Is there any country that is a 'Jeffersonian Democracy'? I certainly don't think anyone is claiming that Egypt is likely to any time soon. These things take a lot of time and a lot can go wrong along the way. Tunisia is making slow progress. Libya has so far not elected Islamicists. Iraq is a mess, frankly.

That there hasn't been a stable Arab democracy doesn't mean there can't be one - before 1945 there were pretty much no stable Asian democracies.

And it's not that I'm ignoring the history and local culture. The problem is that we've had in Egypt 60 years of military rule. While in the last 30 years they have been peaceful externally (thanks to generous military 'aid'), it's been pretty brutal for the people. It was not sustainable. It also tried to play off communities against each other, which did not help at all. What happened was that the Muslim Brotherhood were able to position themselves as a legitimate and popular opposition.

The liberals who started the revolution were always a minority and mainly concentrated in certain cities. But they are not completely marginalised yet. Morsi has a lot of 'mundane' issues to deal with. Security and the economy are pretty messed up after the last 18 months. He can yet fail and end up with popular opposition from somewhere, if he can't deal with the basics.

I'm not sure who is showiing 'enthusiastic enthusiasm'. Cautious optimism, I hold my hands up.

No, but it's more likely to do that than to evolve into a Jeffersonian democracy.

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. So democracy had a long way to go, even after the US adopted many of his ideas in its Constitution. England had its Glorious Revolution but it took 200+ more years until parliament became what it is today, and the franchise was Universal. . History teaches us that democracy, when finally embraced, becomes a virtuous circle that constantly widens to include more members of society and end the extractive institutions and laws that benfitted elites in securing welath and power more easily. Once you stop viewing the US as born in perfection, you'll realize that the very ideals of Jefferson never would have seen the Civil rights battle in the 1960s, or the battle for womens rights, which were the most recent significant steps in the evolution of US democracy.. Demcracy, everywhere, is a constant evolution.

The Egyptian military have been the chief benefactors of a system that rewarded its senior members handsomely over the last 60 years. They secured the ruling political party and stepped into the Arab Spring to eject Mubarak only when they thought the uprising might start to threaten their position.
If Morsi has acted entirely on his own, this moment may be particularly dangerous for the evolution of democracy in Egypt. However, there are certain clues that Morsi has acted with the support of many senior Army officers. First, most of the senior officers "fired" were also handed very nice postings. (Head of the Sinai Canal). So its probable that there was a turnover within the senior military that was managed...
We'll have to wait and see how wide and inclusive Morsi's version of democracy becomes.... And to what extent the Egytian military will devolve its power
If the steps he's just made are permanent, then he may be well on the way to expanding Egytian society to include more of its populous in the share of power... But it took England and the US 200+ years, most of Europe 100+ years after a later start. So its doubtful we'll be able to conclude anything substantive in Egypt until a round or two of elections takes place and power changes hands peacefully.

rickyp wrote:

No, but it's more likely to do that than to evolve into a Jeffersonian democracy.

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

Ad hominem and irrelevant.

Oh, it's you.

I apologize for interrupting a perfect exemplar of your argumentation.

However, good job in not arguing for socialized medicine here. I'm proud of you.

Doctor Fate wrote:Ad hominem and irrelevant.

Oh, it's you.

Ricky spoke to the subject; it's DF's post that was utterly personal (ad hominem) and devoid of substance (and thus irrelevant). It was a waste of my time to read it, whereas RickyP said some thoughtful things. I urge DF to either ignore Ricky or to engage him substantively.

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Ad hominem and irrelevant.

Oh, it's you.

Ricky spoke to the subject; it's DF's post that was utterly personal (ad hominem) and devoid of substance (and thus irrelevant). It was a waste of my time to read it, whereas RickyP said some thoughtful things. I urge DF to either ignore Ricky or to engage him substantively.

Yeah, because that took SO MUCH time to read.

Please, dear Purple, do explain how "Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner" is relevant to whether Egypt is on the road to becoming a "Jeffersonian democracy."

. . . Jeffersonian democracy stressed the need for leadership by those of greatest ability, who would be chosen by the people.

Please address this substantively.

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Ad hominem and irrelevant.

Oh, it's you.

Ricky spoke to the subject; it's DF's post that was utterly personal (ad hominem) and devoid of substance (and thus irrelevant). It was a waste of my time to read it, whereas RickyP said some thoughtful things. I urge DF to either ignore Ricky or to engage him substantively.

For what it's worth, I often find that although I agree with Ricky on much of the substance of his post, his style is very offputting. For example, in the post to which Dr. Fate objected, Ricky posted:

Once you stop viewing the US as born in perfection, you'll realize that

I don't think that Dr. Fate has said that the US was born in perfection. Now to defend himself Dr. Fate has to tell us when he stopped beating his wife. I think that Ricky's comment is a passive-agressive put down. There's plenty to learn here for everyone.

DF, the problem with that definition of Jeffersonian Democracy is that 'greatest ability' can conflict with 'chosen by the people'. Despite your rush to judge based on Ricky's first sentence, he does address this anyway. Until the end of Jim Crow, not all of 'the people' were in on the choosing. Jefferson's America was not all that democratic, and modern America is not that jeffersonian. There are, of course, other kinds of democracy that Egypt might stand a better chance of emulating.

Ricky is also right that there are clues that his moves have support within the military, and that there looks like being a handover to a new generation. I note that Mohammed El Baredai welcomed the reduction in military power, but has raised caution about the extension of the President's influence, and is calling for balance by giving the interim Constituent Assembly legislative powers.

Our Canadian friend is also right that we can only really tell how a new democracy is going when a later election is held which leads to a change of power. The best we can do is to help such countries to move in the right direction.

Jefferson owned slaves, but that was perfectly legal at the time. The Wikipedia article on "Jefferson and Slavery" does a good job of describing both the complexity of Jefferson's own attitudes and the complexities of the issue in general in those days. It's hard to say anything very solid about Jefferson and slavery in just a few words. But when you ignore slavery it's easy to describe J's attitude toward human rights in general in just a few words: he was WAY ahead of his time.

It's always odd to see leftists standing up for the Muslim Brotherhood, which surely is one of the least liberal institutions in the world. But I see three things that might explain the phenomenon. The first two are not admirable: 1) rightists are knee-jerk against the MB; leftists feel obliged to defend the MB just to show up the stupid rightists, and 2) the MB is "anti-zionist" (to be polite about it) and so are way too many leftists (to be polite about it). The third explanation is that there really are some parallels between the MB and Jefferson.

Slavery, though wrong, was accepted in Jefferson's world and he couldn't really see how it would tear the nation apart sooner or later. Letting shari'a and Islamism take precedence over universal concepts of human rights, though wrong, is accepted in the MB's world and they can't really see how doing so will doom Egypt to a less happy future than they might otherwise attain. On the other hand, the MB is way ahead of the likes of Mubarak, Assad, and the Iranian mullahs when it comes to some forms of human rights.

Jefferson wanted freedom for some. So do the MB. Stopping there is where the left, however, makes its tragic mistake. The real difference between Jefferson and the MB is not superficial, as that similarity is, it's tremendously deep. Jefferson's philosophy was entirely and deeply humanist; the MB's is entirely and deeply anti-humanist. The freedom Islamists want is the freedom to place the will of Allah above the will of any Mubarak - or any and all other humans. The MB has been Islamist to its core. Perhaps it could change. That "perhaps" is an awfully thin hook for the left to hang its hat upon.

Of course, we don't have much of a choice, so hoping for the best is not completely irrational. Just don't confuse the MB with Jefferson or Washington. They are not humanists. They are not liberals. While hoping for the best, it would be wise to consider the possibility of the worst.

As an actual 'leftist', I'm not sure whether you are including me in your broadbrush dismissal or not. And it was not a 'leftist' who brought Jeffersonian Democracy into the discussion, either.

I do not 'defend' the MB. I am merely hopeful that they won't go as far as many fear.

However, there are liberals (in relative terms, perhaps) in Egypt. It's with them we could look, and provide support.

Morsi is not now a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
What ever his past relationship with the MB, or adherence to their creed, he isn't carrying their flag right now....
He may well have been using his association with the MB as a political base, but now does not need direct association with them in order to wield power.
Indeed, it is quite possible that younger members of the senior officers corp in Egypt are allied with Morsi to modernize the nation, make society and politics more inclusive and therefore blunt the appeal of the MB. The MB have always featured as a group that appeals to injustice against Muslims , and seeks to wield power to enrich the Muslim populace. A modern nation that includes all brands of Islamic peoples (and there is a spectrum as broad as Protestants have...) and the minority people, would suit the secularists that chiefly make up the senior oficer corp.
The Egyptian military have several recent revolutions to consider in whatever action they take regarding Morsi and the advancement of democracy. Turkey, and Iran. Polar opposites. And the recent Tunisian and Libyan affairs...
Methinks they see Turkey as a more acceptable road map, as Iran lead to a establishment of a religious ruling class that would not benefit them.
Remember, the people in the ascendancy in Egytian society are the military. They have to either give ground or be forced to give up power and privilege. If the senior memebrs are at the point where its worth more to them to give some ground and retain most of what they have ....we have perhaps reached a point where the virtuous circle of democracy has begun in Egypt.
And please remember this all came from witin the nation itself. Where democracy must be bred.
Can Egypt tolerate a large percentage of conservative Muslims? Probably. Turkey can. But Islam is likely to have to adapt as the modern world and modern communications swamp its conservative view with a more appealing life for many young people....
Does anyone remember the recent Daily show visit from the new Egyptian version of Jon Stewart? (Former surgeon...) Times change as ideas are given an airing.

rickyp wrote:Morsi is not now a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Please don't insult our intelligence, Ricky. He was President of the FJP until he was elected as President of Egypt, when he resigned.

Read that again, Ricky. He was not a mere 'member', he was the President of the MB's political party until about 7 weeks ago.

Also, as the Muslim Brotherhood itself was still formally banned, he had to leave it in order to stand, so it doesn't look like he became disillusioned and left, it was for convenience.

He may well have been using his association with the MB as a political base, but now does not need direct association with them in order to wield power.

Do you have any evidence to back that suggestion up?

Remember, the people in the ascendancy in Egytian society are the military. They have to either give ground or be forced to give up power and privilege. If the senior memebrs are at the point where its worth more to them to give some ground and retain most of what they have ....we have perhaps reached a point where the virtuous circle of democracy has begun in Egypt.

I can agree that the military are key to this, but not that they see Morsi as some kind of ally in secular liberalisation. They would clearly have preferred Ahmed Shafik as President, who would probably have been more secular than Morsi and a lot less liberal than we'd like to see.

I don't buy that Morsi is anything like how you portray him, Ricky. My hope is that he's shackled enough by the military and circumstances that he's forced to keep away from Islamicification and has to liberalise to seek popularity.

http://world.time.com/2012/08/14/5-thin ... t-egypt/5/

danivon

Do you have any evidence to back that suggestion up?

see section five of the above article from Time. Its along the lines of what I'm proposing without the far out idea that Morsi was just using the MB, which isn't really where I intended to go... More about Morsi being pragmatic and having a larger agenda than just advancing the MB.
It wouldn't be the first time a leader had realized that his country needed more than a narrow partisan at its helm to make a real advancement.

Some stuff that Morsy is doing

http://thedailynewsegypt.com/2012/08/13 ... influence/

Al-Jazeera correspondent Rawya Rageh reported on Monday that Islam Afifi, the Editor-in-Chief of Al-Dostour newspaper would be referred to criminal court after repeatedly failing to show up for interrogation.

These are the latest developments that have come to light since security forces confiscated issues of Al-Dostour on Saturday morning as part of an investigation into whether or not the newspaper is guilty of sedition.

Those protesting on Monday felt that President Morsy’s investigation into Al-Dostour is circumventing legal avenues that could have been used if there was a legitimate case against the editor. State supported newspaper Al-Ahram reported that the protesters mobilised to say that Morsy is harkening back to the Mubarak-era methods of repressing dissent.

More stuff that Morsi is doing....

Since this article appears on Thanksgiving Day it's easy to miss or overlook.

Egypt's Islamist president unilaterally decreed greater authorities for himself Thursday and effectively neutralized a judiciary system that had emerged as a key opponent by declaring that the courts are barred from challenging his decisions.

Riding high on U.S. and international praise for mediating a Gaza cease-fire, Mohammed Morsi put himself above oversight and gave protection to the Islamist-led assembly writing a new constitution from a looming threat of dissolution by court order.

But the move is likely to fuel growing public anger that he and his Muslim Brotherhood are seizing too much power.

Read it all

What scares me the most is this line, spoken by a Morsi aide: "He had to act to save the country and protect the course of the revolution." If you're at all familiar with the history of dictatorships this line will sound familiar and send a chill down your spine. Almost these exact same words have been spoken about pretty much every dictator who arose in the wake of a popular revolt. I hate to predict something bad for a nation that's experienced so little good, but this news bodes ill for Egypt.

Mass demonstrations today, with violence in Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said. Apparently a few MB offices have been set alight.

a while ago, when the Military appeared to be abusing the revolution, there were new demonstrations and they backed down. It is interesting that we see a clear opposition to the MB/Morsi grab for power too. Hopefully he too will have to backtrack.

Mob rule isn't a great way to run a country, but it does seem that many Egyptians are prepared to do what was unthinkable a few years ago - protest against their government, even in the face of a violent police force and army. Clearly the revolution is not over, and it's not that easy to hijack.