahab. The script for the film Yom Said (A Happy Day) was expanded to give her character a bigger role. Again, with Abdel Wahab, she acted in Russassa Fel Alb (A Bullet In The Heart). With her third movie, in 1946, Dunia (A World) Faten was ready for bigger roles.

In 1946, her family moved to Cairo to support her in her career. In the same year, she also started her studies in the High Institute of Acting.

Space does not permit me to talk about all her successful movies; it would not be a stretch to say that they were all well- received. She often acted in dramatic movies, but she also has to her credit many comedies. Who can forget her movie Seit El Beit (The Lady Of The House), the hilarious tribulations of a young married woman pitted against an intractable mother-in-law. Her astonishing role in the comedy El Ustaza Fatma (Mistress Fatma), where she portrays a lawyer, created a (fictional) Fatma who remains unforgettable to this day.

In 1952, El Manzel Rakam Talatashar (The House No. 13) introduced to Egyptian audiences the first mystery film.

In 1959, her movie Doa El Karawan (The Nightingale Prayer) was nominated in the Berlin’s International Festival, and almost made it to the Oscars.

In 1961, together with Omar Sharif, she starred in a classic, Nahr El Hob (The River Of Love), the remake of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina.

In 1964, her feature El Laila El Akhira (The Last Night) captured 10 awards, and was also presented at the Cannes Festival.

Finally, in 1975, she single-handedly changed the marriage and divorce law when she acted in Orid Hallan (Needs A Solution).

She acted in more than 40 movies.

In 1947, she married director Ezzel Dine Zulficar; they divorced in 1953. They had one child. In 1954, she married Omar Sharif, they divorced in 1974. Again, the marriage was blessed with one child only.

Faten used her position to change many of the injustices besetting Egyptian society. She insisted that her films add values and impact society through family relationships. Such topics as marriage and divorce, the single mother, and vendetta were addressed.

She left Egypt in 1966 for Lebanon and the U.K. because she refused some political pressure applied on actresses. Gamal, through other parties, requested her return. She came back in 1971; by then Gamal Abdel Nasser had passed away (he died in 1970).

Faten Hamama is now in her late seventies; not as old as the pyramids, but still referred to as the Fourth Pyramid in the world of the Egyptian cinema.

I close by saying that her movie with Youssef Wahbi, Korsi El E’teraf (The Chair Of Confession) is one of the greatest films I have ever attended.

Her career was started with the help of Dawood Hosni who composed the first operetta in Arabic. In 1938, she starred in the movie “Yehia El Hob” (Long Live Love) with Mohammed Abdel Wahab. The movie was a success, and she never looked back.

In 1953, she was selected over Om Kalsoum as the official singer of the Egyptian revolution. And it is at this time that a rumor was circulated to the effect that she had visited Israel and donated money there.

Ultimately, no proof was ever found to support these allegations. To leave Egypt at the time and go directly to Israel would have been impossible since both nations were at war; to do so by traveling first to a European nation, and then go to Israel without attracting attention would have been very difficult. This absurd scenario eventually collapsed. Throughout that whole ordeal, she had Abdel Nasser support.

She was born in Cairo, in the Daher district in 1918. Her father, Ibrahim Zaki Mourad, was an Iraqi Jew and a famous hazzan (cantor), singer, and musician in the ’20s; her mother, Gamilah “Salmon” was a Polish Jew who presided over a family of 6 children.

In 1947, she married Anwar Wagdi (a well-known actor) and converted to Islam. They were married and divorced three times! Later she married Waguih Abaza; then after she divorced him, she married film director Fatin Abdel Wahab and gave him a son; they eventually divorced in 1969.

At the end of the ’50s, she gave up acting, and after 1973, she put an end to her singing career. She was a superb singer and a good actress.

Like other singers, she leaves behind hundred of songs to be enjoyed by the present generation of Egyptians, and many yet-unborn generations.

She acted in many movies with the likes of Mohammed Abdel Wahab and Youssef Wahbi.

Leila Mourad died in Cairo in 1995.

In the world of music the “What If” question often comes up. “Had Mozart lived a full life, how much more sublime music he would have left us?” “How much more of his unique brand of piano music would Chopin have left us had he lived longer?” “Would Bellini had rivaled Rossini, Donizetti, and Verdi in his operatic output had he not died so young?” (These three composers died in their thirties).

For Egyptian art the question is: “How much richer would the Egyptian film and music industries be today had Asmahan not died at such a young age?”

Her real name was Amal El Atrash. After the resounding success her brother, Farid El Atrash, had on radio, his sister’s talent was discovered by Mohammed El Qasabji who encouraged her to further her career. It fell upon Daoud Hosni to train her; he also gave her the classy name of Asmahan.

Asmahan was born in Syria in 1918 to a Druze family. At 6 she immigrated, with her mother and three brothers, to Egypt.

Her songs were influenced by the European way of singing, yet retained their classical Arabic character. Her interpretation was such that an Arabic listener was not disturbed by the foreign element introduced. Such was her genius.

Asmahan worked with different composers, thus introducing variety in her songs. My favorite is “Dakhalt Marra Fe Genena” (I Once Entered Into A Garden). It’s a song that was heard countless times many years after her passing. I still remember to this day the news of her tragic accident. I was only 8 when a grief-stricken nation said a final goodbye to this unique artist.

More than once, I asked my mother if it was the lady who sang “The Garden” song. And again and again she patiently confirmed it for me. She consoled me by pointing out that we were sure to hear on the radio her songs for many years to come. And indeed her songs continue to be heard to this day; songs such as “Ya Tuyur” (The Birds); and a song that will always live as long as there is a Haj to Mecca, “Alek Salat Allah Wou Salamou” (You have the Prayers And the Peace Of God With You).

It was 1944 when, crossing a bridge, the car she was riding in went through the guardrail and ended in the Nile. It was rumored that the war waged between the Secret Services in Cairo during World War II played a role in this suspicious accident.

This style of electing our representatives is based on two premises:

1) The winner is the nominee with the most votes; and

2) The district is small, and this person will represent you in the legislature whether you voted for him (or her), 0r not.

It is simple, elegant, and heavily criticized!

In such an election, other parties are left behind; their votes are “lost.” If you voted for one of those parties, your vote was “wasted.”  A small party has virtually no chance of making it to Congress, even though, say, 5% of Americans have voted for it.

Many voters and politicians are clamoring for a fairer system.  In the process, they are forgetting that democracy is based on compromise.  While not ideal (there is no such thing), we are blessed to have such a system in Canada, and the States.  The alternative is proportional representation (PR); and where it is used, it has introduced a certain measure of fairness along with many disadvantages, or proved to be a living nightmare depending upon the type of PR used.

By now you have concluded that I am against PR; that said, I’ll provide you with examples of Proportional Representation so that you can make up your own mind.

Mixed-Member Proportional Voting

Proponents of this system have claimed it is the best of both worlds:  As a citizen, you are represented in the legislature; as a political party with enough support, you have a voice in the affairs of the nation.

As a favorite son, it has benefited from many names:  “The additional member system;” “Compensatory PR;” “The two vote system;” and “The German system.”

It was born in West Germany right after WWII; and, it has now been adopted in several other countries such as Bolivia, Venezuela, New Zealand, and Hungary.

So how does it work?

Your ballot is divided into two parts:  The left side list the potential contenders; you’ll mark it according to your preference; the person getting the most votes will represent you in Parliament.  The system will generally allows for half of the seats to be filled this way.

The right side will list the parties (and the names of the politicians that may potentially sit in the house); and here again you will choose a party.  Keep in mind that you have 2 votes only, one for the right side and one for the left side.  Once the parties results are known, allocation takes place according to the following example:  If 100 seats are dedicated to the parties, and party A get 30% of the parties vote, then party A will have 30 seats.  If party Z get 1% of the parties vote, then this party will get 1 seat. and on it goes.  You can see the fairness in the system, however it remains a mixed blessing.

1) By halving the number of direct representatives, we’re creating larger districts;  thus, you the voter will receive less attention if you require assistance.

2) The direct representatives will have to fight tooth and nail to get elected; the parties representatives will have an easier time entering parliament.

3) The parties representatives are not directly answerable to you, they answer to a political party.  In truth, even in our system, politicians are answerable to their party, nevertheless, the direct relationship so precious in a democracy is partially lost.

4) The leaders and top members in a party will be in parliament whether you feel they deserve it or not.

5) Many small parties will be able to engage in politics; this complicates the democratic process.

6) PR is supposed to be a weapon against voters apathy (since they cannot claim that their votes will be wasted).  But does it work this way?  Let’s take Germany as an example since they invented the system, and the German people is known for its discipline.  In 1972, 91.1% of voters voted; in 2005 that number went down to 77.7%; in 2009 turnout was even lower, only 70.8% of eligible voters voted.  Canada and the U.S. see such rate of participation in their dreams only!  But remember that we are talking of Germany here;  the Germans may very well be the most disciplined people on the planet!

Single Transferable Vote Or Choice Voting

This system has additional names, for example, “The single transferable vote;” and its Australian name the “Hare-Clark system.”

This system is used to elect Parliaments in Ireland and Malta. In Australia it is used to elect the Federal Senate, as well as the Legislatures in several States.

It is an overly complex system. I will describe it to you and provide you with an example; hopefully, you will then manage to understand it.

The candidates for a given district are listed on one ballot, and next to each name are the numbers 1 to 9.  You’re not voting for one nominee, rather you’re ranking them; the one you like the most you will rate as 1, your second choice you will mark as 2, and so on.  You may fill as many choices as you like provided you fill no more than one box per candidate, and no more than one box per column. This ranking is similar to standardized tests taken in school, and it allows for computerized vote counting and ballot transfer.

Next comes the so called “single transferable vote.”  The first step is to establish a threshold; the formula follows:

Threshold = (valid votes/1 + total seats) + 1 vote

The candidate that reaches the threshold first is declared elected, but needs to transfer the excess votes (over the threshold) to the second choice on the ballot, she in turn will transfer her excess votes to the third choice.  And on it goes until we fill the required seats.

Confused?  This example will (I hope) clarify matters.

Green Valley district held a municipal election to fill 3 seats on council; 6 contestants are running:

J. Beal; B. Moore; N. Nardy ; A. Rose; M. Cohen; L. Torinesi.

The number of valid  votes was 1,000.  Therefore, using the above formula we can calculate the threshold:

1,000 / (1 +3) + 1  or 1,000 divided by 4 = 250 + 1 = 251

Let us suppose that Torinesi got 280 first-choice votes, but he only needs 251 to win; the excess (280 – 251 = 29) is wasted if it stays with Torinesi, therefore they are transferred to the second choice.

The second-choice candidate turns out to be Nardy with 265 votes, therefore, the above excess of 29 is transferred to her; she now have 265 + 29 = 294,  and an excess of 294 – 251 = 43.  This excess is wasted and is now transferred to the third-choice candidate Rose.

And on it goes; the end result is a list that will eliminate the candidate that is least likely to win with the vote(and transfers)  obtained; next, these votes are redistributed to candidates that have yet not reached the threshold.  And the process goes on.

How these transfers are effected is not explained.  In real life it’s a complex process requiring, no doubt, dedicated software, or at least a special application.

For poor mortals like you and me, it is sufficient to understand the above example and stop after Torinesi and Nardy.

Why  was such a process invented?  To avoid wasted votes. The system followed in Canada and the U.S. is apparently wasteful (many votes have no impact on the election); resulting in party misrepresentation; and the underrepresentation of minorities.

I agree with the advantages; and some of you may indeed feel that this a fair system; however; it has many disadvantages.

1) It is complex and is sure not to be fully understood by most voters.

2) To some voters, it may look like a game!  I place a 2 next to this contender, a 4 next to that one, and so on!  How serious are the end results going to be?

3) If you’ve filled a survey asking you to grade your satisfaction for a product, how often have you hesitated before deciding  whether it is good, very good, or  perhaps excellent?  There is a guessing game going on here.  As well, some voters have difficulty making up their minds, this system will not make their choice easy and may even discourage them from voting.

4) We will have larger districts with many candidates, and seats, for each district.  Who of the winners is answerable to you and will help you if you have a problem?

5) The field is wide open for quid pro quo (you give me something and I’ll return the favor to you). Candidates that have no chance of winning will join the fray and bargain shamelessly (all behind the scene, of course!)  If you don’t believe that is possible, then you also believe that political dealings are clean and above board!

6) More parties will have a chance of winning; in turn this will call for more compromises and less stable government.

7) Will it address the issue of voter apathy? More voters will be encouraged to vote since they’ll feel that their vote will  not be wasted.  On the other hand, the sheer complexity of the system will discourage many voters.

Party List Voting

Party list voting systems are by far the most common form of proportional representation (PR).  Over 80% of PR adherents use some form of party list voting.

There are two broad types of  list systems: closed list and open list. The system applies to large multi-members districts.  Let us first look at the closed list in a five-seat district.

You have one vote and the ballot is divided into 5 sections.  Party A followed by a list of its candidates; party B followed by a list of its candidates; and so on.  Independent candidates may also run. You vote for a party, and the candidates will obtain a seat according to the order presented on the ballot.  If party A obtain enough votes for two seats, the first two persons will seat in the legislature.

Under this system, you have no say as to who you will send to your parliament.  The open list redress this inequity.

Voters are presented with the contenders, but they are in no particular order. The parties for each nominee are also shown.  You still have one vote, and you will place your X next to the candidate you like.  Your vote will count both for your candidate and your party.

Different formulas exist to allocate the seats to the parties. Basically the number of valid votes are divided by the seats available to determine a quota.  A party that has the equivalent of two quotas get two seats; if there is a remainder it will be allocated later on.  The following example will clarify the concept.

The district will send 5 representatives to Parliament; if we have 50,000 valid votes, the quota will then be: 50,000/5 = 10,000.  If party A get 28,000 votes, it now has 2 quotas (and 2 seats) and a remainder of 8,000.  Same for the other parties.  At the end, the remainder are compared and the party with the largest remainder get the remaining seat (it may be more than one party and seat).

Ultimately, all the parties obtain the number of seats that will closely approximates their percentage of the votes.

This system can apply on a larger scale, namely goes beyond a district.  I can provide you with no examples, for I have not researched it beyond the district level.  I can provide you, though, with the example of a nation that applies it across the whole country! I am referring to the state of Israel, and I’ll discuss their system later on.

I am not looking for a system that will be satisfactory to most of the population of a country; that said, I’ve found the “Party List Voting,” to be deficient in many respects.

1) We have a large district that will be represented by many candidates.  Who is representing you and who will help you if you have a problem?

2) If the closed list system is followed, the order of the nominees, and who has a better chance of getting elected is fixed by the party; thus, some of the choice is taken away from the voters.

3) There doesn’t seem to be any kind of primaries (nomination meetings in Canada) for the parties to select its candidates.  In both Canada and the U.S., nominees need to fight tooth and nail just to be nominated for a given party, and then expend more efforts to win the election.  Of course, that doesn’t guarantee that we are sending the best representatives to our legislatures; just that they are fighters and can survive the harsh world of politics.

4) While simpler than the “Single Transferable Vote or Choice Voting,” it is still complex enough to confuse some voters, especially the open list system.

5) It provides an opportunity for more parties to be elected; this in turn will call for compromise and a less stable government.

6) Less votes are wasted, this in turn should encourage voters’ participation; but is that what is happening?  I do not have any figures in front of me to answer this question; nevertheless, I’ll express the hope that it does.  For, of all the “Proportional Representation” systems, this one is the most approachable and fairer system provided the open list system is used.

Israel   

Since Israel came into being over 60 years ago, rare is the time where it has not found itself in the eye of the storm. Therefore, the question as to how it is governed takes added importance.

No country is easy to govern; Israel, however, is barely governable.  Its people are fiercely independent and opinionated; it is surrounded by enemies; it is almost always in the news; it sits in the Middle-East, a region that has never known stability going back to Biblical times!  And as if all that wasn’t enough, it uses a “Country-Wide Proportional Representation” system.

To fill the 120 seats in the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament), the voter vote for a party.  Israel has no districts, and an Israeli does not have a representative in the Knesset; there is nobody to turn to if help is needed; that said, you can turn to the party you actively (i.e. not merely  by voting for it) support.

Each party prepares a list with 120 names (an assumption that they can win all the seats!)  The individuals at the top of the list are of course the leader, followed by the top brass.

When you vote, you’re handed an official envelope; in the booth, you’ll find a tray with slips, and on the slips are the symbol of the parties, usually 1 to 3 letters.  You take a slip for the party you wish to vote for, put in the envelope and seal it.  For example, if you wish to vote for Yisrael Beitenou, you’ll select a slip with the Lamed (equivalent to our L) which is the symbol for this party and place it in the envelope.  Voila! It’s that simple.  New immigrants (who at times came from primitive societies) can easily vote; a voter can also bring an approved helper (example an old man can bring his grandson) who can go in the booth with him.  Every letter in the Hebrew alphabet has an equivalent in Arabic, thus Arab voters will also have no difficulties.

At this point in time, a party needs to obtain about 2% of the votes to secure a seat in the Knesset. For example, in the 2009 election, the Kadima party secured 56% of the votes, and has now 28 seats.

I do not have enough space to list the consequences of such a system; but the most obvious follow.

1) To my knowledge, no party in the history of Israel has secured an absolute majority.  The parties need to come together after every election to put together a coalition for a majority government (i.e. at least 61 seats).  You cannot imagine the negotiations and compromises that need to take place before there is a government in place; and such a government is fragile, it can, and does, easily fall.

2) The voters have no say as to who will seat in the Knesset.

3) Under such a system, parties can proliferate like mushrooms after the rain! In the 2009 election, 33 parties were in the run, and 13 were elected!

4) The party with the most votes does not necessarily form the government.  In the 2009 election, the Kadima party had 28 seats, and yet, the Likud with 27 seats forged a coalition and today governs the country with like-minded partners.

5) Israel is stuck with such a system for all eternity!  The smaller parties will never vote for a change; they’ll be signing their (political) death warrant!  Under a more flexible system, they’ll disappear!

Sources

1) How Proportional Representation Elections Work

Douglas J. Amy

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/Beginning Reading/howprwor.htm

2) Voter apathy was one of the big winners in Germany’s election

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4729420,00.html

3) List of political parties in Israel – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Israel

4) Political Parties in Israel

http://www.science.co.il/Parties.asp

Youssef Wahbi was born to a high ranking and very rich family in 1898. However, he renounced his family rank and wealth and traveled to Rome in the 1920s to study theater.

He remains to this day one of the greatest actor and director of the Egyptian film industry. He acted both on the stage and in films. He was a giant of a man in every sense of the word. He filled the screen, gripped you, and left you transfixed. The character he played stayed with you long after you’ve seen the movie.

Due to his fluency in English, French, Italian, and his native Arabic, he translated several foreign plays to Arabic, and acted and/or directed them both for the stage and for the cinema. Whether he ever translated some of Shakespeare’s plays into Arabic, I do not know. I remember him in some roles that were of Shakespearean stature, therefore, perhaps he did.

He played many roles that were different and unusual for Egyptian audiences. Over 50 years, he acted and/or directed some 60 movies.

He remains a respected and beloved artist; Egyptians freely acknowledge that the like of him will never be seen again. His fame goes beyond Egypt’s borders; several French and English companies tried to save his movies by republishing them again.

He suffered from arthritis, and broke his pelvis as a result of a fall. He died in 1982.

Voting is a privilege that is not accorded to many nations.  To arrive at our present democratic system, the British nation struggled for centuries.  Canada and the U.S. (which follows a modified system) benefited from the democratic system thus created.

Most of Europe until recently did not enjoy our freedom.  Germany and Italy were under the sway of brutal dictatorships. Only after the end of WWII were they were able to enjoy a democratic regime.  Portugal , Spain, and Greece only became democratic countries in the mid-’70s.

And yet, we take democracy  so much for granted in this part of the world, we simply forget to nourish it!  All it asks from you is to cast a ballot when an election is called!  I cannot begin to understand the existing ballot box deficit; it is slap to the face of our ancestors who spilled their blood to give us our present freedom.

If we are not going to do it willingly, perhaps it should be imposed on us. Before you get all indignant, let me remind you that the government, out of necessity, forces many things on us.  For example, you do not pay income tax willingly; you may not be interested in participating in a census; you’d rather speed, burn red lights, and park anywhere you desire without being ticketed.  But it can’t work this way for otherwise anarchy will reign.

And there are indeed many countries  where compulsory voting exist.  The two most typical examples being Belgium and Australia.  But they are not alone.

Belgium

Belgium has the oldest mandatory voting system; it goes back to 1892!  Non-voters face a moderate fine; if they fail to vote in 4 elections, they can lose the right to vote for 10 years and they may encounter difficulties getting a government job.

Australia

Compulsory voting goes back to 1924.  You can go to the polling station, tick your name and leave without voting.  Failure to do at least that would attract a fine between AU$20 – AU$50; imprisonment is possible, but only if you don’t pay your fine.

Other Countries

In Greece, non-voters can have difficulty obtaining a new passport or driver’s license. In Italy the penalties are “minor;” for example, you may have difficulties securing a daycare place for your child.

In total, there are 31 countries where voting is compulsory; examples:  Austria, Argentina, Brazil, Cyprus, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Turkey, and Uruguay.

Besides doing your duty as a citizen, if voting is not mandatory in your country, why should you vote?  There are three main reasons.

Strategic Consideration

Voters and non-voters tend to fall into categories.  The most typical example comes from both ends of the age spectrum.  Seniors do not suffer from any voter apathy, and, accordingly, a large number of them vote.  Young people are famous for ignoring elections, and few of them vote.

The result are predictable:  Candidates,  will court old people and will do their best to meet their needs.  They won’t bother with young people, and will be deaf to their demands.

And it is ironic, for the very people who are at the end of their lives are catered to; the ones who have their whole lives ahead of them do not get the attention they deserve.

I will say that you reap what you sow, but I will certainly not be saying it with glee; rather I will say it with sadness.

Young people are clamoring for jobs, reasonable tuition fees, and help with the crushing debt incurred at the end of their studies.  And these are only some of their legitimate demands.  When they don’t get what they want, they demonstrate and demand that their rights be met.  How about marking your ballot with an X; but before that, starting  a dialogue with the politicians:  You get my vote if you give me this and that.  You have a powerful weapon, use it!

Legislators love this voter division; it’s divide and conquer without making any effort!  All they need to do is focus on the voters and forget about the non-voters.

Parliamentarians are also handed another arrow to add to their quiver:  The now famous “getting the vote out.”

There was a time when immigrants voted in great number for the Democrats in the U.S., and the Liberals in Canada.  On voting day guess who got  a lift to the poll, and was advised that she will not be forgotten if a problem arises?  The born and bred Canadian or American was not forgotten on purpose; the candidate simply didn’t know she existed since she chose not to be a part of the electoral process!

(This process now tends to reverse itself:  More immigrants are voting Republican or Conservative; the end result remains the same, these parties will still court the immigrants for they participate in the election).

“Getting the vote out” phenomenon should disturb us all to no end.  It allows the politician to play the system like a concert pianist will play his piano!  Many an MP (Member of Parliament)   sitting today in the Canadian Parliament got “his” voters out on election day.  Ditto for Congress in the U.S. or for that matter any country that doesn’t have mandatory voting.  Indeed, those who seek elected office relish the fact that they have some control over the process. And you know what:  I don’t blame them, I blame you the voter who sat on your hands on election day!

One last point:  Politicians in many countries that do not have mandatory voting will not fight for it. Why should they?  It works in their favor!

Accuracy of the Results

I will next discuss polling and contrast it with the result of elections where voting is not compulsory.

Assume the following result of a poll:  “Between March 5 and March 15, 2009, using a survey of 2,650 adults, it was determined that the President had an approval rate of 60%.  A survey with this sample size and a 100% response rate would have an estimated margin of error of plus or minus 5% 19 times out of 20 of what the results would have been had the entire population of adults  in the U.S. been polled.”

What does that mean?

To determine how popular a President is, you can’t ask the whole population, that would be totally impractical!  Instead you select a representative sample to get the answer – within constraints – to your question.  What are the limitations?

You accept a sampling error which will arise from estimating the result by polling only a part of this population.  In the above example, the sampling error is 5% which leaves you with a confidence level of 95%.  Put another way, you might say:  “I do not trust completely (100%) the final result, my confidence in this result is 95%.”  And this in most cases is good enough for the parties concerned.

This question is bound to come up?  If we repeat the whole process using different samples, do we get the same result?  We should, but within a certain range.  Again, using the above example, if we repeat the process 20 times, our results (for 19 surveys) will fall within a range of, say, 57% – 64% ; the 20th will fall outside that range.  Why is that? I do not know.  How is that process conducted and why 20 times ( it is obviously not repeated 20 times!).  Again, I confess my ignorance.  I am not a statistician.

Despite these shortcomings, sampling is a valid method for determining certain characteristics of a given population.  However, there are a number of rules that should be observed.

1. The sample should be large enough, otherwise the results will not be reliable.  The smaller the sample size, the larger the sampling error. (On the other hand, a large sample with a sampling error of  say 1% would be prohibitively expensive and would defeat the purpose of sampling).

2. Time and place are very important.  You would not survey only New-Jersey and project the results for the the whole of the U.S.!  You would not say that the President had a 60% approval rate in March 2009, and that therefore this applies to all of 2009!

3. Some of the people in the sample will  have no opinion, or simply could not be reached; an adjustment is made to compensate for that; however, this remains a serious limitation.

4. It should be a totally random sample (akin to a lottery draw).  This is the most important rule for it is randomness that allow you to express an opinion on the whole population. Every item in the population should have an equal chance of being selected.  A “chosen” sample is worthless.

In an election where the population is not obliged to vote, the final results will, to a certain degree, be flawed.

If, say, 40% of the population has not voted, a disturbing question remains unanswered:  Will the result be the same if  non-voters would have voted?

I have already argued that only certain segments of the population vote.  That the candidate focus only on the people that favor him and his party.  Randomness is lost here, and “choosing” is taking place.   This would be anathema to a pollster, and yet is acceptable in an election!

In a country where voting is mandatory, the whole (or almost) population freely choose.  It’s a dream come true for a pollster, the “sample” is very large, it includes virtually all of the population.

The way we do it now simply yield inaccurate results; and yet we rely on that to be properly governed!

Democracy 

The individuals who govern us take upon themselves an awesome responsibility.  Why do they do it?  Society gives people with leadership ability a carrot; if they are willing to accept this heavy  load they will wield power.  And that does the trick.  There are no lack of able leaders who are ready to serve.

But power cuts both way, it goes to the head of that person!  There are in a democracy safeguards against abuses of power, but they are never sufficient.  There is continually abuse of power in the form of corruption, nepotism, sexual and financial scandals, questionable decisions, spreading of false rumors, and the list goes on.

What I am saying is that democracy is fragile; the people in power are always looking for loopholes in the system that will allow them to break certain rules, without getting caught, of course!  They are humans after all, and they may have the best of intentions in doing what they do, or so they see it.

Does that mean that you should spend sleepless nights worrying about the end of democracy as we know it?  Not at all. Just be alert of what is going on in the corridors of power, and vote faithfully.  Encourage the people around you to do the same; but don’t  stop there; if possible, talk and write about it. With the internet, the whole word is your forum!

The ballot box is a surprisingly powerful weapon.  Use it!

Source

Compulsory voting around the world

Elliot Frankal

guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/04/voterapathy.uk

For purely romantic songs and films, no performer even come close to Farid. He remains to the present day my idol.

He was born in Syria to a Druze family. His date of birth is unclear. The most widely quoted year is 1914. As a child, he immigrated, with his mother and siblings, to Egypt.

He studied in a music conservatory and became an apprentice of the renowned composer Riyad El Sumbaty. He started his career playing the oud and subsequently singing for the radio audience. He later collaborated with his sister Asmahan, and in 1941 they starred in their first successful movie.

From 1941 to 1974 Farid acted in 31 movies and recorded some 350 songs. He composed all the songs in his movies including the songs sung by other performers. His movies delighted his audiences; and most songs quickly became instant hits. As an actor he was acceptable; here again his movies showcased his enormous musical talent. In addition to movies he performed in many concerts. Often he would compose a new song for the concert in question.

Any known artist would have many stories (true or otherwise) swirling around him; but El Atrash was in a class of his own. From a young age, he frequented nightclubs, had love affairs, and gambled. He soon found himself in debt and abandoned by his disapproving mother. A tragic event, however, would take precedence over all the rest. His sister and collaborator, Asmahan, died in a tragic (and suspicious) accident. At about that time, he started a relationship with Samia Gamal, a well- known belly dancer.

The story of the romance between Farid and Samia fuelled many cafe conversations. At one end of the spectrum, his love was an unrequited one. Farid’s love was destined to never be returned. At the other end, poor Samia was never going to marry a man she so deeply loved.

They collaborated on five movies and eventually broke up.

People remembered his movies for the songs, the dances, the romance, and the pure unadulterated mush. The story itself was of little importance. Very often his character’s name was Wahid (lonely). Of course, after you’ve read the above you realize that he was definitely not lonely in real life. Then again, some of us are fated to be lonely souls; and El Atrash conceivably fell into that category. We will never know for sure.

He refused to marry claiming that marriage and art do not go together. Another pretext was that he was a Druze prince (not true) who needed to find his equal before he could marry. Here again various facetious comments were offered; one that I remember: Why always eat at the same restaurant when you have so many other restaurants in Cairo!

He had a relationship with Queen Nariman before she married King Farouk, and which resumed after she divorced him. Nariman’s family did not accept Farid, and the separation put him into a deep depression. Health problems dogged him from that point on.

There came a time when El Atrash reconsidered his opinion of marriage. He proposed to a young actress, Shadia (more on her later), but ultimately changed his mind. By now his health was poor and he feared that he would leave her a young widow. Such a scenario often recurred in his movies.

For the last 30 years of his life, Farid suffered from heart problems. In 1974, he died in Beirut.

He worked to the very end. He continued to make movies and perform in concerts. His last movie, Nagham Fi Hayati (A Tune In My Life) was released after his death.

There is no doubt that Farid El Atrash and his music will be immortalized. There is so much more that I would like to say about him; but being such a big fan of his art, any views I’ll offer are bound to be biased.

I will therefore only say that Farid’s genius is a present from the Creator to the Egyptian people, in general, and to me, in particular. (Egyptians of my generation will, I suspect, say the exact same thing).