Indonesia is not the same, it may very well have a majority Muslim population and it does indeed have many of the same trappings of other Muslim nations but it just isn't the same now is it? And even if we do grant you the one outlier, it doesn't really change things for the overwhelming majority. I do hope Tunisia and Egypt and others do embrace real democracy, I really do, but I am wary of it due to actual events that prove otherwise. The history of such changes doesn't seem to go as far as most would like, I do hope it works out and even in Tunisia there certainly is real hope! It's tenuous no doubt, it has some issues but hope is still there. This is about realities though and the reality is not so bright for Democracy in the Muslim world.

Indonesia, nice to meet you.

If I were to make the optimistic case for Egypt's democratic transition, I would certainly use Indonesia, and not Iran, as Exhibit A.

Which is the more likely pattern for Egypt? Why does Indonesia evolve towards democracy whereas Iran devolved into a theocracy? It seems to me that the most important factor is the transitional leadership. Having a theocratic leader (such as Morsi) seems to me to be a negative since the theocratic leader will put his (and his supporters) religious views above any desire for democracy and its requirement of independent institutions, both religious and secular. In what ways is Egypt more similar to Indonesia than Iran?

(cross posted wth Tom)

By the way, in case you missed this story:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/morsi-jewi ... gs-remark/

He then launched a diatribe about Israeli policies against the Palestinians, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) told Foreign Policy. “He was attempting to explain himself … then he said, ‘Well, I think we all know that the media in the United States has made a big deal of this and we know the media of the United States is controlled by certain forces and they don’t view me favorably,’” Coons told the magazine’s The Cable blog.

Asked if Morsi specifically named the Jews as the forces that control the American media, Coons replied that all the senators believed the implication was obvious. “He did not say [the Jews], but I watched as the other senators physically recoiled, as did I,” Coons said. “I thought it was impossible to draw any other conclusion.”

Danivon whats bizarre about looking at the fruits of the Iranian 79 revolution from the Majority Shiite point of view?

You seem to want to evaluate where democracy is at today in nations that have only recently begun an experiment in democracy....
If you compared the status of minorities in Iran today, versus that of minorities in the early stages of Democracies in the US or England .... there wouldn't be as significant difference as you might like.

If you want to compare them to the established democracies that have had a couple of hundred years to both improve and enhance their institutions and to enlarge the circle of citizens that are fully protected and engaged .... then sure they mostly fail to compare well. But that doesn't seem entirely fair or objective.

The point that Tom and Bbauska and Ray seem to want to make is that somehow Muslims are uniquely ill equipped to handle democracy. As opposed to secular or nations dominated by other major religions (Catholicism for instance) or possessing a national religion (Cof E) ....
Now, that is rather odd description for Sunni religionists ... It is their tradition that their religious leaders are elected - as was the first 12 Caliphs. So consensus and acquiescing with the will of the majority is not an unknown concept for them. Its also how the application of Sharia Law is supposed to occur....
So again, the basic ideas of democracy aren't alien.

Bbauska, I have no idea what your point is... Mine was to demonstrate that conditions before and after the revolution in Iran hadn't made some 180 degree turn into despotic behaviour. They started there. So its hard to blame the revolution, which freed Shiites from the Savak's terror, for the continuation of a tradition of abuse of power. They may not tolerate dissent from minorities any more than the Shah. However they do tolerate dissent, witness the recent demonstrations, from the wide Shiite polity. And that's a step on the evolutionary path of democracy.
Egypt is further down the road, in my estimation, because they already demonstrate a toelrance for minorities, and a willingness to include evrey community in the political conversation. Iran, still limits theirs to the followers of Ali.

Asked if Morsi specifically named the Jews as the forces that control the American media, Coons replied that all the senators believed the implication was obvious

Of course Morsi meant the Liberal elite media. You know, New Yorkers and others who aren't real Americans.

Ricky:

The point that Tom and Bbauska and Ray seem to want to make is that somehow Muslims are uniquely ill equipped to handle democracy.

I'll let Brad and Tom speak for themselves. I certainly haven't tried or want to make that point. That Ricky thinks I have is the problem. He slanders out of ignorance or malice.

GMTom wrote:Indonesia is not the same, it may very well have a majority Muslim population and it does indeed have many of the same trappings of other Muslim nations but it just isn't the same now is it?

It is in our solar system though, right?

Rather that just telling us it's 'not the same', hows about you providing some actual meat? In what way is Indonesia not the same?

Checking, I see that Senegal is another Muslim country that has been given a 'Free' rating by Freedom House, which is an improvement on previous years. Is Senegal also 'not the same'?

And even if we do grant you the one outlier, it doesn't really change things for the overwhelming majority. I do hope Tunisia and Egypt and others do embrace real democracy, I really do, but I am wary of it due to actual events that prove otherwise. The history of such changes doesn't seem to go as far as most would like, I do hope it works out and even in Tunisia there certainly is real hope! It's tenuous no doubt, it has some issues but hope is still there. This is about realities though and the reality is not so bright for Democracy in the Muslim world.

Tunisia probably does offer most hope at the moment. Algeria and Morocco didn't see much in the way of revolt and their regimes are intact, but there will be pressure from within to reduce the power of the elites in each. Libya is a vast improvement on the past, and it is heartening that the elections rejected in large part the extremists and saw a large moderate-secular bloc.

Egypt has got some things going for it. One is that it really needs trade and international confidence to be economically stable. The 'Arab Spring' was quite clearly prompted by many economic concerns. The MB have the first chance to do something with the country, but if they can't do that, they will have a lot to do.

RJ - Morsi is not a 'theocratic' leader. Mullahs would be 'theocratic', as they are in Iran. He's a Muslim, and he and his part want Egypt to be a nation based on Islam, but the extent to which they do, or can do, makes a lot of difference.

As for comments about the US media and who controls it, I see when Morsi complains about it, it must be anti-semitic. But when Americans complain about the MSM being biased, that's gravy, right?

Danivon:

RJ - Morsi is not a 'theocratic' leader. Mullahs would be 'theocratic', as they are in Iran. He's a Muslim, and he and his part want Egypt to be a nation based on Islam, but the extent to which they do, or can do, makes a lot of difference.

As for comments about the US media and who controls it, I see when Morsi complains about it, it must be anti-semitic. But when Americans complain about the MSM being biased, that's gravy, right?

Re the 1st paragraph, I agree that theocratic leader is a stretch. However, I would say that Morsi is closer to Iran then he is to Indonesia in that regard.

Re the US media, I'm just offering the conclusions of the 5 Senators who attended the meeting. Chris Coons of Delaware is not considered to be an AIPAC Zionist and he is offering his conclusion that Morsi was clearly being anti-semitic. I don't know and the reporting doesn't tell the whole story. I'll keep an open mind on what he was saying since the part that was reported is not explicit.

rickyp wrote:Danivon whats bizarre about looking at the fruits of the Iranian 79 revolution from the Majority Shiite point of view?

You seem to want to evaluate where democracy is at today in nations that have only recently begun an experiment in democracy....
If you compared the status of minorities in Iran today, versus that of minorities in the early stages of Democracies in the US or England .... there wouldn't be as significant difference as you might like.

Well, clearly I'm not as much of a moral relativist as you think I should be.

Early modern England and America did not have the advantage of many other examples to look at. Iran had many examples by 1979.

The point that Tom and Bbauska and Ray seem to want to make is that somehow Muslims are uniquely ill equipped to handle democracy. As opposed to secular or nations dominated by other major religions (Catholicism for instance) or possessing a national religion (Cof E) ....

Not sure that's their point. They seem to be saying more like that Islam is contrary to democracy - particularly as many of its adherents understand them. Many religions are. After all, they tend to teach that their way is the only way to live, that their morality and law is superior to others, and they often create a hierarchy and power base that allows them to exert control.

It is true that it's not that long ago that we could certainly to a similar trend among Catholic nations. There were very few which were democratic even into the mid 20th Century. Similarly with Orthodox Christian nations (of which there were few anyway).

Now, that is rather odd description for Sunni religionists ... It is their tradition that their religious leaders are elected - as was the first 12 Caliphs. So consensus and acquiescing with the will of the majority is not an unknown concept for them. Its also how the application of Sharia Law is supposed to occur....
So again, the basic ideas of democracy aren't alien.

Of course, the Shia rejected the Caliphate, so it's utterly irrelevant to Iran.

You are also dead wrong about the first 12 being elected. Some of the first set were (although by 'election' it really meant by agreement between a small group of the elite). But the sixth Caliph founded the Umayyad dynasty, and from then on it was a hereditary position.

So I'm not sure that you've demonstrated that democracy in Sunnis comes from the Caliphates.

One difference between Indonesia and Egyot is that in Indonesia freedom of religion is guaranteed. However, there are indications that freedom of religion is under attack in Indonesia. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/indonesi ... 2013-01-15

While constitution has a guarantee one wonders how a blasphemy law can be reconciled with that provision http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/ind ... -us/534033

Ray Jay wrote:Re the 1st paragraph, I agree that theocratic leader is a stretch. However, I would say that Morsi is closer to Iran then he is to Indonesia in that regard.

Well, maybe you can't compare a man to a whole country. Egypt and Indonesia have some similarities. Both emerged from a military-dominated period. Both have a strand of political Islam in their history - it has established sharia courts for civil cases. Several of th e parties in the governing coalition are Islamic parties. The constitution is not Islamic, but it does contain: "The state shall be based on the belief in the one and only God"

Re the US media, I'm just offering the conclusions of the 5 Senators who attended the meeting. Chris Coons of Delaware is not considered to be an AIPAC Zionist and he is offering his conclusion that Morsi was clearly being anti-semitic. I don't know and the reporting doesn't tell the whole story. I'll keep an open mind on what he was saying since the part that was reported is not explicit.

Clearly that is how he interpreted it and how he thinks his colleagues did. But we all know that inference is not the same as implication.

Even the non-Jewish-owned media in the US and other places seems to be very pro-Israel. The Murdochs are not Jewish, for example, but their media outlets do tend to have a particular position, do they not?

Maybe Morsi doesn't know about that, and just assumes all the presses are owned by Jews in America. Or maybe he's not that dumb.

I will speak for myself.

RickyP, you are using the example of how Iran is a good example as to what Egypt is heading to. I disagree (as does Ray Jay apparently). We provide reasons as to why the Iranian Regime is a poor example of democracy, and you say that is a response to Pahlavi, so it is not their fault. You also provide the snide comment about not knowing Iranian history.

I show you history further back prior to Pahlavi and extreme human rights violations.

You say we don't know Iranian history
You say we don't understand Islam

I asked earlier what makes you so specially equipped to understand Islam and Iran more than we do. I have yet to receive that answer, but am interested in your background. It could help me with your credibility.

I am a military weapons man. I would hope that would give me some credibility when it comes to magazine loading, weapons rates of fire and what is an automatic weapon and what is not. Show me why you are better understanding than others.

freeman2 wrote:One difference between Indonesia and Egyot is that in Indonesia freedom of religion is guaranteed. However, there are indications that freedom of religion is under attack in Indonesia. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/indonesi ... 2013-01-15

Well, atheism and polytheism are not guaranteed, and haven't been since the Independence Constitution established monotheism (as per the wording in my previous post).

I did say it wasn't perfect, but it is a reasonably well-functioning democracy which is on the better end of Civil and Political freedom and is certainly in a better place than in 1998.

The AI article was concerning, although it doesn't necessarily mean things are getting worse - there have been religious tensions in parts of Indonesia for a long time.

Danivon:

Maybe Morsi doesn't know about that, and just assumes all the presses are owned by Jews in America. Or maybe he's not that dumb.

I think Morsi is very intelligent. The context of the comment is a question about Morsi's comment that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs. That context has some relevance to the discussion of his pointing to the media in the US making a big deal of this.

Frankly, as far as I can tell, the media hasn't made a big deal of his comment. I haven't seen it on the front page of the 2 newspapers that I read. He's suggesting that the comment in and of itself isn't outrageous but instead that it is being explotied by some individuals who have disproportionate power in the US media.

One would expect a believer in democracy (and the rights it affords all peoples) to disavow the comment completely and affirm that he mispoke; I would expect him to apologize. He didn't do that. Not because he's stupid, but because he's smart and understands his political interests. That political interest trumps good relations with 5 leading senators of both parties of a country that provides his country over $1 billion per year (and needs to cut spending). It must be a powerful political interest that has him stand by the comment.