Renewed unrest in Egypt

[kgambit]

A couple of articles worth reading:

 

By HAMZA HENDAWI

— Jun. 26

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/center-egypt-protest-morsis-legitimacy

 

In abstract terms, Sunday's planned protests aimed at forcing out Islamist President Mohammed Morsi would seem to violate a basic principle of democracy: If a fair vote is conducted, even if the majority is slim or the turnout modest, all must respect the results. Otherwise it's political chaos.

 

 

 

But the organizers of Sunday's protests insist he [Mursi] has lost legitimacy through what they call a series of power grabs, missteps and poor decisions, and that Morsi, his Muslim Brotherhood and their Islamist allies are using victories — at times narrow — scored in elections during a still nascent and transitioning democracy to control it completely for themselves. 

 

They argue the Islamists unfairly set the rules of the game by pushing through a new constitution without consensus, broke the rules with decrees that for a period put Morsi above oversight, ran roughshod over the courts and attacked previous anti-Morsi protesters. In their eyes, he is allowing one faction — Islamists ranging from the Brotherhood to ultraconservative Salfis and more radical groups — to monopolize power and take the country down a more Islamist and sectarian path beyond any election mandate.

 

July 6, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/06/why-did-democracy-fail-in-egypt-but-succeed-in-tunisia/

 

 

The real lesson here is that Western-style multiparty democracy does not necessarily follow from an election, and certainly not from bombing a dictator out of power with no troops on the ground to fill the vacuum that kind of action creates.  Successful and free democracies have to spring from the internal culture of the nation; free and fair elections under the rule of law are the end result, not the initiating event. The actions of Morsi and his party demonstrate the folly of failing to understand that sequence.

 

and a couple of others on Tunisia and Egypt:

 

http://www.dw.de/political-deadlock-continues-in-tunisia/a-17008632

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/why-egyptians-are-so-unhappy-with-morsi-in-one-chart/277511/

 

The main difference between Egypt and Tunisia is the electoral mandate: 

 

Tunisia has had a long history and experience of organized political opposition leading up to the 2011 elections.  As a result, Ennahda (the Muslim Brotherhood party) won 37% of vote and had to form a coalition government with secular  and conservative parties.  The reality on the ground in Tunisia forced the Islamists to work with other parties in order to survive. The recent assassinations of prominent secular opposition leader Chokri Belaid, (prominent critic of the Ennahda party) and Mohammed Brahmi, the leader of the People's Movement party (a secular and arab nationalist party)  by a radical islamist have inflamed the country.  Both assassinateions were blamed on the Ennahda.

 

In Egypt however organized political opposition was virtually non-existent with the singular exception of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Unlike Tunisia, Mursi was able to win a clear albeit slim majority of 51.7% of voters.  The problem is that Mursi proved to be an Islamofascist who almost immediately attempted to install his own agenda which far exceeded his electoral mandate.

 

In both cases, the issue of Shariah law in the respective constitutions is somewhat moot as the pre-2011 versions of the Tunisian and Egyptian constiutions already contained numerous references to Shariah law. 

 

According to a poll conducted on the 100th day in office of Egyptian President Muhammed Mursi, his approval rating has plummeted to 42%
 http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_10_08/Mursi-s-approval-rating-plummets/
By June 2013 it was 28% (down from a 77% high in 2012).  

 

apologies for the wall of text ..... 

Edited August 17, 2013 by kgambit

[Walsingham]

 

apologies for the wall of text ..... 

No apology needed. Thanks for adding some factual meat to the potatoes.

[Zoraptor]

It ain't factual, it's an opinion based on an interpretation of facts, and one you happen to agree with. For examples, on the issue of polls, and also 'factual'...

 

Approval rating for George W Bush 25%, on 3 occasions. Better coup him as he's under the critical 28%, clearly not fulfilling the mandate he was elected for etc etc. Dave Cameron? As low as 21%, hope the Paras step in soon to End The Madness.

 

The poll results are facts (well, 'facts' given how easy it is to manipulate polls), that they'd justify anything is 100% opinion. Also:

 

The 'religious loonies' AKA 'islamofascists' AKA the MB and salafists won more than 2/3 of the parliamentary seats, the presidency and the shura council which would be, for example, enough to write amendments into the US constitution (well, excluding states' approval, which Egypt doesn't have). They have as much 'democratic legitimacy'- might as well be roflcopter cred, for all that phrase is worth- as a western government. Again, when the constitution came to be written the MB could write it for the majority of the people who voted for Islamist parties- whose core belief is the integral role of Islam in government- or the minority that didn't. They went with the majority, which is democracy in action.

 

Facts, with an opinion conclusion. Not actually one I agree with as religion should not be written into constitutions imo, but then I am a secular westerner.

 

In Tiannanmen Square, some guy with shopping bags went and stood in front of a tank. The Chinese Army, well known upholders of human rights and fairness, didn't run him over or shoot him. Same thing in Egypt? Kapow, dangerous terrorist and religious zealot dead live on TV, good job, mission accomplished by brave defenders of freedom, high fives all round 1.5 billion dollars secured We Have Always Been At War With Islamofascists. Same thing happen in Syria? OMG BOMB ASSAD THE MASS MURDERER MY TENDER SENSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLIED WITH RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS OMG RUSSIA AND CHINA SUPPORT HIM EVIL EVIL EVIL.

 

And that's a mixture of fact and opinion, obviously designed to justify a certain position.

 

Though actually the Russkies should troll like a pro and submit the Libyan resolution to the UNSC with Egypt substituted, for epic lolz.

 

I see that Saudi Arabia supports the actions of the Egyptian military. They said "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its people and government stood and stands by today with its brothers in Egypt against terrorism"

Yeah, the MB is banned in Saudi as its type of islamism isn't extreme enough. MB is a Qatari client too, while the people who will benefit most from the MB's inevitable banning will be Saudi's own clients, the salafists. Good news all around for them.

[kgambit]

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/07/morsi-brotherhood-lost-egypt-bsabry.html

 

By: Bassem Sabry for Al-Monitor Posted on July 4

Cairo: Egypt

 

 

I believe in democracy and I have always argued in favor of the democratic process taking its course in Egypt, and always argued against any political exclusion. I consistently called for national reconciliation and compromise as the most sustainable way forward. Having said all of that, I cannot shake my conviction that Morsi, and the Brotherhood, had it coming. It was inevitable that an explosion was coming.

Until November, many had held on to the idea that Morsi and the Brotherhood were wise enough not to overplay their hand, that they knew how complicated the situation in Egypt was and that unilateralism would only bring them down. Many believed that the Brotherhood would learn from the poignant history of deposed president Hosni Mubarak and the National Democratic Party, from which they suffered perhaps the most. Many felt Morsi would be wise enough to realize he was barely elected (51.7% of the vote) against a candidate who many viewed as representing the former regime, and with the vital aid of a strong, multi-ideological revolutionary coalition that supported him based on promises of inclusion and unity.

 

But the problem was that it became more and more apparent that the Brotherhood was intent not on building a democratic administration, but a new regime.

 

Following a mixed start with ups and downs, Morsi and the Brotherhood suffered a massive blow after his November constitutional declaration. This was followed by continued and gradual erosion of faith for months. In his most infamous act, Morsi astonishingly saw it justifiable to give himself the power to unilaterally amend the constitutional declaration. He officially declared himself, albeit temporarily until his specific purposes for the time were achieved, immune to any judicial review in an act reminiscent of cartoonish fictional takes on autocrats.

 

He assaulted the separation of powers by handpicking an allied prosecutor-general in a manner that defied the post-revolution national consensus of letting the judiciary nominate the candidate to such a role, and whose removal remained a strong divisive point in any attempt at national reconciliation. This controllable prosecutor-general, against which almost the entire prosecutorial corps protested and nearly succeeded in firing, was used quite clearly at will to go after the private media and the opposition as a direct extension of Morsi and the Brotherhood, while substantially legally shielding the Brotherhood at the same time.

The president, the Brotherhood and its allies, continuously tried to assume an unfairly tight grip over the constitution-drafting process. They also broke promises to ensure a constitution that garnered sufficient national consensus. Instead, and under the cover of the November constitutional declaration, Morsi and the Brotherhood rushed a referendum on a disappointing and dangerous draft without real proper national debate (in a country with substantial illiteracy and areas with little access to anything but state media, which was also under Brotherhood influence), against the walkout of all opposition members, the church, civil and human rights organizations and others.

 

The constitution, which was supposed to be the crowning achievement of Egypt’s transition, became one of its most divisive elements and deepest causes for national conflict. The opposition holds that its claims over voting violations never got any real consideration. The Brotherhood later acknowledged some of the holes in the constitution, but the road for its rectification remained a thorny issue.

In another breach of revolutionary consensus, Morsi and the Brotherood tightened control over state media and retained the nationally rejected role of information minister, already abolished briefly after the toppling of Hosni Mubarak. State-owned papers and channels were subjected to appointments of allied or controllable leaderships. The media often ran familiar propaganda-esque headlines that seemed taken out of the Mubarak days. Furthermore, state press and television did not provide neutral and balanced coverage of events, and state TV was almost always forced to host a Brotherhood guest on every talk show, or at the very least not host an opposition figure on his own.
 

Edited August 17, 2013 by kgambit

[kgambit]

The very first link http://bigstory.ap.org/article/center-egypt-protest-morsis-legitimacy provides about as neutral a view of both sides of the question as I've seen in print anywhere.  It doesn't bash either side.  It simply presents the Taramod and Brotherhood sides of the constitutional issues and the legitimacy questions without judgng the merits or validity.  How much more unbiased do you want?

 

 I would have thought that the very first quote from that article would have indicated that.  You know the one that stated:  If a fair vote is conducted, even if the majority is slim or the turnout modest, all must respect the results. Otherwise it's political chaos.  That wasn't my opinion but the opinion of the author of the article.   

 

It ain't factual, it's an opinion based on an interpretation of facts, and one you happen to agree with. For examples, on the issue of polls, and also 'factual'...

 

Approval rating for George W Bush 25%, on 3 occasions. Better coup him as he's under the critical 28%, clearly not fulfilling the mandate he was elected for etc etc. Dave Cameron? As low as 21%, hope the Paras step in soon to End The Madness.

 

I don't recall using the poll figures as justification for anything, let alone the coup.  That was a logical leap you made.  I simply presented them to show how drastically his approval rating had fallen with the Egyptian people.  

 

I do stick by my Islamofascist reference because frankly imo it fits.  The previous post is ample evidence of that.  I don't recall using the term religious loonies either but you may be referring to another poster.

 

As for religion in constitutions, I would agree with you.  I don't think they belong; but that's not my call or yours to make.  If the Egyptians (or Tunisians) want a form of government that is intertwined with Shariah law, that is entirely their choice.  You and I do not get to make that call for them, either way.  We can sit back and shake our heads and hope they make a different choice and that's all. 

 

I think the issue of legimacy is valid but that's my opinion.   

 

To grossly oversimplify, here is the 64,000$ questions:

 

Are the excesses of the Mursi regime sufficient justification for the Egyptian military to overthrow Mursi's government on behalf of the Egyptian people?  OR Should the Egyptian people be forced to "lie in a bed of their own making" no matter what?

 

The nice thing about living in a democracy is that you can express your opinions freely and openly without fear of reprisal.  You and I don't have to agree and that's fine.  One can only hope that the Egyptian people are eventually granted the same rights.

 

Sorry for the back to back posts ..... 

Edited August 18, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Meh, I'm not having a go at you particularly and no doubt I sound grumpier than I actually am so I'll have a go at rephrasing- though I do tend to grind my teeth at the term 'islamofascist' as being loaded and cheap- much as some loathe the term 'Bliar' as being loaded and cheap (which it is, of course). We even agree on certain things, quite apart from the religion in state issue I doubt anyone here supports shooting unarmed protesters. The poll thing is intended as a counterpoint, every politician has drops in popularity, sometimes even precipitous ones yet that did not result in and would not justify a coup in those cases.

 

Mainly I'm annoyed at the double standards in the media where democracy is sacrosanct- unless the wrong person gets elected- and a democratic mandate is sacrosanct, if it's in the west and unless someone tries to do something 'bad' with it. The military had by their own figures killed more people in a day than the Syrian conflict killed in its first five+ weeks, and the exact same excuses have been trotted out by the Egyptian authorities right down to the letter, yet one is brutality and the other is justified. And the general consensus among the talking heads is that Egypt didn't vote for an Islamist approach when they clearly did by dint of electing Islamist parties as the two largest by a significant margin, plus an Islamist president. 

 

I'd also say that we don't generally get a good view of what Egyptians really think, because everything is skewed towards the more liberal and pro west/ secular areas. A poor farmer or labourer has every bit as much right to vote and have their vote respected as someone who is net literate and can write well in english, and there are a lot more poor people as well, yet we can only hear from one group and tend to think that they represent the consensus as a consequence.

 

There are only three things that can come out of this. A military dictatorship, elections which are outright fixed to make sure the 'right' people win (status quo circa Mubarak/ military with a civilian frontman) or elections which are soft fixed with the MB being banned, and the salafis getting even more votes as a consequence. None of those are any good for 'democracy', and make me think that people are far more interested in exporting western sensibilities than western values- the veneer and appearance of propriety, rather than propriety itself.

[kgambit]

Meh, I'm not having a go at you particularly and no doubt I sound grumpier than I actually am so I'll have a go at rephrasing- though I do tend to grind my teeth at the term 'islamofascist' as being loaded and cheap- much as some loathe the term 'Bliar' as being loaded and cheap (which it is, of course). We even agree on certain things, quite apart from the religion in state issue I doubt anyone here supports shooting unarmed protesters. The poll thing is intended as a counterpoint, every politician has drops in popularity, sometimes even precipitous ones yet that did not result in and would not justify a coup in those cases.

 

Mainly I'm annoyed at the double standards in the media where democracy is sacrosanct- unless the wrong person gets elected- and a democratic mandate is sacrosanct, if it's in the west and unless someone tries to do something 'bad' with it. The military had by their own figures killed more people in a day than the Syrian conflict killed in its first five+ weeks, and the exact same excuses have been trotted out by the Egyptian authorities right down to the letter, yet one is brutality and the other is justified. And the general consensus among the talking heads is that Egypt didn't vote for an Islamist approach when they clearly did by dint of electing Islamist parties as the two largest by a significant margin, plus an Islamist president. 

 

I'd also say that we don't generally get a good view of what Egyptians really think, because everything is skewed towards the more liberal and pro west/ secular areas. A poor farmer or labourer has every bit as much right to vote and have their vote respected as someone who is net literate and can write well in english, and there are a lot more poor people as well, yet we can only hear from one group and tend to think that they represent the consensus as a consequence.

 

There are only three things that can come out of this. A military dictatorship, elections which are outright fixed to make sure the 'right' people win (status quo circa Mubarak/ military with a civilian frontman) or elections which are soft fixed with the MB being banned, and the salafis getting even more votes as a consequence. None of those are any good for 'democracy', and make me think that people are far more interested in exporting western sensibilities than western values- the veneer and appearance of propriety, rather than propriety itself.

 

I'll admit the term Islamofascist is a tiny bit incendiary but it was intended to be.   

 

I think the question of legitimacy is valid.  I won't dispute the vote count.  Mursi won by a razor thin majority, but he did win.  But to be blunt I think Mursi flat-out lied to the electorate.  He ran on a platform of inclusion; of forming a government for all Egyptians, Islamist and secular alike. And once in power, the government became a nearly exclusive fiefdom of the Muslim Brotherhood. The committee formed to draft the constitution was also predominantly Islamic.  Further, he gave himself unlimited powers, including the right to legislate without judicial oversight.   Before he was deposed, Mursi was remarkably similar to the man whose office he took:  Hosni Mubarak.   

 

I don't know what mechanisms the Egyptian constitution have for peaceful removal of an elected official.  Perhaps there are none.  If that's the case, the first order of business for a new constitution and government might be to consider those options before holding new elections.  It might be worthwhile to reconsider exactly what form of government and parliamentary body the Egyptians want.  I think the Tunisians got it pretty close to right, with a fairly inclusive form of elected congress where every party has a voice and a coalition government is a virtual guarantee.

 

I have no clue how this is going to be resolved.  I don't see Mursi resuming power - that ship has sailed.  Some folks have suggested that the recent coup has now made secularism and Authoritarianism one and the same:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-macdonald/egypt-secularism-means-authoritarianism_b_3772570.html

 

 

As an aside, I've seen a number of photos taken of the "protesters" at Raba'a al-Adawiya mosque in Cairo's Nasr City neighbourhood that seem to show armed Mursi supporters with automatic weapons, gas masks, police riot shields and batons.  (NBC News had them).  That doesn't seem to fit the image of peaceful dissent to me. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Iraq want US back : http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq-seeks-help-from-us-amid-growing-violence-1.235890

[Zoraptor]

I don't know what mechanisms the Egyptian constitution have for peaceful removal of an elected official. 

 

As an aside, I've seen a number of photos taken of the "protesters" at Raba'a al-Adawiya mosque in Cairo's Nasr City neighbourhood that seem to show armed Mursi supporters with automatic weapons, gas masks, police riot shields and batons.  (NBC News had them).  That doesn't seem to fit the image of peaceful dissent to me. 

 

I doubt many constitutions have a mechanism for peaceful removal of a president when his party controls the legislative branches. eg the US system is effectively approval by both houses of congress, if I remember the (laughable) Clinton impeachment correctly. Certainly, in a situation in which the judiciary has been appointed by Mubarak you cannot rely on them.

 

I have no doubt at all that the violence is not entirely one way and it often isn't peaceful dissent in the way that most western marches and the like would be, but equally it's clear that the protesters are not- generally- armed and there is a lot of 'counter dissent' from pro military groups who aren't exactly being peaceful either. Then again, I also have very little doubt that the Syrian protests were not quite as peaceful as they were made out to be.

[Walsingham]

Meh, I'm not having a go at you particularly and no doubt I sound grumpier than I actually am so I'll have a go at rephrasing- though I do tend to grind my teeth at the term 'islamofascist' as being loaded and cheap- much as some loathe the term 'Bliar' as being loaded and cheap (which it is, of course). We even agree on certain things, quite apart from the religion in state issue I doubt anyone here supports shooting unarmed protesters. The poll thing is intended as a counterpoint, every politician has drops in popularity, sometimes even precipitous ones yet that did not result in and would not justify a coup in those cases.

 

Mainly I'm annoyed at the double standards in the media where democracy is sacrosanct- unless the wrong person gets elected- and a democratic mandate is sacrosanct, if it's in the west and unless someone tries to do something 'bad' with it. The military had by their own figures killed more people in a day than the Syrian conflict killed in its first five+ weeks, and the exact same excuses have been trotted out by the Egyptian authorities right down to the letter, yet one is brutality and the other is justified. And the general consensus among the talking heads is that Egypt didn't vote for an Islamist approach when they clearly did by dint of electing Islamist parties as the two largest by a significant margin, plus an Islamist president. 

 

I'd also say that we don't generally get a good view of what Egyptians really think, because everything is skewed towards the more liberal and pro west/ secular areas. A poor farmer or labourer has every bit as much right to vote and have their vote respected as someone who is net literate and can write well in english, and there are a lot more poor people as well, yet we can only hear from one group and tend to think that they represent the consensus as a consequence.

 

There are only three things that can come out of this. A military dictatorship, elections which are outright fixed to make sure the 'right' people win (status quo circa Mubarak/ military with a civilian frontman) or elections which are soft fixed with the MB being banned, and the salafis getting even more votes as a consequence. None of those are any good for 'democracy', and make me think that people are far more interested in exporting western sensibilities than western values- the veneer and appearance of propriety, rather than propriety itself.

 

If I may follow your trend of casual calming down, i would remark that it's not so weird as you suggest. How often do voters elect a party by some considerable margin, then instantly you notice no ****er voted for them, if queried? This is particularly true of the Conservatives in the UK.

 

I would also observe that democracy is not sacrosanct if you consider, for example, Obama. He got voted in. But plenty of vitriol is poured on him.

[Zoraptor]

I was actually going to use Thatcher as a comparison- since, from a certain point of view, she ruled using parliamentary tyranny with 43% support of those who voted, went after and specifically targeted groups and regions that didn't support her, had policies benefiting those who did support her, was running massive deficits and inflation, had a precipitous collapse in support; up until the Falkland's War, and still had enough antipathy towards her that people came out and celebrated her death despite her being out of power for two decades.

 

And, of course, from another point of view she was a hero who saved Britain.

[Walsingham]

I was actually going to use Thatcher as a comparison- since, from a certain point of view, she ruled using parliamentary tyranny with 43% support of those who voted, went after and specifically targeted groups and regions that didn't support her, had policies benefiting those who did support her, was running massive deficits and inflation, had a precipitous collapse in support; up until the Falkland's War, and still had enough antipathy towards her that people came out and celebrated her death despite her being out of power for two decades.

 

And, of course, from another point of view she was a hero who saved Britain.

 

Touche.

[kgambit]

I was actually going to use Thatcher as a comparison- since, from a certain point of view, she ruled using parliamentary tyranny with 43% support of those who voted, went after and specifically targeted groups and regions that didn't support her, had policies benefiting those who did support her, was running massive deficits and inflation, had a precipitous collapse in support; up until the Falkland's War, and still had enough antipathy towards her that people came out and celebrated her death despite her being out of power for two decades.

 

And, of course, from another point of view she was a hero who saved Britain.

 

Thatcher is a good example - to a point.  Thatcher resigned after Michael Heseltine launched a challenge to her leadership in 1990.  She failed by four votes on the first ballot to gain a sufficient majority for an outright win and was persuaded to resign as leader of the Conservative party.  Her fall in itself is a bit ironic since in 1979 it was Thatcher who led the vote of no confidence that toppled James Callaghan.   I suspect Thatcher lasted as long as she did primarily due to the oil boom of the 80's which boosted oil revenue to 16% of UK GDP and the tax cuts she enacted.

 

But here's the main difference between Thatcher and Mursi:  Thatcher never attempted to alter the government or fundamentals of democracy beyond her mandate.  She didn't try to stack the courts, rewrite the UK constitution, to silence the media or even jail her opponents.  She failed because her own party kicked her out.   No one ever questioned whether she was attempting to work for the good of all citizens of the UK.  They simply questioned whether her policies were the right way of doing things. 

 

Contrast that with the manner in which Mursi operated.    In fact, this is his last declaration that set off the firestorm. 

 

 

We have decided the following:

 

 

Article I

 

Reopen the investigations and prosecutions in the cases of the murder, the attempted murder and the wounding of protesters as well as the crimes of terror committed against the revolutionaries by anyone who held a political or executive position under the former regime, according to the Law of the Protection of the Revolution and other laws.

 

 

Article II:

 

Previous constitutional declarations, laws, and decrees made by the president since he took office on 30 June 2012, until the constitution is approved and a new People’s Assembly [lower house of parliament] is elected, are final and binding and cannot be appealed by any way or to any entity. Nor shall they be suspended or canceled and all lawsuits related to them and brought before any judicial body against these decisions are annulled. 

 

 

Article III:

 

The prosecutor-general is to be appointed from among the members of the judiciary by the President of the Republic for a period of four years commencing from the date of office and is subject to the general conditions of being appointed as a judge and should not be under the age of 40. This provision applies to the one currently holding the position with immediate effect.  (Note: the current Prosecutor General had been in office for 6 years already.  This article forced his immediate removal.)

 

Article IV:

 

The text of the article on the formation of the Constituent Assembly in the 30 March 2011 Constitutional Declaration that reads, "it shall prepare a draft of a new constitution in a period of six months from the date it was formed” is to be amended to "it shall prepare the draft of a new constitution for the country no later than eight months from the date of its formation."

 

 

Article V:

 

No judicial body can dissolve the Shura Council [upper house of parliament] or the Constituent Assembly.

 

 

Article VI:

The President may take the necessary actions and measures to protect the country and the goals of the revolution.  (This is nothing more than a open-ended power grab.  It grants Mursi power to do anything he wants and since he isn't subject to judicial review it amounts to a declaration of tyranny.)

 

Article VII:

 

This Constitutional Declaration is valid from the date of its publication in the official gazette. 

 

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/58947/Egypt/Politics-/English-text-of-Morsis-Constitutional-Declaration-.aspx

 

and a link with a review of it:

 

http://thinkafricapress.com/egypt/president-mursi-new-pharoah-revolutionarys-clothes-morsi

 

 

No less prominent a figure than Nobel Laureate Mohammad El-Baradei stated via twitter that Morsi had “usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh”.

[Walsingham]

Slight aside. I thought I'd point out that in terms of both depth and balance this thread is better than the BBC coverage.

[Zoraptor]

Contrast that with the manner in which Mursi operated.    In fact, this is his last declaration that set off the firestorm.

Well yes, but how is the situation now actually different from that? I rather doubt, for example, that the current regime is going to allow the courts (heh, like they'd need to worry about the Mubarak appointed judges anyway) to limit their power and not rule by decree, they look set to release The Hoz from custody and a bunch of other reactionary and counter revolutionary stuff too. I'm not sure why removing the prosecutor general is exactly bad except that it's Morsi doing it- that PG was presumably the one who presided over rampant detention without trial, torture, and rubber stamped and wrapped Mubarak's rule in its veneer of respectability, and was appointed by Hoz as well. If El-Baradei had won the election and done the exact same thing he'd have been applauded for 'sweeping away the last vestiges of totalitarianism' and the like, and the only reason would be that he could be relied upon to put someone with his political slant instead of Morsi's into the job, he'd still be doing the exact same thing.

 

There will only be elections if the military can guarantee the right people get elected. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, same as the older boss... probably back to before Khufu.

 

No less prominent a figure than Nobel Laureate Mohammad El-Baradei stated via twitter that Morsi had “usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh”.

Well yes, I can see how Nobel Laureate El-Baradei might say that. I wonder what failed presidential candidate, who didn't even make the second ballot, El-Baradei has to say on the matter?

 

I will give him credit for bailing on the junta when they killed >650 people in a single day, but people would not take a tweet from Barack Obama- also a Nobel Peace Laureate, lest we forget- saying that Republicans in the US would reinstitute serfdom as being anything other than a political stance because he's also Barack Obama, POTUS.

[kgambit]

 

Well yes, but how is the situation now actually different from that? I rather doubt, for example, that the current regime is going to allow the courts to limit their power and not rule by decree, they look set to release The Hoz from custody and a bunch of other reactionary and counter revolutionary stuff too.

 

Before I dive in, could you explain exactly what "a bunch of other reactionary and counter revolutionary stuff" means? 

 

Do you mean the courts as represented by the Supreme Constitutional Court whose decision to nullify parliament was overridden by Mursi (after only eight days in office)?

 

Do you mean the same military led by General al-Sisi (before he became CiC) who submitted a report to Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi in early April 2010 which predicted the uprising that would overthrow Mubarak. Tantawi asked him: "At that time, what do you think we should do?" He replied: "We will support the people's uprising and will not fire on a single citizen."

 

And in fact, it was the Security Police under government, and not military control at the time, who were responsible for firing into the crowds. 

 

Or the General al-Sisi who predicted that Mursi would be in the second ballot run-off.  When al-Sisi was asked "Do you think that Morsi is capable of breaking free from the control of the [brotherhood], its guidance office and the supreme guide?"  His answer:  "The question is not whether he is capable, but rather does he want this?" 

 

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/07/sisi-egypt-morsi-ouster.html

 

This is the same military that made no claim on any political office nor expressed any intention to fill civilian positions and appointed Chief Justice Adli Mansour as interim president.  The same military that tried to negotiate with Mursi and the MB for a resolution. 

 

Considering that the courts upheld Mubarak's appeal and ordered Mubarak's re-trial back in January when Mursi was still in office, I'm not sure why his release now is that much of an issue.  His release was actually ordered back in April but the court issuing the release order had no jurisdiction in the matter.  He's 85, in failing health and he's likely being released for health reasons.  I'm not sure if his release don't come with conditions such as house arrest.  Unless you somehow are imaging a conspiracy where the military led by General al-Sisi is going to forcibly reinstate Mubarak, it's a moot point. 

 

 

I'm not sure why removing the prosecutor general is exactly bad except that it's Morsi doing it- that PG was presumably the one who presided over rampant detention without trial, torture, and rubber stamped and wrapped Mubarak's rule in its veneer of respectability, and was appointed by Hoz as well. If El-Baradei had won the election and done the exact same thing he'd have been applauded for 'sweeping away the last vestiges of totalitarianism' and the like, and the only reason would be that he could be relied upon to put someone with his political slant instead of Morsi's into the job, he'd still be doing the exact same thing.

 

Let's get some facts straight.  El-Baradei was not on the first ballot.  He did announce his candidacy for the Presidency .  His Constitution Party was formed after the mandated deadline and he was ineligible to appear on the ballot.    If El-Baradei had been elected and had done exactly what Mursi had done you're correct - he wouldn't have been any better than Mursi.  That scenario and your imagined reaction are nothing more than speculation.   I would suggest that given el-Baradei's history and his resignation as VP, that entire scenario very unlikely.

 

I'll concede that removing the prosecutor general wasn't a totally bad move as the PG was a Mubarak holdover.  The Egyptian judicial system has been screaming for reform for years.  The pre-emptive decision, solely made by Mursi, coupled with the rest of the decree is the real problem.  By itself or as part of a sweeping reform, it would have easily been overlooked and even praised.  In the context of the decree, it simply looked like one more step of a massive power grab.

 

Your characterization of this as a junta is inaccurate.  IF and when the military begins replacing civilian positions with military officers then you can call it a junta. 

Edited August 20, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

Bro, it is a junta. Just because Al-Sisi has appointed a civilian face does not mean that the civilians have any real control, much as just because there were theoretically independent judiciary under Hos that they were not also a rubber stamp. The civilians in the government were selected by and serve at the sufferance of the military. You may see some civilian's lips moving, but it's the military talking with the civilians being just a sop.

 

The main reason the military dropped Mubarak was because he got too big for his boots and wanted to turn the presidency into a hereditary title for Gamal, something the military with its parallel power base did not want. Not some sudden crisis of conscience and discovery of democratic principle.

[kgambit]

One correction:  I said that the military hasn't filled civilian positions.  I meant that the military has not appointed their own officers to civilian positions.  Former Field Marshal Tantawi's was appointed Defense Minister by Mubarak in 1991.  He resigned his office in 2012. 

 

Bro, it is a junta. Just because Al-Sisi has appointed a civilian face does not mean that the civilians have any real control, much as just because there were theoretically independent judiciary under Hos that they were not also a rubber stamp. The civilians in the government were selected by and serve at the sufferance of the military. You may see some civilian's lips moving, but it's the military talking with the civilians being just a sop.

 

The main reason the military dropped Mubarak was because he got too big for his boots and wanted to turn the presidency into a hereditary title for Gamal, something the military with its parallel power base did not want. Not some sudden crisis of conscience and discovery of democratic principle.

 

I won't deny the military in Egypt does wield a lot of power and perhaps everything you say is true.   It's possible that Mursi and Scaf (Supreme Council for Armed Forces) had reached a power sharing agreement that Mursi breached and the military decided to orchestrate his removal.    

 

Egyptian political observers said it [the military] held an informal veto power over who rose to the top of the country’s power pyramid. “The military is seen as the only institution that is able to block succession in Egypt,” said Issandr el-Amrani, a close observer of Egyptian affairs who writes the Arabist blog. 

 

At the same time, the military does not want to be seen as dictating political events. “They are the only and primary force in Egypt right now [2010],” said George Ishak, a member of the secular opposition group National Association for Change. “We do not wish for the military institution to play a political role in supporting anyone over anyone.”   

 

September 11, 2010  NY Times    Note: written before Mubarak was ousted

 

 

If that is an accurate assessment and  military is pulling the strings (as you claim), then why would it have even allowed a Muslim Brotherhood candidate to run for office in 2012?  The military had doubts about Mursi before the elections.  It could have easily ensured that Mursi never came to power.   There was already a precedent from 2005 when the  MB was banned from participating in the parliamentary elections.  Given some of the charges of election fraud that have surfaced during Mubarak's reign, it shouldn't have been that difficult. 

 

Your point about a hereditary succession re: Gamal is partially correct but Hosni wasn't booted as a way to ensure Gamal never came to power. 

 

But many in the military chafe at the idea of a Gamal Mubarak presidency, especially as he ascends to the office through the kind of heavily manipulated ballots to which Egypt has grown accustomed. If he wants to succeed his father, said Mohamed Kadry Said, a retired general, he must win in “clean elections.”

 

Much of the military’s distrust of Gamal Mubarak stems from his ties to a younger generation of ruling party cadres who have made fortunes in the business world. The military is tied to the National Democratic Party’s “old guard,” a substantially less wealthy elite who made their careers as ministers, officers and apparatchiks. Military officers said they feared that Gamal Mubarak might erode the military’s institutional powers.  

 

September 11, 2010  NY Times    Note: written  after Gamal had  accompanied his father to Washington for the opening of Middle East peace talks

 

 

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.   Let's just see how things play out.

[Walsingham]

If i may extend your line of logic a bit, it seems that you both feel that the military is powerful and has been machinating (word?) quietly and not so quietly.

 

If i may run with kgambit's point a bit then the logic is that you can't expect an institution as powerful as the Egyptian military to sit still and do nothing. It's the old 'vacuum' theory which (iirc) was instrumental in bringing back the monarchy to the UK. It's pointless and dangerous to deny real power, you might say.

 

I know this doesn't sound very responsible or moral. I'm just stretching the point to see if it fits.

[kgambit]

If i may extend your line of logic a bit, it seems that you both feel that the military is powerful and has been machinating (word?) quietly and not so quietly.

 

If i may run with kgambit's point a bit then the logic is that you can't expect an institution as powerful as the Egyptian military to sit still and do nothing. It's the old 'vacuum' theory which (iirc) was instrumental in bringing back the monarchy to the UK. It's pointless and dangerous to deny real power, you might say.

 

I know this doesn't sound very responsible or moral. I'm just stretching the point to see if it fits.

 

I think if I fully understand Zo's pov is he sees a powerful Egyptian military that calls all the shots from behind the scenes.  I agree with him that they are certainly capable of such machinations; I just don't agree with Zo about the degree to which they have done that.   Maybe it's naivete, but that sounds a bit too conspiratorial for me. 

 

The military's stand-off policy during the popular demonstrations led to Mubarak's fall: but that was a relatively passive roll.  They didn't roll tanks or troops in the support of the Taramod. 

 

The "nature abhors a vacuum" idea is certainly plausible. 

 

This is a great article from someone exceptionally well versed in the inner workings of Egyptian politics and the role of the military.  I think there are parts of it that are applicable to Mursi as well. 

 

By Anthony H. Cordesman

 

Feb 10, 2011

http://csis.org/publication/if-mubarak-leaves-role-us-military

 

It is tempting to rush to judgment about the role the Egyptian military will play if Mubarak really does leave. The truth is that even the senior military now at the top of the power structure under Mubarak almost certainly have no clear idea of what happens next, and it will be days before anyone know how well the transition will function, who goes and who stays, and how stable the result really is.

 

 

 

At the same time, the military's top priority is to preserve the nation and maintain order and limit chaos or upheaval. They are far less likely to use torture or violence than the forces under Ministry of Interior as the entire command ethic of the professional military is the nation, not the leader, and military discipline puts real restraints on their actions. However, there also are real limits to their tolerance. They will not accept a breakdown of the government or economy. They will not accept paralysis or demonstrations that become violent, although they will not support a new wave of repression. Whomever is perceived as the most radically violent will tend to lose.

 

Moreover, both the military and all of Egypt's civil leaders  will suffer from the legacy of a political system where any opposition has been suppressed and sidelined for some 30 years. No political parties have the level of experience in cooperation and governance to rapidly participate in an election or show they can govern. The largest opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, is led a by a gerontocracy [a bunch of old farts - lol] and deeply divided between traditionalist and reformers, with extremists at the margins. The other parties are untried, although they have some bright intellectuals, and proven businessmen.

 

 

That analysis was written a scant two months before Mubarak's arrest.  It's highly unlikely that the Egyptian military has undergone a sea change since then. 

 

And here is the conclusion of the author of that article:

 

This may well mean that whatever new government comes to power has less than a 50 percent chance of surviving for two years. Patience is an Egyptian virtue, but the Egyptian people (and the military) are unlikely to tolerate failed politics, failed governance, and token progress.

 

 

Nailed that one I think.  It also raises a serious issue of how realistic the Egyptian populace's expectations are.  Egypt's economy is in dreadful state and a two year fix is simple unrealistic imo.

Edited August 20, 2013 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

I suspect that the reticence shown by the military was related to two things- firstly they didn't mind democracy, so long as it didn't interfere with their power base either in terms of their independence or economic interests  and secondly they wanted to maintain their military aid despite the inconvenient 'coup' stipulation. Little c conservatism, basically, which is more or less how they're described in the quotes. Once it became clear that Mubarak would be pushing Gamal (who'd never win in a democratic election, neither would his dad either) as his successor he became disposable, and once it became clear that the only way he could keep power was a bloodbath it became inevitable.

[BruceVC]

I suspect that the reticence shown by the military was related to two things- firstly they didn't mind democracy, so long as it didn't interfere with their power base either in terms of their independence or economic interests  and secondly they wanted to maintain their military aid despite the inconvenient 'coup' stipulation. Little c conservatism, basically, which is more or less how they're described in the quotes. Once it became clear that Mubarak would be pushing Gamal (who'd never win in a democratic election, neither would his dad either) as his successor he became disposable, and once it became clear that the only way he could keep power was a bloodbath it became inevitable.

 

Actually I would argue the Egyptian military are fine with a Democracy as long as it doesn't lead  to a conservative Islamic state.

 

Morsi tried to erode several immutable rights that the Egyptian people believe in, like the independence of the Constitution court. It is no surprise that there was a reaction?

[pmp10]

 

I suspect that the reticence shown by the military was related to two things- firstly they didn't mind democracy, so long as it didn't interfere with their power base either in terms of their independence or economic interests  and secondly they wanted to maintain their military aid despite the inconvenient 'coup' stipulation. Little c conservatism, basically, which is more or less how they're described in the quotes. Once it became clear that Mubarak would be pushing Gamal (who'd never win in a democratic election, neither would his dad either) as his successor he became disposable, and once it became clear that the only way he could keep power was a bloodbath it became inevitable.

 

Actually I would argue the Egyptian military are fine with a Democracy as long as it doesn't lead  to a conservative Islamic state.

And I would argue that military cannot tolerate any government that is not at it's mercy.

Army's economical position is simply unjustifiable but attacking it in any way provides reasoning for yet another coup. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hmm, now it seems Hosni Mubarak is about to be set free. That would be an interesting turn of events.

[BruceVC]

Hmm, now it seems Hosni Mubarak is about to be set free. That would be an interesting turn of events.

 

In a way it makes sense as it will add to the view that the current military backed government does support the rule of law. Mubarak has been found innocent of the corruption charges so he should be released if there are no further charges ?