That's all fair.

Part of your argument is that the Presidency will make Morsi more democratic in his views and approach. However, the historical record is filled with power making presidents less democratic. That's the more typical pattern.

Well, Ricky, Egypt is economically on the cusp of the GDP level needed to support democracy. But as you noted there is little track record of Islamic states having thriving democracies. Turkey is one example but it is a secular state. Perhaps Pakistan is getting there. The problem is that almost by definition when you do not separate religion from the state, you exclude members of other religions from the state. Freedom of religion,equal protection of the law,freedom of expression, freedom of press, and equality of women are all infringed upon--these are core values of a democracy.. A state that operates under Sharia law is incompatible with democracy. And it is hard to see how how Islamic states can move towards democracy when they have no tradition of separation of church and state. This "peculiarity" of western states separating church from state arose in a European culture and originated due to various factors and is not necessarily transplantable to other cultures. Either countries that are Islamic will have to become less Isamic or they will not be western style democracies with their panoply of individual rights.

draftFreeman, I would also offer also Malaysia and Azerbaijan as examples of Islamic states that allow other religions free reign.

freeman

Freedom of religion,equal protection of the law,freedom of expression, freedom of press, and equality of women are all infringed upon--these are core values of a democracy.. A state that operates under Sharia law is incompatible with democracy

That really depends. The status of women under Islam is not as proscribed as most westerners think. The interpretations of how women should be treated, and sharia is largely consultative interpretation in the Sunni tradition, which contradicts Wahhabi and Taliban concepts....largely grew out of the tribal traditions of Arabs.
There is nothing within the Quran or Suna that preclude the evolution of women to equality status within society. Even in very conservative Islamic societies changes are taking place in this area.
Lets not forget that for over 1800 years Christianity treated women essentially as chattel, as do very conservative Muslims today, There is room within religions to change to meet societies demands.
Of course the problem for Islam is the telescoping of the period of change. Where Christianity took baby steps, larger steps, and where now women are gaining equality ..... really only since the Industrial revolution, Islam is being faced with demands for change from within and without that amount to a roar..
Morsi has a particular problem in Egypt, if he wants to keep the women who occupied Tahrir Square in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

And Ray, I just fundamentally disagree. If Morsi achieves power democratically, and if the institutions of democracy are exercised there are limitations to his power. Even his draft constitution provides term limits. He has already seen renewed street demonstrations when he has been seen to act undemocratically.... And he always has to worry about over stepping because of the Egyptian military.
There are indeed examples, like Chavez or some of the Soviet satellites where democracy was usurped. But in those nations democracy came at the hands of the military or through the fiat of the old rulers (Soviet). democracy won on the streets by the people tends to a more resilient strain.

But "democracy won on the streets" may not be the same in the Muslim world than it is in the rest of the solar system. Let's look at similar Muslim protests, it happened in Iran, how did that work out?

Tunisia could be a shining light? But it's been only two years and their "Democracy" is a one party state and tensions are still quite high, problems run aplenty there still. let's wait and see how it works out over time. I do certainly hope they become a standard for the region of things can and should be, then again, in another year, two or five, they could be back where they were or quite possibly worse?

tom

But "democracy won on the streets" may not be the same in the Muslim world than it is in the rest of the solar system. Let's look at similar Muslim protests, it happened in Iran, how did that work out?

If you are a conservative Shiite Muslim, as the over whelming majority of Iranians are, it worked out pretty well in 1979.
The problem of looking at this only from a Western lens is that we look at it only with our values. The Shah, who was placed in power in large part because of British and American military help, was forcing secularism onto a very religious and conservative people. The revolution occurred in reaction to his methods (arresting and torturing opposition) AND his aims. The extent to which he attempted to "Modernize" was shocking to many Iranians...
From the point of view of the educated elite, centred mostly in Tehran,the revolution was not so good..
It depends on how you view democracy Tom. Do people get the government they want, or do they get a reflection of western governments that favours western aspirations and goals for the region?
The recent Green revolution in Iran is a reaction to the over reach of the Islamic revolution, at least as seen in Tehran. It has to be noted, that despite these demonstrations, outside Tehran there was little support for the demonstrators. And although it appears some accomodations were made, it wasn't a second revolution. Now, economic pressures are likely to create havoc for the Mullahs in Iran sooner than cultural pressures. Even conservative Shiites have trouble supporting a regime that ends up with them hungry all the time.
In Egypt a similar situation occurs, with a very conservative Sunni majority outside Cairo.
The theory behind Democracy constantly evolving new liberties and freedoms, and greater tolerance, isn't based upon it happening over night. Its based on the concept that those who enjoy all the benefits of democracy are constantly under pressure from groups out side it who want the full benefits of democracy as well. And as those already enjoying it see society and themselves prosper they are prepared to allow other groups to benefit more incrementally, rather than face violent opposition or revolution or just because they can no longer intellectually sustain opposition to greater freedoms.Its called the virtuous circle.
In the US you could ask women, blacks or gays about how this works over time....
In the Muslim world, they start with a society that reflects many values that of the west some 400 years ago..... But they also start with a society that constantly sees other values in action around the world, and that will energize the minorities not included in the circle of democracy...So, we can't map out a time period for how democracy might evolve, but we can certainly know the direction ....

hahahahahaha, so the Iranian revolution has worked out well!? OMG, I can't believe I just read that!
So if Egypt turns a North African Iran, that's a good thing we can all be happy about!?
wellll, in 400 years time all will be groovy anyways so all is good.

like

tom

so the Iranian revolution has worked out well!?

I'll repeat. from the point of view of the majority of Iranians, who are conservative Shiite Muslims...yes.
You tell me why you think that from their point of view it hasn't......
You can try that little exercise too Ray.

Here's a starting point. Compare Iran under the Shah, and then under the Islamic Revolution and ask yourself why the changes occurred. And who made them happen. It required a large majority support for these things to happen.
Maybe its hard for you to understand another people's values or point of view... They do say Americans are culturally insensitive.

Guards rape women in prison and the regime shoots protesters on the street, and you call us insensitive.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi continued in his father's footsteps, and his secret police SAVAK were notorious for their imaginative torture methods.[1] Methods of torture included sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.[2] However, the torture method of choice remained the traditional bastinado used to beat soles of the feet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... te_of_Iran

How much don't you know about Iran, Ray?

Well, yes, pre-Revolutionary Iran was no picnic. That doesn't mean post-Revolutionary Iran has any excuses itself. It's not that I'm culturally 'insensitive', but the means the Iranian regime uses to retain power are repressive and quite simply wrong, regardless of whether a majority of Shiite Iranian prefer their general policies to the Shah's.

And hey, what about the Iranian minorities who are not so happy? Democracy should not simply be majority rule. Iran has Sunni Arab, Jewish, Zoroastrian and Kurdish minorities (as well as subdivisions of Shia itself). Then there's the treatment of homosexuals and women, the secular....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Nice link in your link...

Does that sound like good human rights in the recent?

danivon

Well, yes, pre-Revolutionary Iran was no picnic. That doesn't mean post-Revolutionary Iran has any excuses itself. It's not that I'm culturally 'insensitive', but the means the Iranian regime uses to retain power are repressive and quite simply wrong, regardless of whether a majority of Shiite Iranian prefer their general policies to the Shah's.
And hey, what about the Iranian minorities who are not so happy? Democracy should not simply be majority rule. Iran has Sunni Arab, Jewish, Zoroastrian and Kurdish minorities (as well as subdivisions of Shia itself). Then there's the treatment of homosexuals and women, the secular

..
..
Agree absolutely. But that doesn't negate the fact that the revolution occurred in response to the Shah's repression. Nor does it negate the fact that his was an oligarchy where only an elite at the top really enjoyed the benefits of society as a whole.
The promise of the revolution in Iran wasn't democracy however. It was an Islamic revolution in the Shiite tradition, Which has an authoritarian structure, unlike the more democratic Sunni tradition. Democracy in Iran is there mainly to legitimize the Mullahs regime to the world. But, importantly, they see the need to legitimize their regime with democratic instituions, however they may attempt to defang or control them.
As long as some democratic institutions operate, and the minorities make use of them and other means such as the Green protests .... there is hope for growth of a true democracy in Iran. Especially if the economic failings of the current regime turn their agrarian base against them, as it may.
And, Danivon, I was not making excuses for Iran. I was simply pointing out that for the majority of Iranians, the revolution delivered the Islamic republic that they wanted. So, from their point of view, it was a success.
For a lot of minorities, it was from the frying pan to the pot. And for members of the Shah's reegime, it was a disaster. Though many of them got alot of money out of the country.
But, for most devout Shiites, they got what for which they'd yearned.

"Like virtually every dynasty that ruled Persia since the 11th century, the Qajars came to power with the backing of Turkic tribal forces, while using educated Persians in their bureaucracy".[15] In 1779, after brutally murdering Mohammad Karim Khan Zand, the Zand dynasty ruler of southern Persia, Agha Mohammad Khan, the leader of the Qajar tribe, set out to reunify Iran. Agha Mohammad Khan was known as one of the cruelest kings, even by the 18th century Iranian standards.[5] In his quest for power, he razed cities, massacred entire populations, and blinded some 20,000 men in the city of Kerman because the local populace had chosen to defend the city against his siege.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar_dynasty

You wanted to go to the predecessor's dynasty for a cause? How about Pahlavi's precursor...

"How much don't you know about Iran?"

Anyway, earlier on there was talk about Muslim countries and a lack of democracy. Ricky's bizarre comments about Iran notwithstanding, this was no less bizarre:

GMTom wrote:But "democracy won on the streets" may not be the same in the Muslim world than it is in the rest of the solar system.

Please meet Indonesia. It's democratic and the direction of travel is positive. You may have missed it, on account of it being the most populous Muslim majority nation in the world. I'm sure it's not perfect, but where is?

Oh, and by the way, the previous Indonesian system ended in 1998, following mass demonstrations.