Noun, A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

In other words, it's undemocratic to protest oligarchic rule; if these protesters truly believed in democracy, they would raise a few million dollars, hire lobbying firms filled with ex-political officials, purchase access to and influence over political leaders, and then use their financial clout to extract the outcomes they want. Instead, they're attempting to persuade their fellow citizens that we live under oligarchy, that our democratic institutions are corrupted and broken, and that fundamental change is urgent -- an activity which, according to Applebaum, will "simply weaken the [political system] further."

Could someone please explain to her that this is precisely the point? Protesting a political system and attempting to achieve change outside of it is "anti-democratic" only when the political system is a healthy and functioning democracy. Oligarchies and plutocracies don't qualify.

For all those reasons, Egypt and Tunisia should try to hold elections as quickly as possible, although many of the democratic forces in both countries would like to delay. They want the nascent parties to have more time to establish themselves; they want the electoral laws to be written carefully; they want everyone to have more time to argue. But an imperfect legislature is better than none: Poland's first post-Communist parliament in 1989 was only partially freely elected; it even contained members of the old regime. The government it produced was also a compromise, and it also contained members of the old regime. Nevertheless it looked, acted, and ultimately felt radically different, and that quickly earned it legitimacy. Talk, debate, argument, conversation: Now that they have those things, Egyptians and Tunisians won't easily give them away. But they must lead somewhere, soon, or many will begin to question where they are leading.

I don't know who Anne Applebaum is, but she reminds me of the student government people in high school -- people who never really acted like teenagers and never seemed to have much fun outside of their little clubs. The same ones who would narc to the prinicipal about those of us who WERE having fun.

The mainstream media (and Slate has always been that) are so terrified of covering real change in progress. None of these people seem to know anything about social movements and how great movements take a lot of time to form, coalesce around ideas and consensus actions, and finally cause change in the larger culture. It's sad, really, to have to suffer "journalists" with such small attention spans, and such little knowledge of history.

Folks want to adopt a wait and see approach

It's unclear what these protests will accomplish -- that still depends on how many people join them and what they cause it to be -- but, already, they prove that the possibility always exists for subverting even the most seemingly invulnerable power factions. That hasn't happened yet, but the possibility that these protests are only in their incipient stages is one of the more exciting and positive political developments in some time.

Secondly, the people in the parks have demonstrated only that they have demands. They remind me of employees who are always first with complaints, but always last with solutions.

Mostly because solutions require a lot of thought and the understanding that true solutions almost always come in trade offs. And often the trade offs make the person with the problem as unhappy as the problem.

Thirdly, they need to understand that if you tear down a house without one to replace it you are likely to wind up worse than before. Time and again revolutions have proven that.

If he understood anything about democracy, he wouldn't imagine he knows so much about politics.