Indeed, Egypt has some way to go. Morsi isn't necessarily all bad, as we have to remember that the judiciary he is legislating against is still largely the same one that had little problem with Mubarak's regime. Look at who Morsi appointed as Justice Minister - a jurist who strongly supports an independent judiciary.

The Constitution is not yet agreed, and that will do a lot to show how democratic Egypt is. And of course the best test is the next set of elections, and any subsequent ones where the FJP lose (or rather, should lose).

Still, when it comes to dealing with a government that has been elected (especially quite recently), it would be churlish to suggest that they are not different to a government that is the result of a coup (in Mubarak's case, a coup of a long, long time ago). Which I think is where Ricky was going.

Yes, that's right.

You know, there's a Sudanese billionaire who gives an annual prize worth $5 million to a democratically elected African leader who willingly gives up power after fair election. (The prize was not given out last year because no one qualified.) It would be great if they added a similar prize for Arab countries.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/world/afr ... index.html

Egypt, Libya and Tunisia are in Africa.

For the rest of Arab countries, as I understand it, most are strong monarchies, Syria is a dictatorship, and Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen are democratic but either fledgling or with heavy external pressure on them. The problem with such a prize is that it would mean calling for anti-monarchial revolutions. Which I'm fine with, by the way.

That's a good point ... Africa is ahead of the Arab world when it comes to political development.

ray

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.

Democracies evolve over time. And some devolve.
It is true that a democracy can begin with an election but it takes time for the institutions of democracy to grow and establish themselves. But thats true everywhere. In every democracy. Including the original modern democracies in England and the US. The voting franchise wasn't universal when they formed, and there were all kinds of laws and institutions that today we think of as anti-democratic.

Even today you can criticize some large established democracies for continuing with undemocratic institutions. Unelected senates and House of Lords?
Some established democracies have proportional representation which can be argued is more democratic than first past the post.
The US has the very odd electoral college, and instead of an independent electoral commission allows the state govenrments to gerry mander and set electoral laws that are sometimes attempts at suppressng voting... Florida?

Morsi was elected. That makes Egypt a democracy. Still a fledgling, but he has the legimacy of having been elected in a generally fair and free electoral process.
But the true test for any democracy is when a ruling party or president loses power in an election and turns over power peacefully and completely. If, when that happens, then you can say democracy is firmly established. Egypt has a ways to go ...
Since the fall of the iron curtain and the Soviet Union there have been dozens of democracies initiated. Most peacefully, by the way. And they are all different points in their development.
Some, like Russia have become authoritarian and barely retain the trappings of democracy . Yet the authoritarians don't go all the way back to totalitarian states.... The need for legitimacy is great.
Some, have become thriving democracies; The Baltic States, the czech republic, slovakia, poland,
Others are in turmoil like the Ukraine.

The idea that such a large project as the democratization of an ancient land, with no societal memory of democratic institutions or ideas, is going to be fairly easy is naive. But the demonstrations against Morsi indicate that the ideas of democracy have fnally taken root.
And when that happens, over time, the instittuions will grow.
In mature democracies that have had totalitarian regimes somehow take power (Germany, Italy) it doesn't take long for democratic institutions to take hold agan. But in societies that have known nothing but authoritarian institutions, it takes a generation or more...
You can say the Egytptian democracy has a ways to go, but demeaning the achievement of the Egyptian people, who forced real elections and who seem to have forced Morsi to consider the limits of his power is wrong. Moreover, do not diminish the impact of democracies participating in the Middle East diplomatically. For they have something the monarchies do not have. Legitimacy. Its a unique currency.

I'm certainly not demeaning the achievement of the Egyptian people. Egypt did have a democratic election. Morsi was elected by popular vote. However, since Morsi has been in power he has behaved undemocratically. Hence it is premature to call Egypt a democracy. Gaza and the West Bank also had democratic elections, but they are also not democracies, chiefly because they have postponed the next scheduled elections.

In Morsi's case, he has granted himself immune from judicial review. A few months back he had other power grabs. There is no constitution to check his powers. There is no legislature to check his powers. He declared himself above the rule of law.

As a thought experiment, when did Germany stop being a democracy in the 1930's? Hitler rose to power legally in 1933, and took emergency authority in that year.

ray

As a thought experiment, when did Germany stop being a democracy in the 1930's?

When the german people generally acquiesced to his machinations aimed at gaining authoritarian, and later totalitarian control. What would have happened if half the german populace had taken to the streets in Berlin to protest his declarations? In otehr words, wha if they had behaved like the Egyptians have towards Morsi's over reach?

I don't disagree with you that Egypt's democracy is not yet foundational. The reason I think Egypt is within the "democracy spectrum" is that they have resorted to street demonstrations to pressure Morsi. Apparently with some success. They were happy with one election. They want rea democracy.
There is enough of a tradition of successful protest in Egypt that I think they will continue on a path to greater democracy, despite the fact that Morsi has turned out to be dangerous to the continued collaborative process .

To a certain extent this discussion of what a democracy by RJ and Ricky is semantics. But in the context that Ricky used it, that Egypt would all of a sudden be treated differently by other powers because it had turned into a democracy, I think that RJ has a valid criticism Egypt is in flux and what kind of government it will is unclear--one hopes that it will become a democracy but Egypt still has a long way to go before we start calling it a democratic country. Is it a democracy this week, then a autocracy the next week, then a theocracy the week? Sometimes Ricky it's better just to concede a point.

yes it is largely semantic, but I don't think that Ricky is constitutionally able to concede a point without also delivering a lecture with some disparagement as with these quotes:

The idea that such a large project as the democratization of an ancient land, with no societal memory of democratic institutions or ideas, is going to be fairly easy is naive.

You can say the Egytptian democracy has a ways to go, but demeaning the achievement of the Egyptian people, who forced real elections and who seem to have forced Morsi to consider the limits of his power is wrong. Moreover, do not diminish the impact of democracies participating in the Middle East diplomatically.

I don't think he sees how off-putting his style can be.

That was nicely put, RJ. I was thinking of other descriptive words...

Its off putting to me, to be told I have no credibility when I call Egypt a democracy.
So I respond in kind.

If you want to be snide, you get snide back.

Would you consider Venezuela a democracy? What about North Korea and Myanmar? They all had elections, after all.

rickyp wrote:Its off putting to me, to be told I have no credibility when I call Egypt a democracy.
So I respond in kind.

If you want to be snide, you get snide back.

That's my point. Instead of conceding the point as Freeman suggests, you dig in your heals and launch into a false narrative so that you can make snide comments while mischaracterizing other people's comments.

Drop it. Get back on subject, please.

Think about the rest of us... we see something new has been posted to the thread, we click, anxious for meaningful and illuminating discussion, and what do we get?

bbauska wrote:Would you consider Venezuela a democracy? What about North Korea and Myanmar? They all had elections, after all.

I think that NK and Myanmar are very different in that there hasn't really been a popular election. I think that Venezuela has many similarities to Egypt.