Crisis in Egypt

[Craig234]

History is being made again in Egypt.

A year ago, they had their first presidential election. The new president quickly became an authoritarian with the new constitution and abolition of parliament.

Egyptians are rebelling. They have no democratic process to remove the president so they are demanding it in the streets.

The Egyptian military had a high level meeting for the third time in its history over a year ago when it decided to support the people over Mubarak, causing his fall.

Now, the military has against acted, giving the President 48 hours to address the concerns of the people or they will take action.

The common commentary is how this is both pro- and anti-democracy, pro by supporting the people's will against an authoritarian and pushing for new elections and stronger democracy, and anti- because it's the military taking extra-constitutional action against the elcted president, a dangerous precedent.

My sense is that democracy is not always neat. We in the US are very hesitant to recognize any extra-legal uprising against power - because we don't want it dont by forces we disagree with. We understand how interests can appeal to a mob to oppose elected leadership (business leaders reportedly tried to form a coup against FDR).

All of the arab spring flies in the face of the written law, yet it is democratic in spirit - much as some of our support for 'friendly' dictators has not always been pro-democracy.

The deadline from the military ends tomorrow. We'll see what action they take at that point. I have to suspect that the Muslim Brotherhood may be on the way out of power.

Whether the US through the CIA has played any role in encouraging this change is hard to know - but this President seems to have brought this on himself regardless.

 

[ivwshane]

My concern is that the people will continue to rely on the military to reinforce their voice as opposed to allowing the democratic process to play out.
Sure the military is on the people's side now but there maybe a time when they aren't and if the Egyptians have not setup a stable democratic system they won't have a means to throw out a corrupt or non representative military.

The issue right now is that there isn't a democratic process in Egypt to remove morsi and there doesn't seem to be a branch of government that can keep his powers in check.

To me morsi is the George bush of Egypt, he has been a horrible leader and hasn't fixed any issues and from what I've heard he was worse than the previous leader.

 

[Craig234]

My concern is that the people will continue to rely on the military to reinforce their voice as opposed to allowing the democratic process to play out.
Sure the military is on the people's side now but there maybe a time when they aren't and if the Egyptians have not setup a stable democratic system they won't have a means to throw out a corrupt or non representative military.

The issue right now is that there isn't a democratic process in Egypt to remove mubarak and there doesn't seem to be a branch of government that can keep his powers in check.

To me mubarak is the George bush of Egypt, he has been a horrible leader and hasn't fixed any issues and from what I've heard he was worse than the previous leader.

In ways, he is worse than Mubarak, but that shouldn't be seen as making Mubarak ok or the revolution wrong.

Reportedly, he is using torture more than Mubarak did, and Mubarak was infamouse for it (you mention Bush, we weren't shy to send people to be tortured there reportedly).

Hopefully, this will somehow work out for better democracy. The US had its false start too, with the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Murloc]

european countries often went through multiple liberal revolutions and conservative restorations before the instability stopped.
Eventually it will be okay.
The problem is that the presidential/majority system is too polarizing if the winning side does whatever they want without searching for consent. The proportional system forces you to get everybody's consent and would kill any need to protest and the possibility for the MB to occupy all positions of power since the government would be shared.

 

[Craig234]

I think something interesting about this is how the military has this important pro-democracy role, sort of.

I've often said there can never be a revolution in the US because of our advanced military, and the same sort of applies to many countries.

The rebels in Egypt could not defeat the Egyptian military - but instead of that playing into the standard 'dictator keeps power with strong military' like Qadafi or Saddam could have without outside help for the rebels, the military is using that power to tell leaders they can't stay in office if they decide the people want them out - or whatever reason.

It's a very tricky situation, but perhaps almost needed for them to do that nowadays.

If the miiltary just backed the dictator in power, I don't think there really could be a revolution there. In countries with weaker militaries, there can be, e.g., Tunisia.

 

[randomrogue]

The issue I have is if the Egyptians simply protest all the time. Part of democracy is letting a leader get a chance to lead. If they screw up there should be consequences in the form of losing the next election or if they break the law they can be impeached. In Egypt I don't think they have a process in place to allow impeachment. They need that. They can't have military intervention every time they get upset.

I really hope they fix this soon. I really want to take a trip down there to see the Pyramids. They gotta get their shit together!

 

[Mursilis]

History is being made again in Egypt.

A year ago, they had their first presidential election. The new president quickly became an authoritarian with the new constitution and abolition of parliament.

For those of us lacking some background knowledge here, how did the new president become authoritarian, and why can't the people just wait out the expiration of his term? I've really not been following this as much as I would've liked, but time, as usual, has been a limiting factor.

 

[Murloc]

For those of us lacking some background knowledge here, how did the new president become authoritarian, and why can't the people just wait out the expiration of his term? I've really not been following this as much as I would've liked, but time, as usual, has been a limiting factor.

he's placing muslim brotherhood people in the public institutions.

He holds opinion like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8NtiUMOFFg

He did legitimately win the elections, this is an issue as the opposition is going against an elected leader.
I guess the worry is that once MB power is consolidated, there may not be fair elections anymore. You know, the nazis won the election too.

 

[randomrogue]

So was he trying to start an Islamic Republic?

 

[JTsyo]

For those of us lacking some background knowledge here, how did the new president become authoritarian, and why can't the people just wait out the expiration of his term? I've really not been following this as much as I would've liked, but time, as usual, has been a limiting factor.

Egypt is in the process of creating a new constitution. Many don't like the way it is headed with Sharia law being incorporated into it. Here's the wiki entry:

On 22 November 2012, Morsi issued a declaration purporting to protect the work of the Constituent Assembly drafting the new constitution from judicial interference. In effect, this declaration immunises his actions from any legal challenge. The decree states that it only applies until a new constitution is ratified.[66] The declaration also requires a retrial of those accused in the Mubarak-era killings of protesters, who had been acquitted, and extends the mandate of the Constituent Assembly by two months. Additionally, the declaration authorizes Morsi to take any measures necessary to protect the revolution. Liberal and secular groups walked out of the constitutional Constituent Assembly because they believed that it would impose strict Islamic practices, while members of the Muslim Brotherhood supported Morsi.[67]

The move was criticized by Mohamed ElBaradei who said Morsi had "usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh."[68][69] The move led to massive protests and violent action throughout Egypt,[70] with protesters erecting tents in Tahrir Square, the site of the protests that preceded the resignation of Hosni Mubarak. The protesters demanded a reversal of the declaration and the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly.

 

[Mursilis]

Egypt is in the process of creating a new constitution. Many don't like the way it is headed with Sharia law being incorporated into it. Here's the wiki entry:

Thank you.

Quite a mess, really, but that's to be expected to some degree given the structural changes taking place in Egypt. On first impression, it seems to me that the protestors need to show a little more patience with the process of drafting and ratifying the new constitution, but again I'm sure there's more to it than that.

 

[smackababy]

So, Egypt threw out a bad leader for one that is worse. Haven't seen that happen before. >_<

Seriously though, I am glad they are trying to throw this guy out, if what is said about him true. However, I do not think this will end without a lot of violence. Reports are the current president won't accept the coup.

I do hope they are able to get a leader willing to draft their constitution and government in a way that allows freedom for the people and affords them ways to rid bad leaders without having to get the military to oust them.

 

[Craig234]

Egypt has a law allowing for martial law during emergencies, political activities, protests, political groups that aren't authorized, donations are banned; thing is, that martial law was in effect in Egypt from 1967 to the 2011 rebolution except for one 18 month break in 1980.

Morsi in his year in office, has had the constitutional assembly dissolved, the parliament dissolved, he's forced the reginations of the head of the military, all to replace all these things with Islamist allies. He's challenged the authorit of the courts to question him as I recall and seized a lot of power. IIRC he's also opposed term limits for himself.

Basically he's done a lot to turn 'new democracy' into a strongman ruling again.

I haven't heard the details but it seems he's forcing the new constitution in an Islamist direction, which many people oppose.

 

[smackababy]

Egypt has a law allowing for martial law during emergencies, political activities, protests, political groups that aren't authorized, donations are banned; thing is, that martial law was in effect in Egypt from 1967 to the 2011 rebolution except for one 18 month break in 1980.

Morsi in his year in office, has had the constitutional assembly dissolved, the parliament dissolved, he's forced the reginations of the head of the military, all to replace all these things with Islamist allies. He's challenged the authorit of the courts to question him as I recall and seized a lot of power. IIRC he's also opposed term limits for himself.

Basically he's done a lot to turn 'new democracy' into a strongman ruling again.

I haven't heard the details but it seems he's forcing the new constitution in an Islamist direction, which many people oppose.

Yeah, it looks like he is consolidating power and has passed laws making certain things untouchable by the courts.

With the direction it appears he is heading, it doesn't sound like the Egyptian people aren't being patient. They are getting this guy out while they still have the power to do so.

 

[skyking]

The military in Egypt appears to be representative of all religions, tribes, groups in terms of makeup. That is the tendency of a modern military organization, they take all comers.
Once it was clear that Morsi was on a course that leads to repression of some of their members and families, the military chose to act again.
In that sense, I tend to trust what they have done and will do. It is an odd way to get there, but a homogenized military force is probably the best path to a lasting democracy. One that does not have one group or another fleeing into neighboring countries to avoid persecution.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'll bet £15k on civil war eventually.

The MB clowns won't relinquish power easily.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The military in Egypt appears to be representative of all religions, tribes, groups in terms of makeup. That is the tendency of a modern military organization, they take all comers.
Once it was clear that Morsi was on a course that leads to repression of some of their members and families, the military chose to act again.
In that sense, I tend to trust what they have done and will do. It is an odd way to get there, but a homogenized military force is probably the best path to a lasting democracy. One that does not have one group or another fleeing into neighboring countries to avoid persecution.

Yeah, that's not how it works, a military regime, like a theocratic or a dictatorship regime starts by electing a non democratically elected leader who will then use the military to do his bidding.

Most of the ME nations have lived through a point where the Military took over.

How's that working for them?

I am starting to think that the ONLY way to have peace is to invade the FUCK out of them and institute peace as law.

Either that or we say... fuckem... let them kill each other and fuck what we once created the UN for.

One is a liberal idea that has to do with rights, the other is a conservative idea, sharia law or conservative law is pretty much the same (as proven by a multitude of American Republicans who actually don't think that women can be raped at all).

My stance, thin the heard by their own means, kill the rest, build a superstore the size of the ME.

 

[Whiskey16]

Most of the ME nations have lived through a point where the Military took over.

How's that working for them?

I am starting to think that the ONLY way to have peace is to invade the FUCK out of them and institute peace as law.

Sorry, John, just a quick post for some down to earth perspective.

As a Brit, how did your past ventures with French imperialism and then nation carving go for the Middle East?

I recall Zionist terrorists bombing the UK out of one state, the French arbitrary divide upon Lebanon not helping so much for peace.... Oh yes, you also already had Egypt. Just to name a few.

If Egypt eventually comes through all of this without a civil war, then it can been seen civilly ahead of the history of the USA and the UK.

 

[Craig234]

A twist has come up. It's yet another example of the law basically being flouted.

There's a law that our billion dollars in military aid to Egypt has to be stopped if there is a coup.

But the Obama administration and many others want to continue it.

So watch Obama's statements, and you never see him describe the removal of the elected president by the military as a coup, to not trigger the law.

 

[chucky2]

I really don't know how to feel about this latest ouster in Egypt. On one hand, obviously, it's not in our Western interests for this guy to be in power, so being a Westerner I'd normally be in favor of him being gone. On the other hand, they had as fair as an election possible there, and this is the guy the country elected. If he's operating within the framework of the law, then, why should be be removed?

Guys like this get in because enough of their voters wanted him there. The problem isn't this guy, it's the voters who put him in there. And the root problem is ME culture and religous practices that have not evolved. This produces voters in sufficient quantity where they elect guys like this come election time. I'd argue that it's better for him to remain in, let more and more of the populace get more and more disgusted with his brand of politics, and hopefully, some kind of societal renaissance can happen that will result in all around better cultural practices. For example, when things are going bad for someone here, we don't have them strapping on a suicide vest and blowing themselves up. That is unthinkable even to our crazies. Over there, their crazies aren't even considered crazy and it's a viable solution to their problems. Sometimes progress is hard, maybe this is the hard they need to endure to get self aware and make some real changes.

Chuck

 

[smackababy]

He wasn't just doing something the people didn't want, he was consolidating power and becoming more than just an elected official. The Egyptian people did not elect a dictator to disband parliament and replace the positions he couldn't do away with with his lackies. Leaving him in power would be the worst possible option.

The new interm leader seems to be working for the people, not for his own gain. Which is exactly what every country needs.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The problem isn't this guy, it's the voters who put him in there.

The problem is the system.

They need to strip the presidential role of much of its power and turn that person into a figurehead. Then they need another branch of government filled with lifetime appointed secularists to actually rule the country.

Then the MB can elect all the presidents they want using the rural vote, that person will never make any progress on an actual Islamists agenda.

 

[Whiskey16]

He wasn't just doing something the people didn't want, he was consolidating power and becoming more than just an elected official. The Egyptian people did not elect a dictator to disband parliament and replace the positions he couldn't do away with with his lackies.

^^^ This.

Yet such does not negate there having been a military coup and a possible majority (as per the previous election) portion of the electorate that find themselves now politically disgruntled and lacking adequate representation.

The situation is messy. The troubles can be compounded if it becomes evident that recent Egyptian military actions were not just that of a domestic decree, but encouraged by certain external forces.

The sad general rule, is that an evolution to stable and constitutionally democratic state is often messy and even violent. As long as Egypt does not enter into a civil war, it remains ahead of the pains that the USA and most other states endured to achieve what they are.

 

[chucky2]

I haven't really been paying attention to Egypt, I've got my own personal sh1t going on. I thought the issue is that this guy is doing things legally but shadily, and that people didn't like it and wanted him out of there. While I can understand their situation, if the guy is doing things legally, are there not legal manners in which he can be stopped? Or is my understanding flat out wrong and he is in fact doing illegal things? If so, is there not proceedure in place to stop a Politician from continuing to act illegally there? Or, is this guy just all powerful and thus unstoppable?

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

I haven't really been paying attention to Egypt, I've got my own personal sh1t going on. I thought the issue is that this guy is doing things legally but shadily, and that people didn't like it and wanted him out of there. While I can understand their situation, if the guy is doing things legally, are there not legal manners in which he can be stopped? Or is my understanding flat out wrong and he is in fact doing illegal things? If so, is there not proceedure in place to stop a Politician from continuing to act illegally there? Or, is this guy just all powerful and thus unstoppable?

Chuck

When you get rid of the parliament, when you change the constitution to give yourself uncheckable powers, when you say the courts can't challenge you...

Reportedly there was no imnpeachment process and no effective check on his power.

It was becoming a dictator issue - just as Egypt is used to, rather than moving to democracy as the people wanted.

This is one of those awkward, rare situations where a military coup is 'for the people'.

Admittedly some of the people - there is a large segment who are happy with a dictatorial Islamist.