Slashdot Mirror
Egyptian President Overthrown, Constitution Suspended
Al Jazeera and other publications are reporting that Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has been overthrown by the country's army. General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, head of the Egyptian armed forces, said in a televised announcement that Morsi had been removed from power, the Constitution had been suspended, and Adli al-Mansour, leader of Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court, had been appointed to lead the country until elections can be held. "Sisi called for presidential and parliamentary elections, a panel to review the constitution and a national reconciliation committee that would include youth movements. He said the roadmap had been agreed by a range of political groups." According to the BBC's report, "General Sisi said on state TV that the armed forces could not stay silent and blind to the call of the Egyptian masses," and "The army is currently involved in a show of force, fanning out across Cairo and taking control of the capital."
Egypt was a better place back then, center of culture and learning in the world.
Now it's just shit.
Why is it that it's precisely in times where upholding the constitution is at it's most important (in times of turmoil), that so many countries do away with the constitution entirely and suspend it?!
Step 1) Spy on your citizens ....
Step 2)
Step 3) Profit!
since we don't seem to be using right now I don't see any problem.
So if the constitution was suspended and the leader of the constitutional court appointed leader, does the first action cancel the potency of the second?
Under the circumstances I'm guessing not, but the irony is at least a little bit tasty.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Funny is says the Constitution was Suspended. Like it was ever a democracy in the first place.
While the Egyptian Army is certainly no paragon of freedom (or battle prowess, but that's another story...), at least there is a formidable power in Egypt that leans toward secular sanity and against Islamist lunacy. Egypt could again one day stand with Turkey (for all its troubles) and Jordan as examples of modern, stable states among the insane theocracies that surround them.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Don't be naive. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any less involved in what's going on there.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
That didn't make sense. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any more involved in what's going on there.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Social media cuts both ways. The military took control of State TV (as in all coups), closed the three pro-Morsi TV Stations (arresting some journalists in the process) but could not take both the Twitter and the Facebook official accounts from the reluctant future deposed president.
The next post will contain verbatim of the deposed president probable last communication via an official channel: the "Office of Assistant to President of Egypt on Foreign Relations" Facebook account.
Here is the link to the communicate for those who still have a FB account.
Below is the full text for analysis and comment.
I consider myself a nerd, and I find this news interesting. I support this article being here. If you do not, then please choose not to read that article. If you feel that there are too many such articles for you to enjoy the site, then please find another site.
Yes, but since then he has made more power grabs and less reforms than people are comfortable with. On the one hand, I don't see that not producing enough jobs is cause to overthrow the government, on the other, there has been real concern of a significant shift towards institutionalized Islam in Egypt.
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case. Seems the recent theocracy wasn't actually any good at the nuts and bolts of running a country - and people to expect the government of a fairly modern country to provide basic services. Or at least that's how I interpret the army's statement that a "technocrat, capable national government will be formed" (quoting Al-Jaz).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Didn't the Egyptians just elect this guy a year ago?
Yep, they elected a Muslim Brotherhood guy who made election campaign statements like
'"The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal"
Now they found it shocking that the guy is just a tiny bit of an Islamic fanatic.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
the agenda of Bush/Cheney/Obama/Biden's masters continue
Fixed that for you.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
yeah thats right baby
You do realize that the protests leading up to this overthrow were the most massive in human history?
The numbers bandied about were anywhere from 20-35 million in the streets. At least 22 million signed a petition denouncing Morsi.
With a population of 82M, that's anywhere from 25-40% of the country's populace. If even 1/10 of that number (much less %) got out on the streets in the USA, there'd be dozens of /. posts as it impacted the largest block of slashdotters on a daily basis.
Furthermore, Egypt is keyholder of the Suez canal. Instability in this country would be like instability in Panama - and impact world trade.
I'd say this is news for nerds.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
but it's really not funny.
If I were the Assholes in charge of the US Government, I would be worrying about all that ammo flying off the shelves for the last 7 years or so.
1% of the Taxpayers is not 1% of the population, lol.
I remember when the Constitution was a real Badge of Honor, not something Our Government Wipes its collective Ass on whenever they want.
.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
So this is a rather informal one.
It's a coup, but rather a strange one. The people want Morsi gone, the military is moving against him and then handing off power to the people.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/03/egypt-morsi-protests-army-deadline/2485355/
Here's a summary of the situation from the point of view of one of the protesters.
Why President Morsi is in Trouble:
A youth leader of the June 30th demonstrations gives us an insider's view of why ordinary Egyptians are in revolt.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-president-morsi-is-in-trouble/?singlepage=true
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Question for me is, will they replace it with something more effective? Technocratic benevolent dictatorships are a lot more attractive on paper than they turn out to be in real life.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power? I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election. (And given the shenanigans that show up in the US, I'm not going to throw too many stones. They're different, in both kind and degree, but we're hardly beyond reproach.)
There were laser pointers.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Technocratic benevolent dictatorships are a lot more attractive on paper than they turn out to be in real life.
Nobody but you said anything about "benevolent dictatorship". The Egyption Army is using the phrase "technocratic" as a code word that means "non-Islamic". The current government in Egypt has no actual skills for government, other than "be fanatic Islamicists and use the Quran as the guide for all things", and I personally am dubious as to the value of that one.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power?
No, they won't. The uprising is because the government was a de-facto Islamic theocracy, and the majority of the people don't want that.
I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election.
The election had two candidates, one who was associated with the repressive Mubarak government, and Morsi. Morsi seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises: he said "sure I'm the Islamic candidate, but I'll respect the rights of non-Islamic people." Then he broke his promises. Thus, the whole "technocratic" thing: the Army and the people are looking to install a secular government.
So Obama throws Mubarak under the bus so Egypt can have democracy, now he supports a military coup to remove a democratically elected leader by the same military that used to keep Mubarak in power. Way to have a consistent foreign policy, chief.
Really, the only inconsistency was favoring democratically elected officials that don't like us in the first place. Pretty much the sum of all US foreign policy in the post-WW2 era is "find the biggest strongman that will play nice with us and put in charge of the rabble that doesn't." The history of the Middle East and South America during the Cold War is pretty much this story cloned and stamped over and over again.
In this situation, I'm not really sure what the best policy is. As much as I dislike realpolitik and prefer letting democracies elect people who don't like us over the strongman policy, Syria has turned into a huge clusterf--k that is probably about to boil over into a decades-long sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict, and if this will ensure a more stable transition in Egypt, then I guess I'm going to have to grudgingly accept it. If it doesn't, though, I can't even summon up the feeling that I'll be able to say, "I told you so."
I feel absolutely nauseated to consider the notion that letting the military run things may result in more freedom than letting popularly elected President do it, but we've got decades of Turkish politics to weigh in as evidence on that. I just don't know. Maybe once the trolls get sorted out in this thread, we'll get some good discussion from people closer to the ground on this. I guess I'll cross my fingers and hope.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That seems to be the view echoed in this extensive post on CNN by a History professor in Cairo which interesting reading, but probably too long for the average slashdot-er.
TL:DR: he held his nose but hoped for the best when Morsy became President, but simply couldn't stand the "'Brotherhoodization" of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood had systematically replaced every level of government right down to School Principals with unqualified followers.
I'd been watching the stream for hours when cheering an fireworks broke out, and upon looking to Twitter found that the Army had replaced the Muslim Brotherhood leadership with a representative of the Supreme Court. Every military chopper that went overhead was also loudly cheered. Contrary to how CNN is presenting this, it is clearly a popular turn of events.
Egypt may have stepped back from the brink of becoming yet another Islamic Religious Dictatorship.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises ... Then he broke his promises.
I'm glad we don't tolerate that kind of crap in the good old US of A!
The Egyptian army does seem to be reflecting the will of the Egyptian people in this case.
Wag the dog... It's the same bit of manipulation as 'Arab Spring'... The 'will of the people' put Morsi (Mursi?) into office
There was precious little choice at the time.
They have learned their lesson, and for once it seems the average person in the street has had enough of 'Brotherhoodization" of their democracy.
For an Islamic majority country to take this step is a pretty positive note if you ask me.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Basically detest islam in the majority of its forms. But having looked at Egypt for a while, the level of abuse on women, organised or social rape, the deliberate and appalling levels of enforced FGM, and coming to a conclusion that as a people in a general sense, I feel only sorry for the victims, but generally regard most with a deep disdain.
As an aside, this looks to me to have civil war written all over it. But before that, an observation of my own on this. I have zero belief that Islam can fit into modern society. Into democracy. In secularism or into multiculturalism. I don't believe it deserves a seat at the table, nor do I think they actually want a seat unless it comes with all the usual preconditions and appalling islamic fundamentalism.
However, if a person like me - has a theory that I demand or expect islamics to adhere to modern standards, and to put aside some of their normal activities and behaviour and to fall into line and operate on a civil basis in society, take part in democracy, campaign for what they believe and if they can do so in the civil way, perhaps get a deserved place at the table of government - then things in Egypt don't provide any good news. And under normal circumstances I'd welcome the Muslim Brotherhood getting chewed up and spat out. But I can't have it both ways, even with my somewhat harsh line of thought. If they do put down the guns, and do put aside the bombs, and come to play a full part in the democratic processes, then what?
So, the context now is that they win an election (debate that as you see fit), and a number of months later, find the US supported and equipped Army deposes their chosen man and suspends the entire constitution. An awkward pause for me now occurs. If they get excluded and sidelined in this way, it seems to me that this is fuel in the tank for bad stuff. What is the point of elections now to Morsi and this brotherhood. Democracy by its nature has to be inclusive, even to forces or views I dislike. Thats almost the point.
In this instance, I find myself having a tiny amount of sympathy to bad people, whom I normally don't have any sympathy with, as there is an air of injustice and incorrectness about this. I detest Islam and its fundamentalism, BUT, if they put their guns and arms down and come to the table - something I may not like, but may well respect - then their part in it can't be cut off like this - at least thats a vague feeling I have. But I know that the Muslim Brotherhood are scum, and I know only idiots would vote for them. Bingo - look what happened. Idiots and then the MB got elected.
In the end tho, Its Egypt. Its a state where this is the picture across its society.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/unkindest-cut-13yearolds-death-shines-spotlight-on-rise-of-fgm-in-egypt-8657104.html
There is no escape. The men are involved. The women. The mothers. There are no innocents in this appalling crime against humanity, and against women in particular. And against the young girls, often under age, who are forcably held down and have their sexual organs butchered in full 7th century barbarism. The fact that the women are often involved in the infliction of this crime only erodes all respect. Despicable, and beyond contempt. It doesn't matter who gets into Government over such people. Its very hard for me to find sympathy for these fucking people. Their behaviour is worse than animals. Their choice of 'leadership' is a reflection of the people as a whole. Normally it is said that to correct fundamental problems - in a society, the advancement of women is critical. I have no problem with that, ... but these women.. there is a black hole here where an education and care for their own siblings should be.
The calls for 'freedom' or 'democracy' really become meaningless. Human rights? Yeah - as if anyone a citizen of such a place t
We`re all equal
No, they won't. The uprising is because the government was a de-facto Islamic theocracy, and the majority of the people don't want that.
Measuring "will of the people" by "how big is today's mob" is a poor substitute for the ballot box. Having a military that allows the people to control things only to the extent that the military likes what is going on is a poor substitute for rule of law.
Morsi seemed the lesser danger, and to make himself more attractive he made a bunch of promises: he said "sure I'm the Islamic candidate, but I'll respect the rights of non-Islamic people." Then he broke his promises.
Oh, well, never mind then. He broke campaign promises. This is clearly sufficient grounds to have a military coup, and it has never happened in any political system prior to this. Maybe Morsi can be sent to some nice prison somewhere, like the one at Gitmo. Which apparently was closed five years ago, according to my government source. Who certainly would never lie about such a thing.
And if the military intends to (again) establish a democracy, will the people just vote the Muslim Brotherhood back into power?
The support for the Muslim Brotherhood dwindled as soon as they were in power and actually acted. That's when people saw that they were not as awesome as they thought. And the Muslim Brotherhood learned they are actually being held accountable for their governing.
I may not like Morsi but he was the democratically elected leader, with no more than the usual level of shenanigans in the election. (And given the shenanigans that show up in the US, I'm not going to throw too many stones. They're different, in both kind and degree, but we're hardly beyond reproach.)
Yes, you don't just overthrow a elected government by a coup just because you disagree with them. But if there is wide-spread violence from both sides, over a longer period of time, and you exhaust all other options including a ultimatum, it is the job of the army to step in and prevent a civil war.
A new election will be held. Egypt is new at this. Give them some time. The dedication of the Egyptian people is exemplary, they want a better state for themselves. It's a historic chance, but it is a process.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Don't be naive. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any less involved in what's going on there.
Somehow I don't think "installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt" is the absolute least involved the U.S. could get.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
The 33% of the people who showed up for the election voted 64% in favour of electing this guy, yes.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Is a walking sack of shit - when asked about FGM he declared 'that is between a mother and daughter'.
Such fucking animals are worthless.
We`re all equal
It is a secular document that embodies principles of government conceived by men of sublime genius on the heels of five hundred years of medieval religious terror. It embodies advanced philosophical principles of governance drawn carefully and thoughtfully from the ancients, the 'noble savages' as well as from new philosophies from the age of enlightenment itself (Rousseau). (We are still far from realizing its potential, but it DOES protect us. Mostly.)
The Ottoman Empire never experienced this critical cultural shift. Egypt was a part of it and locked in the middle age darkness until the 20th century. Secular Ba'athism was a half step forward, but it went out with Mubarak. The Army, ever the guardians of Ba'athist ideals, thought the time might be right for pluralism as a way to enter fully into the family of nations... and they hated Mubarak. They let the popular kettle boil, rolled the dice and came up with... Morsi. Feh! The "constitution" that Morsi rammed down the country's throat was an atavistic abomination that drew upon medieval juridical traditions that were outmoded by the 13th century. And which the Ba'athists hate with a passion. (Almost as much as the Jihadis hate the Ba'athists.) Witness that at long last, a hundred years after the last Sultan fell off the Sunni throne, that the former nations of the Ottomans are waking up. Morsi took a democratic ladder to the heights of power then clumsily pulled it up behind him and spat on those below. He now pays the price for his perfidy. The Army, essentially Ba'athist secularists and anathema to the jihadists, want a modern country. Had Morsi been as capable and cautious as Erdogan in Turkey it would have been a different story. But now he is toast. He was always there at their sufferance. They will hold new elections in a year or two and settle back to their barracks. But just as the Turkish army has been staunching the tide of medievalism for almost the last hundred years, so will the Egyptian Army continue to watch.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Quick Q. Why are you defending a leader that by all accounts was bad at his job, and lied to get elected. Yes he "won" the election but his opponent was a puppet of the last regime. The turn out was only 33%. That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices. It sounds like the people already spoke once by boycotting the election.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Overwhelmingly Approved? Are you DAFT?
(64% of voters approved of the referendum, but the turnout was only 33% of eligible voters.)
So that's two thirds of the one third that actually voted, or about 20%.
The Muslim brotherhood made sure it was "the right 20%" that got into the poling places.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Morsi was no less oppressive than the man the people had just rioted to throw out of office AND he was less capable of actually governing. The military that ran this coup (and it was a coup) is run by men that Morsi appointed to run it. He forced the resignation (and in some cases, prosecuted and jailed) those military leaders who he felt were insufficiently supportive of his agenda.
Please understand that I do not think a military dictatorship is a good thing. It's just that, in the case of Egypt at the present time, it appears to be better than the alternative (key word being "appears").
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Quick Q. Why are you defending a leader...
I'm not defending anyone. I'm pointing out that counting noses in a mob isn't a good way to determine "will of the people", and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
That means 2/3rds of the people did not like their choices.
No, that means that 2/3rds of the people didn't vote. If they didn't vote they had no say in the result and no right to complain that it didn't wind up they way they wanted.
It sounds like the people already spoke once by boycotting the election.
Or they didn't vote for any of a thousand other reasons, just like people in the US sometimes don't vote for any number of reasons. The last election held in my area had a whopping 22% turnout. We could claim that means that 78% of the people didn't like any of the selections on the ballot and everyone and everything loses and another election has to be held, or we could admit that they just didn't care enough to vote and those who did care got to make the choices, which is much closer to the truth.
and that "breaking campaign promises" isn't sufficient to justify a coup.
He made a power grab. Created a constitutional declaration that gave himself unprecedented powers. That's a touch more egregious than "breaking campaign promises".
It had to be nipped in the bud before he made himself and the Muslim Brotherhood unassailable, which is what he was obviously doing. If he'd been a touch more subtle and patient about things it might have worked.
For me, concern for democracy would be better placed in the spirit of it than the letter, especially with a dodgy leader with a dodgy mandate making a dodgy power grab.
Well done the Egyptians I say. I hope they get the effective secular government that they've worked and sacrificed for.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
People throwing away a dictator with the support of army, then People calling for army to get away. Elected president standing against the general will thrown away by army... The path to democracy is not straightforward, and it can take a long time before it settles. For instance, between France first revolution in 1789, and the stable 3rd republic, there had been 90 years of various regimes and revolutions, switching several times between republic, monarchy (absolute or constitutional), and even two so called emperors.
Women aren't required to wear veils, honor killing are less common in Egypt than they are in Italy, women can drive (and work outside the home and vote and hold elected office), the men in Egypt are no more likely to advocate genocide than a pigfucker like yourself is, and Egyptian Coptic Christians face about the same level of persecution as American Muslims.
Any other racist canards you'd like to drag out?
That seems a pretty gross exaggeration of public sentiment in Egypt, the problem, at its core, is that Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood cohorts won the slimmest of majorities (just over 51%), and instead of recognizing the somewhat tenuous situation they were in and moderating their activities, they basically went all out to seize control of the constitution, various local governments and the judiciary, with the clear intent of assuring a narrow islamist form of Shariah was the law of the land.
To many of the 2012 protesters, reformers, and most importantly there Egyptian Army, this was directly opposed to what they had intended. Many feared, and not entirely without justification that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were going to take a page from Ayatollah Khomeini's play book and use the reformist zeal to put in place a strongly theocratic and autocratic government.
I'll say this about it, when something like a third of any nation's populace signs a petition demanding the government reign, I would suggest to that government that it shelve more controversial policies and try to find a new accommodation with the oppositon., or one way or the other shit will hit the fan.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Sounds like the last two presidents we have had. So when is Coup start in the USA?
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
You are right, but there was no legal mechanism to force the ballot box in the time span it appeared to be needed so this happen to create one. I do not support military coups but I do believe this action stopped Egypt from becoming a Syria.
As for Egypt's military- I am more then impressed with them. In the last uprising, they positioned themselves between the government supporters with firearms and the protesters with sticks, stones, and signs. They stopped a lot of senseless bloodshed from happening and stopped the situation from entering a Syria type rebellion. The situation has rose to the top again and the Egyptian military is once again, fighting strongly to save lives. You may not agree with them, but For what it's worth, I salute them.
No it wouldn't have worked. Look at the economy. The reason they are having power cuts is because the country is just about out of money. When Mubark was overthrown, Egypt had 30 billion in foreign reserves. Those are dropping steadily, in one year they've been cut it in half AND at the same time they've reduced wheat stockpiles 3/4 and are at the point of begging Oman for fuel.
The wheat harvest should total out a couple percent higher than last year but it won't come close to meeting the needs of the subsidized bread the poor are dependent on. They'll burn through the remaining money in a matter of months buying wheat to meet those subsidies.
Without the subsidized bread (sold for about 0.08 cents) several million people will starve to death. People starving to death are generally very disruptive to society. During the last Egyptian bread riots they nearly ended up in a civil war.
To compound the matter tourism is dead, it was Egypts only serious generator of foreign cash and the Islamists destroyed it in short order. Hell Morisi appointed an Islamist that leads an organization that killed several dozen tourists to be the governor of the area where tourism is the biggest. The incompetence of the administration boggles the mind.
If something isn't done right now the country is going to disintegrate into some of the worst violence the country has ever seen due to the intersection of several major issues (bread, currency, fuel, etc). The problem is the Muslim Brotherhood is more interested in doing things to cement their own rule and institute their own moral view than to stabilize the country. It's unfortunate but if the Army didn't step in now it would end far worse than it will by forcing the Islamists out (and the resulting damage that will do, they comprise better than 1/5th of the population). It's a bad situation and the smart Egyptians with means are getting out of the country while they can.
Doesn't Egypt use a King?
He was acting rather Kingly, in the old oppressive model (unlike the dopey harmless old people model used around Europe and southeast Asia these days) ~14 million Egyptians called out, "Help! Help! We're being oppressed" and the army removed the threat rather efficaciously. The army has learned, too, they don't want to be in charge and blamed if anything goes tits-up. Tough job for that Head of the (now suspended) Constitutional Court.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It had the benefit not only from things like the enlightenment, but the men who wrote it had a very particular perspective and background; They were, as a group, generally Protestant Christian (of various degrees of religiosity and various different denominations) which meant that they all shared a common view of basic principles of "right" and "wrong" BUT also a healthy suspicion of government forcing its views onto the individual (the English King and the Church of England had suppressed nearly all of their religious denominations). Others of other beliefs could have been added to that group and might have shared some of those views about the imperfections of man, but the group that was their and did draft the document were sufficiently aligned in their views that many argument that might have otherwise occurred did not and they all were pulling in a similar direction on all the important parts (generally agreeing on the goals and wrestling mainly with the "hows") Further, and most-importantly, they all held the protestant view that all humans are imperfect, and capable of being tempted to do bad things.... which led to all the checks and balances they insisted on having. They had the belief that, even if you chose the very best man, and made him president he would be tempted by power and might do the wrong thing. They were concerned that the public (who would elect the congress directly at two year intervals) might be tempted by the passions of the moment to do bad things... so they provided a senate (with time-consuming parliamentary procedures, elected at 6 year intervals by state legislators) to slow-things down and cool them off. They were concerned that the senators could become too beholden to political forces in state legislatures and forget the fiscal impacts on the people, so they required all taxing and spending bills to originate in the House. They worried that an executive might be too eager to wage war, so they put the power to declare war in the Congress. They worried that the elected people of the Congress and in the executive might ignore the Constitutional limits imposed upon them, so they made the Supreme court the referee... but fearing a tyrannical court they made a presidential appointment and a senate confirmation as gates though which a supreme court member had to pass
The entire US Constitution sits atop one very basic Protestant idea: Man is a sinner, and even a "good man" will sometimes still sin (Protestants have no pope... I point this out NOT as an anti-Catholic point but rather because it is an oft overlooked evidence of that protestant world view. Some Protestants will rally around a particular preacher from time to time for various reasons, but they always know he could fail them and many Protestants are wary of any leader who becomes too popular).
The people of Egypt will hopefully end-up with a good constitution and do not need a bunch of Early American Protestants to come and write it for them... but it may be a longer and even more difficult struggle than the Americans had (a longer tougher struggle than most remember) because the people they have to perform the task are less-unified than our founders were, and some of the elements of their society are much more willing to trust an individual leader (like the Brotherhood trusting Morsi no matter what he did). The people of Egypt need not use any elements of the US Constitution, but they would be wise to borrow its underpinning ideas of (1) not placing too much power in the hands of any person or group and (2) providing the minority with legislative AND judicial means to gum-up-the-works and slow the hands of the majority or even stop the majority (NOT democratic, but NEEDED in a diverse nation)
We also have a longer track record for being able to vote for who we want next election cycle than they do in Egypt. If we vote for some guy who says he's not going to spy on us, and he does, we say "Well, I'm not voting for him next time!" not "I'm going to support a military coup!" Because we know there WILL be a next election. Egyptian citizens on the other hand have much less reason to trust that their government won't say "Gee, we WERE going to hold elections as promised, but there's... uh... TERRORISTS that we have to deal with first." Or various other ways to prevent democracy.
This is not to say democracy in the US is perfect, just that voters have more faith in the process than they do in overriding the process, while Egyptians have more of a reason to trust protests and overthrowing the government than elections.
This means only that government of USA is a much better player of the "say what they want to hear, do what you want to do" game. Yes, you can vote out the President you consider a liar (although Bush and Obama were happily reelected, so most of the people seem to think that they were honest enough), but that only guarantees that the next guy will break a slightly different set of promises. Being politely voted out of the White House is not the same as being thrown out by the military. Gives no incentive for the next guy to hold onto his words.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
Being politely voted out of the White House is not the same as being thrown out by the military. Gives no incentive for the next guy to hold onto his words.
As Seneca the Younger said: "Ius est in armis, opprimit leges timor" (Might is right, fear oppresses laws). This applies mostly to those who consider themselves rulers.
Or, according to Lucius Accius: "Oderint, dum metuant" (Let them hate, as long as they fear). This applies mostly to those who are ruled.
Ancient wisdoms which still apply, whether you're referring to Egypt or the USA, or just about anywhere.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
That's one of the more impressive tells; there is a general will to avoid violence, rather than other places where it seems there's no shortage of people eager for a fight. The MB may have just underestimated the collective intelligence of Egypt's people, or just failed to recognise it altogether. The people don't seem to want an "I win, you lose" mode of problem solving. They seem to have managed the largest fairly peaceful demonstration in history, got a result, and seem in a way comfortable with a bit of creative but peaceful chaos. That's maybe more essential to democracy than ballot boxes.
I'm tired of "don't be naive" as an excuse for conspiracy theories that have no support in evidence. If we ruled Egypt they would have a liberal secular democracy and a large free trade zone with Israel. They would have been strongly in support of the invasion of Iraq and sent troops as part of the "coalition of the willing". We give money to the Egyptian Army and have some influence over them, that's about it.
If the neighborhood bully tells you there is a choice between him making you eat dirt, and dog poop. Sure you might vote for the dirt, but that doesn't really make it your choice. IF you have an opportunity to kick that bully in the balls and go get an ice cream cone instead, I say good for you.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
*reads the wiki page on technocracy*
O.O
Holy mother of jebus I want one.
Where can I buy one of those?
Can I borrow the Egyptian army this weekend plz?
"advocates the supremacy of technical experts'. Scientists, engineers, and technologists who have knowledge, expertise, or skills, would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businesspeople, and economists."
I have government wood.