End of the democratic experiment in Egypt

[al Furqaan]

So those following the news must have heard that the first democratically elected and civilian leader in Egyptian history has been removed by the army, Pakistan style.

Looks like chaos will reign supreme with the possibility of a civil war or insurgency waged by the Brotherhood.

But this brings to the fore an interesting question/observation. In most Muslim countries, even when the majority of the population favors civilian, representative forms of governance (not necessarily secular Washingtonian democracy), why is there such a prevelance of autocracy? Is it because there are always external forces at play or is it because the real power brokers in all Muslim countries are always non-democratic? I am inclined to believe its both.

Discuss.

[Gladiators]

Like Pakistan? You conveniently left out the part where millions of civilians opposed to him demanded his resignation.

The army of course took advantage of the situation - but Morsi has no one to blame but himself.

He passed Mubarak like decrees - he used a democratic method to gain power but then was anything but democratic.

[al-Sagar]

মিশর কি তাহলে " ডুমড " ???

[Neel Here]

heh, time for me to say I told you so.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Neel Here
heh, time for me to say I told you so.

I suppose there might be egg yolk on my face right about now, except that the military-industrial complex means that pretty much any military could take over any country. In a hypothetical struggle over the White House, who would win between the US armed forces and Obama's secret service?

However, I have read that the reason Morsi was deposed so quickly was because he reached out to too many people outside the Brotherhood. That is to say that even the head of his personal security was from a non Brotherhood political party. Morsi was either deluded or extremely stupid, if those accounts are true.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Gladiators
Like Pakistan? You conveniently left out the part where millions of civilians opposed to him demanded his resignation.

The army of course took advantage of the situation - but Morsi has no one to blame but himself.

He passed Mubarak like decrees - he used a democratic method to gain power but then was anything but democratic.

That happens everwhere...do you know what President Obama's job approval rating is? That translates to almost 200 million people who probably would want him to resign. Doesn't mean the army will take over.

[Rifat]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
That happens everwhere...do you know what President Obama's job approval rating is? That translates to almost 200 million people who probably would want him to resign. Doesn't mean the army will take over.

American Media Onekdin dhore guta marte silo Egyptian "Islamist" Government ke, it was only a matter of time...

[Neel Here]

AF, army can doesn't equate to army will. even back then, my point was that the egyptian military shouldn't have the political power to be kingmaker. in US it doesn't. thankfully, not in my country either.

my post from back in 2011
http://www.banglacricket.com/alochon...3&postcount=17

Originally Posted by Neel Here
my 'point' is that replacement of one dictator by another (which is the most likely outcome of this event) is not exactly a cause for celebration. I would certainly hope for the best to egyptian people but whatever little rationality I've suggests their euphoria is going to be short lived.

but then people don't like cynics so I'll be off this thread. 20 years on we will celebrate the fall of the next dictator in egypt.

it took 2 rather than 20. that's all.

[Zeeshan]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan

Discuss.

How about Not?

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Neel Here
AF, army can doesn't equate to army will. even back then, my point was that the egyptian military shouldn't have the political power to be kingmaker. in US it doesn't. thankfully, not in my country either.

my post from back in 2011
http://www.banglacricket.com/alochon...3&postcount=17

it took 2 rather than 20. that's all.

The Egyptian military doesn't have political power to be kingmaker either...they have firepower. And no army has more firepower than the US army. The difference isn't in in power of the army, its in democratic mindset of the generals. US generals respect civilian rule of law, even if the President ignores their advice. Egyptian generals do not.

Btw, Notice that I didn't disagree with you on that particular thread .

Having said that, the Morsi election was historic in Egypt because it marked the first time a popularly or at least semi-popularly elected government came to power in Egypt. Something the Nasser's, Sadat's and Hosni's couldn't claim. Recall that the Brotherhood won the election simply because they were a far more organized and mobilized party in Egypt - which is a key index of functional "democratiness".

[Blah]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
That happens everwhere...do you know what President Obama's job approval rating is? That translates to almost 200 million people who probably would want him to resign. Doesn't mean the army will take over.

There is a difference between thousands of people filling out forms or answering questions on phone (in the comforts of their home) with polling organizations like Gallup using secret magic formulae to determine how answers from those thousands of poll participants results in statistically significant numbers to determine how the whole country feels about the president....

AND

Millions of people marching on the streets, with threats of violence to ouster the president.

Surely, the difference is obvious?

In recent modern American history, no matter how low the approval rating of the president has been, despite all the corruption and all the ethically and morally questionable actions and all the pre-emptive wars which resulted in millions of deaths. There was never a single incident of the president of the US ever been thrown out of the office by revolting population.

----

To answer your original question. As to why this happened, or if there is any outside influence to remove Morsi for his religious background.

While I am sure in some countries, like Syria, revolutions can and does happen from outside influence. But I think it mostly happend in Egypt because of the socio-economic state of the country.

You will notice that Egypt-like revolution never happens in countries with a stable political process, relatively stable economy, stable law and order, stable education and health-care system, stable social structure.

Egypt had none of those working for them, if anything things were getting worse, it had a newly elected president who narrowly won, meaning almost half of the people don't agree with him, and one year after the election he did quite a few things to undermine political, judiciary and military system and at the same time did nothing to help improve the economy.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Blah
There is a difference between thousands of people filling out forms or answering questions on phone (in the comforts of their home) with polling organizations like Gallup using secret magic formulae to determine how answers from those thousands of poll participants results in statistically significant numbers to determine how the whole country feels about the president....

AND

Millions of people marching on the streets, with threats of violence to ouster the president.

Surely, the difference is obvious?

Of course the difference is obvious. The OP asks why there is a difference. It would appear as though people want representative forms of government only so long as the party in charge is their party.

[Gladiators]

Originally Posted by Rifat
American Media Onekdin dhore guta marte silo Egyptian "Islamist" Government ke, it was only a matter of time...

why did you put 'Islamist' in quotes - is there any doubt that the Brotherhood are an Islamist party? Whether that is a good or bad thing, is a separate discussion, but that they are Islamist is not up for debate.