Another uprising in Egypt

[Drifterwood]

Yep. What does that have to do with anything?

Just I don't recall the parable about wiping people out.

 

[Jason]

But he should not have been thrown out of office.

I don't know. In a mature democracy we accept that people vote someone in and after a certain period there will be another vote. Morsi had even in the few months he had been in power gone a long way to circumvent whatever democracy existed at his election. There was little chance of a genuine election, ever. With this in mind I think the choice was Morsi (or another Moslem Brotherhood leader) in power for ever or a coup.

I'm horrified at what has happened in Egypt. Egypt has suffered and may now be on the brink of even worse. The last thing Egypt needs now is democracy. I think the best scenario available now is the army in power and keeping law and order. Second best is the Moslem Brotherhood.

There's a western equation democracy=good which ignores the many societies in which democracy cannot exist. Creation of a civil society precedes the establishment of parliamentary democracy. Egypt's flirtation with democracy faced almost inevitable failure because Egypt did not have the structures of a civil society. Right now Egypt needs a dictator, with a bit of luck one with a bit of decency.

 

[RideRocket]

Upon taking office Morsi quickly made moves to turn Egypt towards a more fundamentalist Islamic state. He also made several changes and decisions that gave him more powers which ran counter to what the majority of the people wanted.

From a western perspective, he shouldn't have been overthrown. Democratic due process should have taken its course and when his term was up, the people would have not voted for him. However, Egypt being a fledgling democracy, took to using power to overthrow and remove him. I think the military wants a more moderate state and intervened because what Morsi (and the MB) were doing was running counter to their desires.

 

[h0neymustard]

Just I don't recall the parable about wiping people out.

Maybe they left this out, but the MB is targeting Christians, and burning churches down over there. Religion of peace.

 

[deleted15807]

Maybe they left this out, but the MB is targeting Christians, and burning churches down over there. Religion of peace.

Ahhhh can add religious intolerance to your already long list of intolerances?

 

[h0neymustard]

Just calling things like they are.
Not only killing Christians and burning churches, but:
Destroying relics and antiques of ancient Egypt: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396100/Egypt-Looters-ransack-Egyptian-antiques-museum-snatch-priceless-artefacts.html#ixzz2cGZvRFFD
Calls to destroy the Great Pyramids: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/13/egyptian-jihadi-leader-says-destroy-the-pyramids/
Blowing up Buddhist statues in Afghanistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

Say, you haven't seen the video where a guy starts beating his wife because she starts singing along with him? And I'm talking about him curb-stomping the girl.

 

[Petrolhead]

Upon taking office Morsi quickly made moves to turn Egypt towards a more fundamentalist Islamic state. He also made several changes and decisions that gave him more powers which ran counter to what the majority of the people wanted.

From a western perspective, he shouldn't have been overthrown. Democratic due process should have taken its course and when his term was up, the people would have not voted for him. However, Egypt being a fledgling democracy, took to using power to overthrow and remove him. I think the military wants a more moderate state and intervened because what Morsi (and the MB) were doing was running counter to their desires.

this was precisely the problem. morsi was spending all of his time re-writing the constitution so there wouldn't have been another election. that was why it became vital to get rid of him.

it is a fledgling democracy and, if i can put it this way, the people are politically and democratically illiterate. you can't suddenly educate a nation in a few months as well as set up party structures in that time.

at least this gives a breathing space for democracy but it raises a host of other issues

 

[bar4doug]

Democracy is flawed as you should already know. Sometimes people you don't like appeal to people you may think should not have a vote. Combined, they take control of your free life.

Democracy fails when it gets too big. Democracy begins to fail when the electorate realizes it can vote itself tithes from the treasury. It fails catastrophically when there are no more means to satisfy the will of the electorate. A dictatorship usually follows. It works, probably most effectively, for governments up to the size of a small town. A large nation can never be a true democracy with majority rule. A nation needs to protect the individual rights of its citizens.

When the majority can vote the rights and property away from the minority or individual, then you essentially have mob rule, and you are not free.

 

[B_underguy1]

I don't know. In a mature democracy we accept that people vote someone in and after a certain period there will be another vote. Morsi had even in the few months he had been in power gone a long way to circumvent whatever democracy existed at his election. There was little chance of a genuine election, ever. With this in mind I think the choice was Morsi (or another Moslem Brotherhood leader) in power for ever or a coup.

I'm horrified at what has happened in Egypt. Egypt has suffered and may now be on the brink of even worse. The last thing Egypt needs now is democracy. I think the best scenario available now is the army in power and keeping law and order. Second best is the Moslem Brotherhood.

There's a western equation democracy=good which ignores the many societies in which democracy cannot exist. Creation of a civil society precedes the establishment of parliamentary democracy. Egypt's flirtation with democracy faced almost inevitable failure because Egypt did not have the structures of a civil society. Right now Egypt needs a dictator, with a bit of luck one with a bit of decency.

I think you've been misinformed. The constitution that President Morsi oversaw and was voted for by the people, guaranteed elections for President and both houses of the legislature.

What you are reading in the Western media is disinformation. That constitution was not acceptable to western interests which sponsor the military. The military happen to be the biggest looters of the Egyptian economy, controlling upwards of 40% of trade.

 

[B_underguy1]

this was precisely the problem. morsi was spending all of his time re-writing the constitution so there wouldn't have been another election. that was why it became vital to get rid of him.

it is a fledgling democracy and, if i can put it this way, the people are politically and democratically illiterate. you can't suddenly educate a nation in a few months as well as set up party structures in that time.

at least this gives a breathing space for democracy but it raises a host of other issues

I spent a lot of time working in the Middle East and North Africa and I can assure you that most people there are far better informed about political-economics than the average Westerner.

And they're far more curious and far less dogmatic.

 

[Jason]

I have worked in Cairo, though about 12 years ago. I saw few signs of educated people knowing much about politics or economics. These things take years to develop.

I note that elections are guaranteed by the constitution of Zimbabwe and have recently taken place. Democracy is more than just holding elections. I don't think Morsi-constitution elections would have been democratic.

 

[B_underguy1]

I have worked in Cairo, though about 12 years ago. I saw few signs of educated people knowing much about politics or economics. These things take years to develop.

I note that elections are guaranteed by the constitution of Zimbabwe and have recently taken place. Democracy is more than just holding elections. I don't think Morsi-constitution elections would have been democratic.

Which parts of the Egyptian constitution do you feel were not democratic?

You've read it obviously. Haven't you?

Do you think it was too pro-Egyptian and too anti-Wall St?

Do you have any evidence that the elections in Zimbabwe were fraudulent? And I mean evidence as opposed to polemic garbage from the usual western apologists.

 

[B_underguy1]

I do not see that democracy can work in Egypt right now. I think the best option available is for the army to establish full control. If this can be achieved quickly then Egypt can pull back from civil war and there is a way forward.

I think there is an issue throughout the Islamic world about the treatment of organisations such as the Moslem Brotherhood. Outlawing them, which seems to be what Egypt is trying to do and what Saudi Arabia has already done, might be the only realistic way forward. The shocking fact is that because they are united and with support from the mosques they will win democratic elections. Democracy is fine until the wrong people get elected. Europe saw this in 1930s Germany, and even the UK has seen it with the election of members of the IRA terrorist-sympathising Sinn Fein (now in power-sharing government in Northern Ireland). Bluntly there have to be checks on democracy.

So the average Brit hasn't progressed much from the Orientalism of TG Lawrence in the last 100 years?

Or the crusades for that matter.

 

[deleted15807]

Just calling things like they are.
Not only killing Christians and burning churches, ......

And if you happen to live in a Muslim country and you look up and see warplanes on bombing runs it's an almost 100% chance those are Christians doing the bombing.

 

[Jason]

The Egyptian constitution is a fascinating read - available in translation at The 2012 Constitution of Egypt, Translated by Nivien Saleh, with Index | Nivien Saleh

The problem with the constitution is that it contained ratchet clauses (a term familiar from the EU's Lisbon Treaty), ie it had a series of assertions which would have required more and more power to flow to the president. For example it states that "National unity is a duty". It is hard to see this as anything other than support of the president and the president's government. It establishes a police state - "the police impose justice". It asserts sharia law. It also sets out - in poorly defined terms - a zone of influence for Egypt throughout the Islamic world and the Nile basin. All state authorities and the people should guard the constitution.

I think there were very major problems with this constitution. There is of course a question around the framing of a better constitution, which is undoubtedly a challenge. I think part of the answer is in strengthening the independence of judiciary and legislature, and rooting the ultimate source of law in something other than sharia, probably traditional practice.

 

[Jason]

So the average Brit hasn't progressed much from the Orientalism of TG Lawrence in the last 100 years?

Or the crusades for that matter.

I don't think this is a useful approach. There are political systems that are simply wrong: fascism and marxism for example. It is right to stand up and oppose these. Systems based on sharia are also wrong, as wrong as fascism and Marxism. They should be opposed wherever they occur.

 

[B_underguy1]

The Egyptian constitution is a fascinating read - available in translation at The 2012 Constitution of Egypt, Translated by Nivien Saleh, with Index | Nivien Saleh

The problem with the constitution is that it contained ratchet clauses (a term familiar from the EU's Lisbon Treaty), ie it had a series of assertions which would have required more and more power to flow to the president. For example it states that "National unity is a duty". It is hard to see this as anything other than support of the president and the president's government. It establishes a police state - "the police impose justice". It asserts sharia law. It also sets out - in poorly defined terms - a zone of influence for Egypt throughout the Islamic world and the Nile basin. All state authorities and the people should guard the constitution.

I think there were very major problems with this constitution. There is of course a question around the framing of a better constitution, which is undoubtedly a challenge. I think part of the answer is in strengthening the independence of judiciary and legislature, and rooting the ultimate source of law in something other than sharia, probably traditional practice.

Why would a majority islamic nation not have sharia as its legal basis?

How does it impose a "police state"? That's a huge stretch.

 

[B_underguy1]

I don't think this is a useful approach. There are political systems that are simply wrong: fascism and marxism for example. It is right to stand up and oppose these. Systems based on sharia are also wrong, as wrong as fascism and Marxism. They should be opposed wherever they occur.

Why is Marxism wrong? Should Marxists be banned from the political process?

Why is Sharia wrong?

We already have fascism. That's the system now. They don't call it that but neoliberalism is essentially fascism with some (cultural) liberal values.

 

[Jason]

Sharia is incompatible with human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the view of the European Court of Justice is incompatible with democracy. It is incompatible with the "golden rule" of "love thy neighbour" found in most of the world's religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

I'm not sure that fascism, Marxism or sharia can be banned - but any state that operates under any of them should be condemned by the international community. The concentration camp, the gulag and the punishments of sharia rightly meet with near universal condemnation. The comment that the modern western world is fascist should be called out as gross naivity which belittles the evils of the Nazi regime and the holocaust. With all the many problems of the western systems they are at least make an effort to do the right thing, as opposed to the truly evil systems which do exist. Anyone who saw the wrecked people in back of beyond Russia in the 1990s (as I have done) will know that Marxism is an abhorrent doctrine. The present fashion for people who know nothing about it to declare themselves Marxists is dangerous and sickening.

 

[B_underguy1]

Sharia is incompatible with human rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in the view of the European Court of Justice is incompatible with democracy. It is incompatible with the "golden rule" of "love thy neighbour" found in most of the world's religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

I'm not sure that fascism, Marxism or sharia can be banned - but any state that operates under any of them should be condemned by the international community. The concentration camp, the gulag and the punishments of sharia rightly meet with near universal condemnation. The comment that the modern western world is fascist should be called out as gross naivity which belittles the evils of the Nazi regime and the holocaust. With all the many problems of the western systems they are at least make an effort to do the right thing, as opposed to the truly evil systems which do exist. Anyone who saw the wrecked people in back of beyond Russia in the 1990s (as I have done) will know that Marxism is an abhorrent doctrine. The present fashion for people who know nothing about it to declare themselves Marxists is dangerous and sickening.

Sharia is the arabic word for law. Just like our law it can be modified and changed. It isn't some sort of monolith as you've been led to believe.

What actually is Marxism in your view? The USSR practised state capitalism, not Marxism or socialism. The gulags had nought to do with economic theory.

Those people in Russia you saw in the 90s were being screwed over by western finance capitalism mate.

If you really believe that the powers that be in the west are interested in 'doing the right thing', then you're not watching. Western finance capitalism has killed and impoverished far more people than all the other isms combined. And it goes on.

It is fascism. The merger of the state with the corporations.