danivon wrote: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.

We will see, but it is a bit frightening--in conjunction with his "brokering" of a "ceasefire."

Someone is going to wind up running Egypt by force. That's just my opinion, based on recorded history. I would love to be wrong, but we will see.

Danivon

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.

Is this not mindfiul of of the turbulent period of the french revolution?
Morsi is obviously not the proponent of true democracy I had hoped he would become. Perhaps history will end up viewing him as a figure more like Robespierre than any other? Hopefully without a reign of terror...

However, describing the Egyptian protests as "mob rule" is an unfair description of what they are doing. Having achieved so much with largely non-violent protest, isn't it encouraging that Egyptians are consisntent in their demands for continuing and real reform rather than quietly acquiesent of their fate under Morsi, the newly presumptious dictator?

Egypt's GDP per capita is about $6,600. This is about the right on the cusp of where non-oil based societies generally become free and democratic. http://www.democracyw.com/2011/07/corre ... d.html?m=1
For an academic discussion see http://kellogg.nd.edu/faculty/research/ ... ppedge.pdf
It seems to me that Egypt's society will not tolerate a return to autocracy but we'll see

rickyp wrote:However, describing the Egyptian protests as "mob rule" is an unfair description of what they are doing. Having achieved so much with largely non-violent protest, isn't it encouraging that Egyptians are consisntent in their demands for continuing and real reform rather than quietly acquiesent of their fate under Morsi, the newly presumptious dictator?

It's encouraging that they are protesting. It's not encouraging that there is violence, including the storming and arson of FJP offices.

Well, neither the Unied States nor England triumphed over autocracy through non-violent means so why should we expect the Egyptians to only use non-violent means to achieve their freedom? When their government talks about using "emergency powers" I don't think the response has been excessive

The more I think about it the more I see the events of the last few days in a positive light. Islamists may be willing to compete in an election now and then, but they are anything but democrats at heart, and the sooner the people of Egypt see them for what they are, the better.

It's fairly easy for us to see how Islamism's anti-democratic tenets make members of the MB unfit George Washingtons*, but it must be extremely difficult for an Egyptian to grasp that intuitively. They saw the MB, for decades, oppose the "tyrant" Mubarak, and on this basis if nothing else the MB seems anti-tyranny and thus pro-democracy. Add to this that one naturally feels that ones religion must be a power for good, and Islamism is certainly not estranged from the core of Islam.

But Islamism and the MB draw deeply from strains within Islam that consider democracy equivalent to heresy and/or blasphemy. Islam means submission, very much in the sense directly opposite to "rule by the people", which is the definition of democracy. A member of the MB, if a true believer, can run for office, pay lip service to democracy, and do all sorts of political dances, but his true colors will eventual be exposed.

Morsi just exposed his true colors. If the Egyptian people can learn from this that Islamists are unfit to run Egypt, that's to the good, and the sooner they learn that, the sooner they can move forward. It seems, so far, that they might very well be learning this lesson. In the latest news, 22 Egyptian NGOs have signed an open letter saying Mursi has declared, "the beginning of a new dictatorship..." Unfortunately, the Islamists aren't about to roll over. They seem to be organizing resistance to the critics. Civil strife of some sort seems imminent. Well... revolutions are rarely pretty. I of course hope for the best, but if there's going to be a dark cloud of violence, I hope that the silver lining is further exposure of the true nature of Islamism.

*If you need help with this, let me know.

Purple seems to not have much confidence in the historical knowledge of the Redscape community (see mb unfit George Washingtons asterisk).

When the protests first began in Egypt calling for the removal of Mubarak, I had hoped that the United States would have done more to support the Mubarak government. (Of course, I’m not entirely sure what could have been done but it seemed to me as though we abandoned Mubarak. Sure he was autocratic, but he was “our man in Egypt.”)

In response to the question posed in the initial post—if one had to choose between a democratic and a secular Egypt, which would be preferable?—my answer is: a secular Egypt. This is not to say that religion has no role in society or government, but simply to say that policy-decisions should not be considered through a chiefly religious lens.

However, what is not clear for me is in what way will Morsi’s approach to Middle-East politics be different than his predecessor. If Egypt under Morsi behaves, on the international stage, in a manner very similar to Egypt under Mubarak, then does it really matter if they’re democratic, autocratic, secular or religious?

To what extent will religious fundamentalism influence Egyptian foreign policy?

master

In response to the question posed in the initial post—if one had to choose between a democratic and a secular Egypt, which would be preferable?—my answer is: a secular Egypt. This is not to say that religion has no role in society or government, but simply to say that policy-decisions should not be considered through a chiefly religious lens.

Historically, democracy tends to increase the secular nature of a society. Democracy is, at its base, the tolerance for other points of view, and the acceptance of the majority - and the guarantee of basic rights for every preson regardless of their minority status.
Authoritarian regimes, co-opting the majority religion, have been very successful at maintaining power.
Religion by itself is not either a guarantee of authoritatiansim, nor a proponent of democracy.
Azerbajain is both majority Shite and secular - for instance. Malaysia is a majorly muslim country, treats islam as the state religion but islamic law is not followed. Governance is largely secular...
Morsi has already walked his pronouncements back a notch.... I think because he has to worry about the military deciding he has opened up an opportunity for them to force him out him with legitimacy.... .The military is still the key to power in Egypt. At the moment they must tolerate Morsi, but if he over steps..... he would be vulnerable to the army stepping in to guarantee the revolution. Right now, he has to maintain legitimacy and demonstrations are the way the people can force him to behave as an elected official and not a dictator..

Very few democracies have been born without some violence.... But where non-violent means predominant the democratic movements have been more successful than violent revolutions. (The Dictators Handbook) . So although its hard not to forgive a little violence from the demonstators, the less violent opposition is, the more likely that there can be a successful resolution of the parties once democracy is firmly ensconced.

Magister Equitum wrote:When the protests first began in Egypt calling for the removal of Mubarak, I had hoped that the United States would have done more to support the Mubarak government. (Of course, I’m not entirely sure what could have been done but it seemed to me as though we abandoned Mubarak. Sure he was autocratic, but he was “our man in Egypt.”)

What could they have done? What if they had tried harder and he had still been gone - what would that have done for the US' role in the region?

In response to the question posed in the initial post—if one had to choose between a democratic and a secular Egypt, which would be preferable?—my answer is: a secular Egypt. This is not to say that religion has no role in society or government, but simply to say that policy-decisions should not be considered through a chiefly religious lens.

I agree that ideally there should be a secular democracy in Egypt. However, a 'secular' autocracy could become religious if it needs to in order to maintain power. If the MB had grown in popularity in Egypt I suspect (absent the Arab Spring) that Mubarak or his successor would have adopted a more Islamic line to try and curtail opposition from that side.

However, what is not clear for me is in what way will Morsi’s approach to Middle-East politics be different than his predecessor. If Egypt under Morsi behaves, on the international stage, in a manner very similar to Egypt under Mubarak, then does it really matter if they’re democratic, autocratic, secular or religious?

Indeed. Then it comes down to how he treats his own people. In a democracy - assuming that Egypt can remain democratic - that will always be the prime issue.

The 'Arab Spring' was a major headache for Western powers really. You can try to view it as a golden opportunity, but mostly it's a massive problem because it's toppled a lot of stable governments with whom we'd established a reasonably productive dialogue. A lot of them were enemies of a sort, but they weren't really problematic to us and in the case of Gaddafi and Assad we knew what they stood for and how to deal with them. Now we're in a situation where we either back the tyrants to maintain the status quo and stability (which has happened in Bahrain for example) and run the risk of them losing anyway and leaving us in the worst possible situation, or we back the rebels and run the risk of Islamists taking power in place of them.

Ultimately the best thing we can do is move away from dependance on the Middle East for our energy supplies, which will grant us the freedom to step aside from their internal politics. We are doing that, but it will take time and in the meantime we're vulnerable to instability in the region and so we have to be involved.

sass

The 'Arab Spring' was a major headache for Western powers really. You can try to view it as a golden opportunity, but mostly it's a massive problem because it's toppled a lot of stable governments with whom we'd established a reasonably productive dialogue. A lot of them were enemies of a sort, but they weren't really problematic to us and in the case of Gaddafi and Assad we knew what they stood for and how to deal with them. Now we're in a situation where we either back the tyrants to maintain the status quo and stability (which has happened in Bahrain for example) and run the risk of them losing anyway and leaving us in the worst possible situation, or we back the rebels and run the risk of Islamists taking power in place of them.

Islamists taking power in a democracy is a lot different than Islamist regimes propping up monarchies like in Saudi Arabia....
The necessity to maintain democratic control means that there has to be respect for minorities who might hold a balance of power in an election...
The problem of the Arab Spring is really that western democracies propped up tyrants for too long to have much credibility with the eventual governments ... (still to be resolved I think).
But imagine the concern of the remaining monarchies? What cfredibility do they have? (Qatar seems to be buying friends lately)

One thing that is beginning to change is that Israel is the recognized middle eastern super power. However, dealing with other democracies is different for Isael than dealing with ruthless tyrants.When Morsi stepped into the Gaza conflict, the US seems to have welcomed his intervention. And warned Israel about escalating...

There's more subtlety to the Midlle East now, as there will be an ebb and flow of political will in the democracies.
By the way, if shale continues to develop unabated, its likely the US can end imports from the Middle East before 2020.... Saudi Arabia will increasingl;y depend on China, Japan and the rest of the Far East for its exports... That will affect politics in the region too. .
Your right that energy independence is a particularly freeing eventuality. But by no longer being the best customer, the US will lose some influence. The question is should the US be concerned about that loss of influence?

Ricky:

However, dealing with other democracies is different for Isael than dealing with ruthless tyrants.When Morsi stepped into the Gaza conflict, the US seems to have welcomed his intervention. And warned Israel about escalating...

There's more subtlety to the Midlle East now, as there will be an ebb and flow of political will in the democracies.

I think you ruin your credibility when you refer to Egypt as a democracy.

ray

I think you ruin your credibility when you refer to Egypt as a democracy.

How did Morsi come to power?
Were there elections or not?

One election does not a democracy make. How did Hitler come to power? In other words, to be a democracy you also need an agreed upon rule of law, an independent judiciary, and other checks and balances. A true democracy has a free press and some sort of bill of rights. This is something I learned in high school.

One election, one time is not yet a democracy.