Post-revolution polls in Egypt

As much as I'd like a liberal democracy to spring up in Egypt, let's see how things pan out.
Even Islamists are not created equal.


Even the anti-Israeli rhetoric may be all song-and-dance to play to the people's emotions.

We'll see if Egypt really shoots itself in the foot, when push comes to shove.
 
quadraginta said:
Why do you hate democracy in action?
Click to expand...

Because sometimes a democracy is a mobocracy. There are things more important than even democracy, such as the rule of law and respect for human rights. That doesn't mean democracy is unimportant -- it's right up there, though below rule of law and human rights. It means it's not the only thing of importance.

As I wrote, let's see what happens before we decide whether to throw rose petals or stones.
 
Depends what you do with it. Was voting in the Nazis, killing 21 million people and starting WW2 a high point in democracy?
 
Virus said:
Depends what you do with it. Was voting in the Nazis, killing 21 million people and starting WW2 a high point in democracy?
Click to expand...

No, but it was time that still provides great inspiration for those who design fetish clothing.

OK, I'm looking for a silver lining here.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
So it's better to keep people under a Mubarak or Al-Assad?
Click to expand...

That's not what you asked. You asked "Is it not positive they get to determine their own future?" You didn't ask "Is it better to have a secular dictatorship or a democracy, if that democracy is likely to elect a religious autocracy?"

In either case, the question is unanswerable until we see what happens. You seem to be saying that democracy is good no matter why or what the result. And the whole concept of human rights is an attempt to limit the reach of democratic (and other forms of) rule. So, no. I think it's fair to say that democracy is not always inherently good, particularly if it results in a diminution of human rights.
 
marksman said:
That's not what you asked. You asked "Is it not positive they get to determine their own future?" You didn't ask "Is it better to have a secular dictatorship or a democracy, if that democracy is likely to elect a religious autocracy?"
Click to expand...

I was replying to Delvo.

You seem to be saying that democracy is good no matter why or what the result.
Click to expand...

I'm not so much talking about the political process of democracy but the opportunity to determine your own future. If the result of the recent democratic elections leads to a suppression of this ability, then that's clearly a negative result. I do, however, think what's happening in Egypt is more positive than keeping it under the constraints of a dictator. Where was the fair representation of Al-Wafd or the Egyptian Bloc under Mubarak's time?
 
Last edited:
Undesired Walrus said:
I do, however, think what's happening in Egypt is more positive than keeping it under the constraints of a dictator. Where was the fair representation of Al-Wafd or the Egyptian Bloc under Mubarak's time?
Click to expand...

There wasn't. But I don't think an analysis should be limited to one factor. A lack of democracy is awful. But a lack of human rights is even more awful. Which isn't to say Mubarak respected human rights. But it is to say that Mubarak was more respectful of human rights than a new Egyptian government might be.

So I don't think we can say with any certainty that "what's happening in Egypt is more positive than keeping it under the constraints of a dictator". We have no idea "what's happening in Egypt" really.
 
Image of unknown woman beaten by Egypt's military echoes around world

In Egypt’s 3rd Day of Violence, Media Clash Over Cause

After two days of a crackdown that left hundreds wounded, a newly elected member of Parliament badly beaten and 10 civilians dead — most from gunshot wounds — Egyptian state television presented news on Sunday of a forensic report purporting to show that the bullets that caused the deaths were fired at close range. It was evidence, the presenters suggested, that the demonstrators who died had been killed by infiltrators in their ranks, not the security forces.

At other times, state television interviewed people who said that they were protesters who had been paid by liberal groups to attack the military, re-creating a propaganda effort from the last days of the Mubarak government.
Click to expand...

Video Shows Egyptian Soldiers Beating and Shooting at Protesters
 
Read an interesting analysis in the paper the other day.

Apparently the army has always repressed the liberal opposition much harder than the Islamist opposition.
The Muslim Brotherhood was allowed to organise to some extend, at least the served a purpose as:
-They were a good bogeyman for the West
-You can make deals with them. They don't care about liberal democracy, but want to impose their morality on the country, in association with the army if that's the most convenient way to achieve that.

The liberal opposition didn't stand a chance in the elections.
Not previously allowed to organise, hindered by the army and secret service they couldn't get their act together in the short run-up to the elections.
 
marksman said:
That's not what you asked. You asked "Is it not positive they get to determine their own future?" You didn't ask "Is it better to have a secular dictatorship or a democracy, if that democracy is likely to elect a religious autocracy?"
Click to expand...
Problem is that secular dictatorships like Mubarak's could not possibly transition to Western-style liberal democracy. Like it or not, in that part of the world Islam is a major part of culture and was going to play a role in government unless brutally suppressed -- and that suppression was not going to last forever. Mubarak, Ben Ali, etc. were going to be deposed sooner or later, and Islamists were going to play part in resulting democracy no matter what. I know a lot of people who do in fact think this is a turn for the worse. The phrase they often use is "some people are not ready (or not grown up enough) for democracy." My answer to that is: How else do you expect them to grow up? If Mubarak died in office and were succeeded by someone like him, we would still get an Egyptian uprising 5, or 10, or 15 years from now, and we would get exactly same kind of "not grown up" Islamic parties then. How would that be any better? The only way for Arabs -- or for anyone else, -- to get to liberal democracy is by actually having a voice in governing their country. It may take a generation before they "grow up" to our satisfaction. Or two generation. Or maybe never. But the process was not going to even start until they threw out Mubaraks, and got to vote.
 
As you look at these young people who are courageously standing up to SCAF repression, how can anyone think they'll stand idly by while Saudi-style sharia is implemented? Ikhwan has to know that, too.
 
What happened in the aftermath of the '77 revolution in Iran is in the back of everyone's minds when they worry about the future of Egypt.
 
Mark6 said:
How else do you expect them to grow up?
Click to expand...

Turkey used a moderate autocrat to transition the country into a modern nation-state. Iran was also doing that under the Shah but was overthrown by religious fascists.
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
Turkey used a moderate autocrat to transition the country into a modern nation-state. Iran was also doing that under the Shah but was overthrown by religious fascists.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that the previous leader was better than the Sham but since the Shah was a better US puppet, they put him there against the people´s will.
 
Johny2x4 said:
I seem to recall that the previous leader was better than the Sham but since the Shah was a better US puppet, they put him there against the people´s will.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have sided with the Nazis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom