Happiest Countries in the World proves Western Ideology Works

[PrimeJunta]

Funny, every time I've been to Germany I've been struck by how friendly and helpful everyone is.

Guess that says something about Finns.

[HoonDing]

oby is Bruce's dark half.

[Valsuelm]

oby is Bruce's dark half.

 

I always thought Bruce was Oby's dark half.

[Monte Carlo]

The Dutch are some of the nicest people in the world.

 

Except they are Europe's most notorious skinflints. They load up their RVs with everything you might need and drive all over the continent without spending a red cent in another country. I hope there are some people from the Netherlands on her big enough to admit it.

 

I even went to a town in eastern Spain that wanted to ban them.

[PrimeJunta]

It was funny to see some of these stereotypes in action when I was registering for residence here. There was a German guy repeatedly enquiring "Vat is ze standart procedure in zis case?" and a Dutch lady grousing about how expensive everything is, and a Brit who thought the whole thing was entirely unnecessary and rather beneath her dignity to have to do it in the first place.

[Monte Carlo]

Germans are also much nicer than they are generally given credit for. But, yes, they love rules. Adore them. And the customer service? Wow the customer is never right.

 

Brits abroad in Europe have a DNA-ingrained disdain for conquered peoples, i.e. everyone else.

[BruceVC]

Bruce really, nobody is that naive. But since I do occasionally take oby topics seriously...

 

If I punch you in the face and steal your lunch I will be happy, you will be sad. By your metrics this means that my philosophy of robbery works, and my 'intervention' has worked since it made me happy- and that is true even if the reason you are sad rather than happy is because of my actions.

 

To be honest that isn't even the worst problem, but that's already 30 seconds more consideration than is really merited.

 

Before I respond to this I want to be clear I understand your point, are you saying you can't measure happiness because its very subjective. So there are different reasons for happiness and sometimes people create there own happiness at the expense of others?

[BruceVC]

 

I don't get what you saying?

Let’s look at the poorest country in the Western hemisphere: Haiti.

 

In 1915 the Yanks invaded them, massacred thousands of civilians, occupied the land, had the Haitian government dissolved and forbid elections. Of course America’s intentions were noble:

 

“It was obvious that if our occupation was to be beneficial to Haiti and further her progress it was necessary that foreign capital should come to Haiti. Americans could hardly be expected to put their money into plantations and big agricultural enterprises in Haiti if they could not themselves own the land on which their money was to be spent.”

 

After 20 years of occupations America offloaded the occupation onto their despotic puppet dictator Papa Doc and later his son ‘Baby Doc’. Under their rule (with CIA support) tens of thousands were executed, living conditions plummeted and foreign aid went directly into their hands (e.g. In 1980, the IMF provided $22 million to Haiti but $16 million of it ‘disappeared’.) By 1985 (with U.S support) 60% of Haiti’s population had an annual per capita income of $60 or less, sex-slavery was booming, child malnutrition had soared and infant mortality was at an all time high.

 

In 1985 protests began, in 1986 Papa Doc was overthrown and in 1990 “free and fair elections” were held. Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, it was leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captured who captured 68 percent of the vote and within 7 months of office crime was beginning to reduce and the flow of refugees had dropped significantly. Unfortunately after only 7 months of office Aristide was overthrown by the American backed Tonton Machoute, Baby’s Doc’s police force, who proceeded a long reign of terror to stamp out those sympathetic to Aristide and those hostile to the previous Doc regime. Naturally the CIA had a active part to play; as popular opinion demanded Aristide’s return the CIA funded a smear campaign painting the priest as mentally insane. Also 300 Haitian refugees were intercepted and sent to Guantanamo Bay. In 1993 the chaos had gotten so bad that Clinton was forced to remove the Haitian military dictator Raol Cedra however rather than punishing military war criminals the Americans instead ensured their safety against the rabble and provided rich retirements. Whilst this was happening the CIA run terror group FRAPH conducted paramilitary death squads to spread terror throughout the countryside.

 

In 1994 Clinton made a deal with Aristide and he returned to Haiti with an American led ‘peacekeeping’ force, the agreement being he can’t stray too far from policies that are acceptable to America. Of course being the lunatic he was Aristide did not stick to his word; instead choosing charge “human rights violators”, raise the minimum wage (which could not support a reasonable standard of living) and abolish the military believing they were simply doing more harm than good. According to Haitian law the President could not run for consecutive five year terms. Because Aristide was overthrown for three years during his first term, which ended in 1996 he should have been allowed these three years. America refused to allow his term to be extended for the three years that he spent in exile.

 

In the 1995 parliamentary elections a pro-Aristide coalition won an overwhelming victory. In the 1996 Presidential elections a pro-Aristide candidate, Rene Preval, won with 88% of the vote. In 2000 another Presidential election was held, this time with Aristide running again. He won, this time with 92% of the vote. America was not fond of these results or Aristides policies and thus heavily funded the opposition parties and various right-wing paramilitary groups. Eventually in 2004 the Aristide government was outgunned (he had significantly shrunk the military) and was overthrown.

 

Clearly this story (which is by no means a unique one) is simply a case of dumb brown people failing to implement the glorious virtues of Western wisdom. Had they done this Haiti would no doubt be an affluent liberal-democratic society.

 

Certainly doesn't imply that imperial countries (and their allies) some how profiteer from the poverty, instability and exploitation of these 'unhappy peoples'.

 

 

I'm not a expert on the history of Haiti so I'm going to assume that everything you said is true

 

We already know that Western countries were involved in different degrees around  colonialism and imperialism, your post  is a terrible story and I'm genuinely sorry for how  the Haitians have suffered. But how much do you think the looting, and I am not sure the USA actually looted Haiti it seems like they just  influenced the political system, and mistreatment of Haiti contributed towards the stability of the USA government now ? Is that the reason that America is the strongest economy in the world? What were the resources that existed on Haiti, was it just land?

 

People often make the point that the reason that Western countries are so economically powerful is due to Colonialism and the looting of Africa and other  countries. This seems like a reasonable argument but its specious. Yes there was a time period where, for example, the Europeans generated real wealth from the misfortunes in Africa but the reason that Western countries have stable governments is not because of how they treated the Colonies. And this applies to your Haiti example as well

 

Its because the majority of Western  governments ensure there governments are well run and they respect the principles of what a Democracy means. They believe in 

• Presidents\Prime Ministers  have limited time in office. They can only serve a limited number of  terms
• Free and fair elections
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of religion
• A Constitution that is more important than the current government. In other words the Constitution is sacrosanct
• There are independent institutions that can indict and monitor the presidency
• The government can be criticised and there is accountability
• The press is free and not controlled by the government

There are more factors than this but I am just highlighting what comes to mind when I think about what living in a Western  Democracy means. All these points contribute towards a stable system of government and this allows a stable economy that encourages foreign investment which then leads to growth

 

So the success of Western countries is not due to how they have treated other countries but rather how they do manage there own economies and the system of government is directly related to economic prosperity. And this leads to citizens in those countries being the happiest in the world. So my point and that survey is logical and valid

Edited October 21, 2014 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

Bruce: if you actually want to know why some believe your reasoning naive and your evidence flawed,start with the two posts above this one. The rest either don't try to explain, or dontbdo so very well.

 

I'm on tablet but ill add another. Even if we accept happiness is represented by gdp and other metrics on your poll, are those results a consequence of western 'ideology'? How would you prove that? Swedes saying they are happy doesn't prove that swedish ideology makes them happier. Would Zambia be just as happy after 50 years on swedish ideology? Would it work just as well there? While you are at it, what do you mean exactly by ideology?

 

As I indicated in my past post my thinking, or rather that survey, is not naïve. Its based on fact that Western countries have the happiest citizens due to how there governments provide services and how stable the governments are

 

Also you guys obviously didn't read the report that on the original link, its called World Happiness Report 2013 (PDF)

 

The report is based not only on the GDP of countries but many socio-economic factors contribute towards this data

 

So maybe read that report and tell me what parts you disagree with?

 

In this case ideology just means the Western style system of governments and how they manage there countries. I should have been more clear on this, I apologize

[Longknife]

So maybe read that report and tell me what parts you disagree with?

 

 

The part they're disagreeing with is that while a German would curbstomp a Brazilian in every socio-economic standard (health care, life expectancy, GDP, crime rate, poverty rate, etc), if you were to stereotype the two countries and try to represent the average citizen of both, the German would be grumpy and obsessed with rules while bitching about how people don't live correctly (aka his way) while wanting to be left alone, whereas the Brazilian would be cheery, friendly, and wanna throw a samba party. Yet according to that same list, Germans are happier people.

 

 

That list does nothing to review the culture of the various countries and name which culture is most geared towards happiness, it focuses solely on the opportunities it's country provides it with. Yes those are nice, but I would still bet money that if we took a German and took a Brazilian and asked them to rate their satisfaction with life on a scale of 1 to 10, the Brazilians would beat out the Germans a lot of the time.....well maybe not this year since we kinda embarassed their national team in front of the world on their home turf, but you get the point.

[BruceVC]

 

So maybe read that report and tell me what parts you disagree with?

 

 

The part they're disagreeing with is that while a German would curbstomp a Brazilian in every socio-economic standard (health care, life expectancy, GDP, crime rate, poverty rate, etc), if you were to stereotype the two countries and try to represent the average citizen of both, the German would be grumpy and obsessed with rules while bitching about how people don't live correctly (aka his way) while wanting to be left alone, whereas the Brazilian would be cheery, friendly, and wanna throw a samba party. Yet according to that same list, Germans are happier people.

 

 

That list does nothing to review the culture of the various countries and name which culture is most geared towards happiness, it focuses solely on the opportunities it's country provides it with. Yes those are nice, but I would still bet money that if we took a German and took a Brazilian and asked them to rate their satisfaction with life on a scale of 1 to 10, the Brazilians would beat out the Germans a lot of the time.....well maybe not this year since we kinda embarassed their national team in front of the world on their home turf, but you get the point.

 

 

Yeah I do get the point and you probably right. Your average Brazilian may be happier than your average German even if the services that the German government provides are better

[Rosbjerg]

My biggest grief is that these reports always want to link economical prosperity to happiness on a sort of 1 to 1. Happiness to me is not in any fashion linked to economics or money, something that thankfully seems self evident to most of us. Why so many choose to chase the 'unhappiness of economic abundance' still amazes me, but I guess delayed gratification that never materializes (as economic doctrine is "nothing is ever enough") is a strong motivator. Much like religious emotional flagellation for "base desires".

 

edit: well actually that makes a lot of sense now that I think of it. It's an endless source of self discipline and drive. You're never rid of desires and you can never have enough. Perhaps simply being happy doesn't get you out of bed in the morning?

[PrimeJunta]

@Rosbjerg That's true up to a point. However, if you list the richest countries by GDP per capita, it's not the same as the list of happiest countries:

 

1  Qatar 145,894

2  Luxembourg 90,333

3  Singapore 78,762

4  Brunei 73,823

5  Kuwait 70,785

6  Norway 64,363

7  United Arab Emirates 63,181

8  San Marino^[6][7] 62,766

9   Switzerland

 

Of these I think only Norway and Switzerland are even on the happiness top 10.

 

There is an economic indicator that does correlate fairly well with "happiness" though: GINI coefficient. It measures economic inequality. Here's a list of the top least inequal countries (if information is available:)

 

1. Denmark

2. Sweden

3. Norway

4. Czech Republic

5. Austria

6. Slovakia

7. Ukraine

8. Belarus

9. Finland

10. Bulgaria

 

Five of the top 10 "happy" countries are on that list, and even in roughly similar positions. Of the countries that are not, Ukraine, Belarus, and Bulgaria are pretty damn poor, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia also not as rich as the five that are.

 

I.e. it's a workable hypothesis that broad-based prosperity—i.e., a high level of relatively evenly-distributed prosperity—does contribute significantly to happiness. 

 

That also makes intuitive sense to me by the way.

Edited October 21, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Tigranes]

 

Bruce: if you actually want to know why some believe your reasoning naive and your evidence flawed,start with the two posts above this one. The rest either don't try to explain, or dontbdo so very well.

 

I'm on tablet but ill add another. Even if we accept happiness is represented by gdp and other metrics on your poll, are those results a consequence of western 'ideology'? How would you prove that? Swedes saying they are happy doesn't prove that swedish ideology makes them happier. Would Zambia be just as happy after 50 years on swedish ideology? Would it work just as well there? While you are at it, what do you mean exactly by ideology?

 

As I indicated in my past post my thinking, or rather that survey, is not naïve. Its based on fact that Western countries have the happiest citizens due to how there governments provide services and how stable the governments are

 

Also you guys obviously didn't read the report that on the original link, its called World Happiness Report 2013 (PDF)

 

The report is based not only on the GDP of countries but many socio-economic factors contribute towards this data

 

So maybe read that report and tell me what parts you disagree with?

 

In this case ideology just means the Western style system of governments and how they manage there countries. I should have been more clear on this, I apologize

 

 

You did not respond to any of the points I raised. (Exception: You did define what you mean by ideology, which is helpful.)

 

Explanation: I did not seize on GDP as a particularly problematic or representative metric, so I am not sure what you are responding to. The fact that it measured 'many socio-economic factors' does not actually answer anything here. My questions apply to all of their independent variables, because it is a question about the methodology itself.

 

To clarify myself again, then: you have raised the argument that (1) Western nations are objectively happiest, and (2) this proves the objective superiority of Western ideology. In that case, the burden of proof is on you, not us, to show: (A) Objective evidence that they are happiest; (B) Rationale as to why A is a valid measure of happiness; © Rationale as to how logically A can prove 2. You have done A, but instead of moving on to B and C, you are repeating A again and again and again. Hence, I ask: where is B and C?

 

I can go into detail and dig into the actual measures they used (including problems of self-reporting and variable aggregation in this kind of research), but it is better to deal with the basics first. Do you think the survey is a good index of happiness? If so, how so? And then, how do you go on to make your own inference that this proves the superiority of Western ideology?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Bruce: if you actually want to know why some believe your reasoning naive and your evidence flawed,start with the two posts above this one. The rest either don't try to explain, or dontbdo so very well.

 

I'm on tablet but ill add another. Even if we accept happiness is represented by gdp and other metrics on your poll, are those results a consequence of western 'ideology'? How would you prove that? Swedes saying they are happy doesn't prove that swedish ideology makes them happier. Would Zambia be just as happy after 50 years on swedish ideology? Would it work just as well there? While you are at it, what do you mean exactly by ideology?

 

As I indicated in my past post my thinking, or rather that survey, is not naïve. Its based on fact that Western countries have the happiest citizens due to how there governments provide services and how stable the governments are

 

Also you guys obviously didn't read the report that on the original link, its called World Happiness Report 2013 (PDF)

 

The report is based not only on the GDP of countries but many socio-economic factors contribute towards this data

 

So maybe read that report and tell me what parts you disagree with?

 

In this case ideology just means the Western style system of governments and how they manage there countries. I should have been more clear on this, I apologize

 

 

You did not respond to any of the points I raised. (Exception: You did define what you mean by ideology, which is helpful.)

 

Explanation: I did not seize on GDP as a particularly problematic or representative metric, so I am not sure what you are responding to. The fact that it measured 'many socio-economic factors' does not actually answer anything here. My questions apply to all of their independent variables, because it is a question about the methodology itself.

 

To clarify myself again, then: you have raised the argument that (1) Western nations are objectively happiest, and (2) this proves the objective superiority of Western ideology. In that case, the burden of proof is on you, not us, to show: (A) Objective evidence that they are happiest; (B) Rationale as to why A is a valid measure of happiness; © Rationale as to how logically A can prove 2. You have done A, but instead of moving on to B and C, you are repeating A again and again and again. Hence, I ask: where is B and C?

 

I can go into detail and dig into the actual measures they used (including problems of self-reporting and variable aggregation in this kind of research), but it is better to deal with the basics first. Do you think the survey is a good index of happiness? If so, how so? And then, how do you go on to make your own inference that this proves the superiority of Western ideology?

 

 

If someone says to me " are you happy living in South Africa " my answer would be "yes"

 

But the answer "yes"  is not based on my mood on the day I was asked or how I am feeling because I just got a promotion. Its based on  a number of factors that could include  corruption within my country, state of healthcare, economic opportunities, political stability , gdp per capita, do government services work and other points. So what I would do is weigh up the good and the bad and decide what is most prevalent, in my case the good outweighs the bad so I am still happy overall. Many of these considerations are based on the government being directly responsible for them

 

Now you can say " none of these things might matter to someone's happiness" but that's not  what the metrics of these surveys are based on. The assumption is that if you are living in a country and all these things are positive you would say you are happy. If you go to your average African person and say "what will make you happy ", the standard response will be something like " I want a job, a stable government and a future for my children ". And that's perfectly reasonable, because that would most make people happy

 

So going back to the metrics of the survey that's what the socio-economic questions are based on. So to address your  A and B questions

 

A) Objective evidence that they are happiest : I have said I am happy based on the questions and considerations around the answers

B)Rationale as to why A is a valid measure of happiness : That's been explained as these are things that directly would impact our happiness ( in other words thinking your government is profoundly corrupt is not going to make you happy living in such a country )

C) Rationale as to how logically A can prove 2: The two are directly related and I have explained the connection

 

So then we get to conclusion " I am happy living in South Africa " and then I need to accept that this happiness is directly influenced by my government and its policies

 

Now going back to the original point, the top 10 countries that have the best quality of life for its citizens are Western countries. Therefore why is so difficult to accept that Western governments are better than non-Western governments?

 

Also do you have an issue accepting that Western countries have the happiest citizens or the point that this means Western government are the most effective governments in the world?

[Barothmuk]

We already know that Western countries were involved in different degrees around  colonialism and imperialism, your post  is a terrible story and I'm genuinely sorry for how  the Haitians have suffered. But how much do you think the looting,

Looting?

 

"Looting" is what you got out of that?

and I am not sure the USA actually looted Haiti it seems like they just  influenced the political system,

I wonder ****ing why?

 

I don't have the patience for this.

[BruceVC]

 

We already know that Western countries were involved in different degrees around  colonialism and imperialism, your post  is a terrible story and I'm genuinely sorry for how  the Haitians have suffered. But how much do you think the looting,

Looting?

 

"Looting" is what you got out of that?

and I am not sure the USA actually looted Haiti it seems like they just  influenced the political system,

I wonder ****ing why?

 

I don't have the patience for this.

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say this story disproves that Western style governments aren't  the  best in the world as they have the happiest governments

 

I did acknowledge that Western countries have done some bad  things. But that doesn't  make the first sentence incorrect?

[Barothmuk]

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say this story disproves that Western style governments aren't  the  best in the world as they have the happiest governments.

Because it shows how unimportant having a western government is when you're one of these dumb brown countries who don't tow the line and completely submit to the will and exploitation of the superior "western governments".

 

You've made the mistake of looking at the supposed greatness of the "western governments" without addressing the reality of how they're maintained.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Shallow]

Look at Libya, it went from one of the worlds most successful countries, to a glorious western democracy, now everyone there are happy.

[Valsuelm]

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say this story disproves that Western style governments aren't  the  best in the world as they have the happiest governments

 

I did acknowledge that Western countries have done some bad  things. But that doesn't  make the first sentence incorrect?

 

 

Your entire concept is ridiculous. Happiness is an intangible. A subjective. An emotion. An opinion.

 

On top of that, government is not what makes people happy, generally unless they view the world in a really twisted and superficial manner.

 

There are happy people in every nation on earth. There are unhappy people in every nation on earth. The sane people experience both happiness and unhappiness throughout the course of time.

 

Your ascertains are as anchored in reality and as relevant to it as your average superficial person's facebook posts.

 

If anything, government is source of unhappiness throughout the world, not happiness. And that's all governments, western and other.

 

My government certainly hasn't ever made me happy. Quite the opposite. It's stolen from me, harassed me, wasted my time, spied on me, and other unfun things. At least it didn't bomb me, yet. Thought it does that to other innocent people all the time, and with the blessing of people such as yourself. I seriously doubt they are happy.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say this story disproves that Western style governments aren't  the  best in the world as they have the happiest governments.

Because it shows how unimportant having a western government is when you're one of these dumb brown countries who don't tow the line and completely submit to the will and exploitation of the superior "western governments".

 

You've made the mistake of looking at the supposed greatness of the "western governments" without addressing the reality of how they're maintained.

 

 

I agree, I doubt the  people of Haiti will care about this survey. But that doesn't change its significance

[BruceVC]

Look at Libya, it went from one of the worlds most successful countries, to a glorious western democracy, now everyone there are happy.

 

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of  " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change "

 

The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the  sectarian violence that now  threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments

Edited October 23, 2014 by BruceVC

[PrimeJunta]

@BruceVC You have to look REALLY hard to find an example where a Western intervention led to a situation that was unambiguously better for the people in the affected country than before the intervention. Kosovo is often trumpeted as such an example, but even that is pret-ty ambiguous when you look more closely, and just about everywhere else it's been between a disaster and a catastrophe.

 

With that kind of history, "whoa we meant well" is kind of a lame excuse when it goes pear-shaped again.

 

The only thing you can really say in favor of the Libyan intervention is that a civil war was already in progress under its own steam — the Arab Spring was not a Western plot; in fact the US especially had a strong preference for Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali and was spit scared that the revolution would bring hardline Salafis into power, as happened (briefly) in Egypt until the US-backed thugs kicked them out — and it's debatable that things would have gone much better without the intervention.

 

This is why I am almost categorically opposed to "humanitarian intervention." Even in the rare cases that the motives are primarily or even significantly humanitarian, it's much more likely to make things even worse than better. And usually "humanitarian intervention" is simply a fig leaf covering good ol' post-colonial power politics. I'll leave that "almost" in there to allow for the extremely unlikely case that the stars are perfectly aligned for an intervention that really is likely to work and make things better.

 

I.e. you can't export democracy at the point of a cruise missile, or even in a briefcase full of Yankee dollars. You can choose whether and how to engage with odious regimes and the people living under them and try to influence things that way, but ultimately it's up to the people to decide what kind of government they want to live under, and whether they hate the current one enough to overthrow it. The only Arab Spring revolution that did make things pretty unambiguously better was the Tunisian one, and that happened entirely under its own steam and caught everybody with their pants down so they couldn't screw it up.

 

Also, a point of advice for any would-be revolutionaries: don't trust foreigners or local fascists to save your revolution for you. The help is never disinterested. If you're not strong enough to pull it off on your own, it will get hijacked by fascists or foreign interests, and things will be worse than before.

[obyknven]

 

Look at Libya, it went from one of the worlds most successful countries, to a glorious western democracy, now everyone there are happy.

 

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of  " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change "

 

The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the  sectarian violence that now  threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments

 

Please stap make me lol by such ridiculous Western propaganda. 

Grenada

http://www.globalresearch.ca/thirty-years-after-the-u-s-invasion-of-grenada-the-first-neoliberal-war/5355916

Chile - especially this example, read this please

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/econom~1.htm

Panama

http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/87330:twenty-years-after-us-invasion-panama-still-in-search-of-a-body-count

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/panama/

http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2012/262/world2.htm

Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc etc...

[Rostere]

The only thing you can really say in favor of the Libyan intervention is that a civil war was already in progress under its own steam — the Arab Spring was not a Western plot; in fact the US especially had a strong preference for Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali and was spit scared that the revolution would bring hardline Salafis into power, as happened (briefly) in Egypt until the US-backed thugs kicked them out — and it's debatable that things would have gone much better without the intervention.

 

wat

 

You do know that there are actual Salafi parties in Egypt, right? They did not do particularly well at the polls... Egypt's MB is more close to the AKP of Turkey.