Egypt's ruling military has issued a declaration granting itself sweeping powers... amounting to a military coup. [The ruling] effectively gives it [the military] legislative powers, control over the budget and over who writes the permanent constitution...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18482257

Mohamed ElBaradei says this is a "grave setback for democracy and revolution". I'm sure that's true. Democracy is something I'd like to see in Egypt. But I want to see secularism even more. The military fears the Islamist agenda of the Brotherhood and the Salafists with whom they might ally, as do I. A free, fair and open election is a wonderful thing, but it's not the be-all and end-all of modern pluralistic self-government (MPSG). It might make more sense for Egypt first to establish a civil society based on tolerance and to slowly evolve democratic techniques of leadership-selection than to first have lots of elections leading to increasing Islamization.

I'm reminded of Turkey, which despite some recent leanings toward non-secularism by the party in power has generally been the best of all majority-Muslim states when it comes to MPSG. One reason: the military has been the guarantor of secularism.

If the choice was between a democratic Egypt for the next ten years or a secular one, which would you rather see? (Yes, it's possible to have both - I'm presenting a hypothetical either-or. It just might come down to one or the other, and the above news story certainly represents something of a migration to the either-or scenario.)

Well, both democracy without secularism and secularism without democracy are dangerous in their own way.

What I'd point out is that they have had the latter for some time and that's largely what led to the 'Revolution'. So going back to that may be preferable in terms of keeping the Islamicists out of power, but it's going to be a massive betrayal.

Which leads me to conclude, sadly, that it would be better for them to try democracy for a while.

I believe I said this would happen back when the Egyptian spring first happened and was poo poo'd.

"Sandmonkey" is an Egyptian revolutionary and a blogger. I'll bet he's been cited/quoted here many times. Here's his latest essay: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2012/06/24/the-game/

...this is a very strange elections in terms of the reasoning behind the opposing camps, especially that they seem to be fueled by hate more than any other emotion... But the interesting thing in all of this, with Tahrir [Sq.] being mainly [where the] MB [stages protests], and Nasr City being mainly [where the] Shafiq supporters [stage protests]..., the supreme majority of the revolutionaries sat home, for the first time, on their couches, and watched protesters protesting in the streets, and the country being divided in a fight that they are not uniformly invested in.

He says the military have been using the last few days to negotiate an arrangement with the MB and will give Morsy the Presidency, but only for a limited period of time, during which fuel prices will rise and the MB lose support. He says, "anticipate the emergence of the new Elite, made up for very rich MB families, and how they will start flaunting it now."

Well, are we discussing what is happening in Egypt, or just the strawman false dichotomy of secular republicanism v democratic religious populism?

If it's the former, then what I'd say is that there are a lot of rumour-mongering going on out there. What seems to have happened is that the military leaders of SCAF have acted to reduce the influence of the MB, through two main methods. Firstly by getting the Supreme Court to nullify a lot of the parliamentary election results, so the parliament is not quorate - a parliament that is dominated by MB and other islamic parties (with a fair contingent of Salafists). Secondly, by using the vacuum created by that and the election counting (slowed down and delayed) to issue changes to the President's power.

I think they are not necessarily engineering a short presidency, but they are ensuring that it's under their control to a large extent. In between the military and old regime establishment and the religious parties (both of which are 'conservative' in their own way) are the liberals, whose presidential candidate did not make the cut and who feel that the revolution they started has been taken away from them.

I say: "Democracy is something I'd like to see in Egypt. But I want to see secularism even more." and Danivon calls that a "strawman false dichotomy of secular republicanism v democratic religious populism"? I even took care later, when posing the choice as a question, to say both were possible. I touched quite a nerve in Danivon. Wow.

Anyway, that aside, here's more recent news:

In a rousing speech in Tahrir Square on Friday, Egypt’s new president, Mohamed Morsi, told the crowd that he will work to free Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the “Blind Sheikh.” Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a follow-on plot against New York City landmarks.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/egyptian-president-wants-arch-terrorist-freed/

Under a heading of "Legacy" Wikipedia has:

Abdel-Rahman’s imprisonment has become a rallying point for Islamic militants around the world, including Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In 1997, members of his group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya conducted two attacks against European visitors to Egypt, including the massacre of 58 tourists at Deir el-Bahri in Luxor. In addition to killing women and children, the attackers mutilated a number of bodies and distributed leaflets throughout the scene demanding Rahman’s release. In 2005, members of Rahman’s legal team, including lawyer Lynne Stewart, were convicted of facilitating communication between the imprisoned Sheikh and members of the terrorist organization Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt.

And now the winner of the Arab Spring democratic election in Egypt, their new President, wants this fellow freed. It seems that not only has "Abdel-Rahman’s imprisonment become a rallying point for Islamic militants around the world," but also a rallying point for the Muslim Brotherhood newly empowered in Egypt. (Or am I simply being repetitive?)

Lest I be accused of saying that the MB is as bad as al Qaeda, or some such imputation, let me say that 1) I don't know how Islamicist MB will be in the short term, or how they might evolve as an organization now that they've gotten some power in Egypt, but I'm deeply suspicious of their long-term intentions, by which I mean 10 to 20 years or more as a horizon. And 2) their power is very limited right now. If I were they (and nasty and cynical) I'd be doing everything I could to gain more power, putting aside core ideological agenda items as necessary until the power was gained. If that's what Morsi's up to, I'm disturbed that he felt that his call to free Rahman would "play well" with his crowd - that such pro-jihad calls might ring deeply with the Egyptian populace and help him accumulate more power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman

Purple, you set up the question at the end of you post as an all or nothing. You pointed out it was a hypothetical. I answered it too, but I guess you want to back to the real topic of what's happening in Egypt.

It may just be a crowd pleaser, aimed at people who've been lied to about Rahman.

danivon wrote:
It may just be a crowd pleaser, aimed at people who've been lied to about Rahman.

I want to make sure I get your drift. Are you saying that campaigning to release a murderer is just a crowd pleaser?

If I read that Wikipedia page correctly, he's not a convicted murderer. But as he's held in the US under Federal convictions for seditious conspiracy, what can Morsi do?

As he can't do anything, promising to campaign is hollow. So what is that other than appealing to section of the crowd

Thanks for the clarification. I hope that the Egyptian people can live in peace and prosperity in a vibrant democracy, and they hope that my children and I are murdered.

The evolution of Turkish democracy, may be an apt comparison to what is happening in Egypt. The military in Turkey guaranteed the democracy but also slowed the pace of change by "governing" the elected officials.
The challenge is to provide enough positive change, and to get the nation used to democratic institutions and the use of legitimate power responsibily ..... without leaving the door open to democracy being co-opted as a way of increasing authoritarianism. (Like Chavez in Venezeula)
The MB seems to be a more pragmatic movement in Egypt than in other countries. And indeed they've been roundly criticized by more radical Islamic politiucal movements elsehwere and in Egypt. They are above pandering, for effect, but they seem to understand incremental change is more permanent than dangerous over reaching.
What happens over time, though is that, as in Turkey, their own positions evolve with experience...
Its likely the army will be accepting of change at a moderate pace that doesn't immediatly threaten their wealth and position, but at the same time, incremental change may be looked upon in 40 years time as breath taking from where Egypt was 2 years ago.

Updating this thread via the AP and then Time Mag:

Egypt's Islamist president ordered the retirement of the defense minister and chief of staff on Sunday and made the boldest move so far to seize back powers that the military stripped from his office right before he took over.

...the reshuffle plays into the broader strategy of Morsy’s powerful Islamist alma mater, the Muslim Brotherhood, which most analysts agree is still calling the shots in the presidential kitchen.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I believe I said this would happen back when the Egyptian spring first happened and was poo poo'd.

I believe you are correct, sir.

I know it is politically correct to talk about process and political evolution, etc. But, is it so unlikely that Egypt is going to devolve into an Islamic state bent on supporting terror and jihad?

Unlikely? No. But it is not inevitable though.

If we think democracy is a good way to run a country (as opposed to a military dictatorship), we should let it run its course. By setting up the only two possible outcomes as being a slide into Jihadism or the firm but friendly (to us, if not the people) hand of a strong man, I think we are not exactly helping things.

It is still very early days, and the military have not gone away because of a few moves at the top. And yes, he has removed Tantawi, who was very close to the hated Mubarak. But that would also probably be the move that a democrat would make at some point, too.

On the other hand, the army as a whole is still incredibly powerful. It would appear that Morsi would not have been able to make such changes without having some licence among those in uniform. It's not clear who really is pulling the levers here.

danivon wrote:Unlikely? No. But it is not inevitable though.

If we think democracy is a good way to run a country (as opposed to a military dictatorship), we should let it run its course. By setting up the only two possible outcomes as being a slide into Jihadism or the firm but friendly (to us, if not the people) hand of a strong man, I think we are not exactly helping things.

I agree--it's not inevitable.

However, if we ignore the culture and history of the region, we're foolish. I'm not "setting up" only two possibilities. I am looking at the neighborhood, reviewing history, considering the influence of the predominant religion, and suggesting it is more likely than not that one of those two outcomes will come to pass.

Where is the great Arabic democracy? There isn't one. Maybe Iraq will be one day . . . maybe Libya . . . maybe Egypt.

Does that mean Egypt must devolve entirely? No, but it's more likely to do that than to evolve into a Jeffersonian democracy.

It is still very early days, and the military have not gone away because of a few moves at the top. And yes, he has removed Tantawi, who was very close to the hated Mubarak. But that would also probably be the move that a democrat would make at some point, too.

On the other hand, the army as a whole is still incredibly powerful. It would appear that Morsi would not have been able to make such changes without having some licence among those in uniform. It's not clear who really is pulling the levers here.

All true. I don't think it warrants enthusiastic enthusiasm and maybe not even cautious optimism.