What Is Next For Egypt?
Yesterday's very large Tamarrod protests against the Muslim Brotherhood and president Morsi in Egypt were mostly peaceful. But following those protests an attack on the Muslim Brotherhood's party building led to casualties on both sides:Members of the group inside the headquarters started firing live ammunition, according to Mada Masr's reporter, who also noticed a variety of arms held by protesters including guns. All lights were shut off in the surrounding streets.
The building was stormed, looted and burned just like the building of former president Mubarak's NDP party had been destroyed in the 2011 revolution. Six or eight people were killed. A reporter said of the looting: "I thought they would carry away everything but the kitchen sink. Then I saw one carrying a kitchen sink." A video from inside of the building confims that.
The loot included this seemingly genuine list of large bribes paid by the government of Qatar to the leading heads of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The police was not seen while the building was attack but came back to "guard" it after the looting was finished. The Muslim Brotherhood is now considering to create "self defense units", something that other say it already has build up, though secretly so far.
The big clash that was expected yesterday did not happen. The numbers of anti-Morsi demonstrators were too large for the other side to attack. But as smaller protests and the demand for Morsi to stand down will continue further strife seems inevitable. Issandr El Amrani looks at the possible alternative outcomes:
The United States and its elephant-in-a-china-shop ambassador Anne Patterson have so far be standing behind Morsi. Anti-Americanism was therefore a large theme in yesterday's protests. One wonders how that is compatible with the protesters calls for the U.S. backed army to take over.
- The army will wait it out to the last minute (possibly disastrously so as early intervention might be better in cases of large-scale violence) and may be internally divided about how to proceed (hence the hesitation).
- Should Morsi be toppled, it will create an enormous problem with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists for years to come. They will feel cheated of legitimately gained power and Egyptian politics will only grow more divisive and violent.
- Whatever alliance came together behind the Tamarrod protests will fall apart the day after its successful, because its components are as incompatible as the alliance that toppled Hosni Mubarak.
- The leadership around the NSF (ElBaradei, Moussa, Sabahi etc.) has followed rather than led Tamarrod and will not be able to provide effective leadership in the coming days. Only the army can.
- If Morsi remains and the protests are repressed or simply die out, the country will nonetheless remain as difficult to govern considering Morsi's lack of engagement with the opposition.
That is indeed what I now find likely to happen. Rumors say that the army has already informed the U.S. that Morsi will be gone by the end of the week. Then a new cycle of writing a constitution and elections will begin. This time in an even more loaded atmosphere and under worse economic conditions.
Posted by b on July 1, 2013 at 13:00 UTC | Permalink
« previous page | next page »I asked itzik what he thought about the the egyptian project and he said the people are tired of the beards ruling there lives .they believe the relegion is too easily exploited to be used against the people especially the shite /sunni setup in arab society.he believes that the swing to arab nationalism will be voted in by the masses and the beards sent back to the study room.
so thats it then ,arab nationalism with the military controlled by the leading political party
watch for arab nationalist parties to slowly takeover in egypt,iraq,and syria and relegious parties to be swept aside
the burning man which started the arab spring will be replaced by the standing man of turkey
Posted by: mcohen | Jul 2 2013 0:58 utc | 102
You are rightly concerned with the status of US colonies like Saudi Arabia - but can you point to a single way the Morsi has moved Egypt away from becoming more like them?
Egypt will NOT survive if it follows the neoliberal model. The people see this. They don't want war in Syria. They don't want to go through the pain of the inevitable collapse and default on the IMF loans.
Can Morsi address any of this?
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 2 2013 1:23 utc | 103
Arnold, I'm note rejecting the merits of democracy. IMHO, the fall of Morsi will create a huge number of embittered Islamists who will feel cheated by a democratic process in which they competed and won. They will no doubt conclude that only through force can they take power. And we can only guess what weapons they have obtained from the collapse of Libya.
But I'm curious if the US is truly backing the opposition. They do not have anywhere near the favorable coverage in the western media that the anti-Mubarak protesters had 2 1/2 years ago. The US admin has largely kept silent. Also, I'm having trouble seeing how the US would want Egypt's foreign policy to be different than it is now.
Also, Morsi has received several billion from Qatar and KSA. I'm not faulting him for that, but we are both in agreement that Qatar and KSA are not fully independent actors and would not keep Morsi's government afloat against the wishes of the US.
And then there are the street protests, seemingly of unprecedented size, exceeding anything in 2011. (I'm prepared to be convinced there is great exaggeration, but so far they seem huge) Morsi, for whatever reason, could not get anything like it and this despite the supposedly great organizational experience of the brothers. I understand this should not negate elections, but in the here and now of it all, it is important. Most likely the army counted heads and decided to side with the larger group. If Morsi could have mustered a comparable number (perhaps he will in the coming days) The army might have sided with him, or stayed neutral.
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 2 2013 1:25 utc | 104
BTW, Arnold, I'm very open to the idea that the US simply seeks instability and will happily the support whatever opposition exists at any given time and never let any ruling coalition actually rule.
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 2 2013 1:31 utc | 105
Democracy does not require that the people suspend their right of self government during the interval between election campaigns. Nor does it require that the winner of an election, with slightly more than a quarter of the eligible voters casting ballots against his opponent, be given the chance to adopt whatever policies he chooses for several years.
Nor does democracy require that all opponents of the policies of a ruling party be opposed for the same reasons and with the same intensity.
No doubt many of Morsi's opponents share all his bad qualities except his religious bigotry. No doubt some of his opponents are so much more bigoted that they make him seem secular by comparison.
What is important is that in excess of 17 million Egyptians have taken part in these protests. This is an astonishing figure, indicating massive and active popular discontent which effectively cancels out any mandate from last year's flawed and vapid elections.
If seventeen million Americans marched against Washington, it would be a ghost town before they came close to the beltway.
At this stage the suggestion that Egypt can be ruled by a President flies in the face of reality. The only way in which Presidential rule can be sustained is by force. In this the army is correct.
The truth is that Egypt has been ruled by the nominees of foreign imperialists for the better part of two millenia: even Gemal Abdul Nasser, for all his goodwill, found himself trapped in the politics of tyranny. The only way for Egyptians to escape their slavery is en masse: there is no ruler or ruling party in waiting to do what must be done.
For the first time since 1917 the world is seeing a great and oppressed nation throwing off its yoke and in the process of deciding how to defend its right to live free. Only those without imagination will think that they know what will happen next.
Posted by: bevin | Jul 2 2013 1:54 utc | 106
Kev:
You state "Which specific policy does someone claim is going to prevent a non-MB candidate from winning the presidency after Morsi's term if that candidate is more popular?" then give your own answer "The only way Egypt can have a better next president is if there is a competitive process free of outside/US influence to select Egyptian leaders".
You misunderstood the question, but there really is no good answer. If in 2016 there is a candidate that most Egyptians prefer to any MB candidate, there is not a single law anywhere in Egypt that would prevent that candidate from winning.
But instead Egypt is in the process of giving the military, meaning the US embassy because of the longstanding $1.5 billion in annual bribes to the military, a veto over the Egyptian political process. Again, this is the opposite of democracy.
Where does one start - Morsi purged key judicial officials and issued a decree that granted himself sweeping new powers - He stated court cant overturn him! He is not governing, rather enforcing an Islamic religious ideology.
The constitutional court announced that it would dissolve the constituent assembly imminently. Morsi decreed that the court could not do that, and it could not vacate Morsi's decree that it cannot dissolve the constituent assembly. Morsi was reacting to the anti-democratic moves of the Mubarak-era court in coordination with the US.
Morsi was clear that these measures would only last until the referendum on the constitution. Without that, there would be no Egyptian constitution today. You may think there shouldn't be a constitution today, but a large majority of Egyptians disagree with you.
As a result Egypt has now a new constitution which approved only by 20% of the registered voters and does not represent the country Christians, women, journalists, farmers, academics, liberals, labour and moderate Muslims as representatives of all these groups withdrew from the writing assembly protesting the marginalization of their views by the Islamists.
The constitution passed the referendum. Now you can read it. You won't find any clause instituting Islamic dictatorship against the will of the people. It's certainly a better constitution for Egypt than the US constitution. Any constitution-making process has judgement calls and those calls should be made by the representatives of the voters.
Remember back - Morsi in 2010 as a MB’s leader asked Egyptians to ‘‘nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred,’’ and referred to Zionists as bloodsuckers who attack Palestinians, describing Zionists as ‘‘the descendants of apes and pigs.’’ So he is not diplomatic, he is radical. On either side that is not good or moving forward.
Egyptians have a right to elect radicals if they want. If that's true and Morsi got the most votes, Morsi should be Egypt's president.
It opposes Syria’s Assad because it supports democracy? Morsi visits Sudanese butcher Omar al-Bashir because he is a great fella? OK, just because Omar has a friend or two like Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Obama’s cousin in Kenya, then I guess it’s fine, but the name ‘Butcher’ did not come from the family business in supply of goat meat. Then Morsi warned about the common enemies that want the two Islamist regimes to be divided – Who, is still speculation, but take a stab in the dark.
If that's all true and Egypt's voters voted for Morsi, Morsi should be president. If Egypt's voters reelect Morsi, Morsi should be president for another term.
George Orwell’s dictum: “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.”
Orwell can easily be wrong. It's not a dictatorship if there is going to be a scheduled contested fair election in four years that will push Morsi out of office unless more Egyptians vote for him than against.
The fact of the matter is Egypt, unlike many countries in the region and unlike Egypt recently, is not a dictatorship. But vacating the presidential election by fiat, as the pro-US military threatened, would be the most substantial step in the direction of dictatorship since Mubarak was in office.
Unfortunately there are many people who don't respect democracy if it's capable of putting Islamists in power. The United States and Israel are benefiting from that.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 2:29 utc | 107
When Hezbollah's Al Manar include a Guardian article by a Brookings employee, the
only explanation I assume is that it makes sense
The story of this revolution, established for "bread, freedom, social justice and human dignity", is not one that can be considered successful in the short or medium term, and the blame for that cannot be laid simply at the door of the Muslim Brotherhood. Political leadership in Egypt, from every quarter, has been an utter failure on all levels. But the greatest responsibility must be apportioned to the party of power. The Muslim Brotherhood correctly identified that a "deep state" and Mubarak remnants continue to hinder efforts for democratic change – but it consistently failed to take the necessary steps to address those challenges.By alienating almost all other forces by a disastrous extra-legal presidential decree in November, the passing of a truly divisive constitution, and a deepening economic disaster owing to lack of competency, the Muslim Brotherhood has made the continuation of a Morsi presidency more difficult than any effort made by the deep state. It needed allies: not more enemies.
Regardless of his efforts, the revolutionaries seem to have already made their choice. They continue to agitate for the original claims of the revolution, of "bread, freedom, social justice, human dignity", rejecting any role for violence or a military intervention – but insisting that Egypt's route cannot continue without the president placing Egypt's interests first. Whether Morsi stays or leaves, their struggle continues. Whether the Rebel movement succeeds or not, this country's story continues – and its revolution remains. President Morsi can make it easier – or harder. He can ensure a future for the Muslim Brotherhood in a freer, pluralistic Egypt – or not. The choice really is his.
Posted by: somebody | Jul 2 2013 5:49 utc | 108
Personally, I don't believe in any actually existing 'democracy' whatever, whether in the USA, the UK, Europe, or anywhere else. Democracy does not and cannot exist under capitalism. It's a sham. So from my point of view, Arnold is defending a phantom. But it doesn't surprise me that left-liberal type readers are thrown onto the defensive by him, because they feel (rightly) that if they don't defend this phantom of democracy under capitalism, they will be ostracised by their liberal elders.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 2 2013 6:35 utc | 109
the only way to determine if this is areal peoples revolution is to learn what the rebels view of Morsis allowing egyptians to be sent on jihad to Syria
Posted by: brian | Jul 2 2013 7:37 utc | 110
Arnold Evans thanks for showing up here and stimulating the discussion. You raise good issues and it does enhance the debate as various people try to shoot you down. Having said that, I think your position is too simple -- there are some very complex issues in play in Egypt today. For the most part I have avoided the debate for two reasons: One it is not up to me to give advice to the Egyptian people and two, the politics are much to complex for me to understand them in any case.
Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 2 2013 7:42 utc | 111
guest77
" a country on the brink of absolute financial disaster preparing for war against an old ally"
What? There is no financial disaster and what war are the preparing against an "old ally"?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 7:43 utc | 112
@27
'Quite funny that some people that say that Assad should not step down now say the opposite about Mursi. Please be consistent. You are only playing into the hands of war profiters, Israel, US, neocons.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 1, 2013 1:19:08 PM | 27
no idea who Anonymous is but he is clearly anti-assad....which mweans hes pro-FSA and so would see israel as less the enemy than Iran or Hezbollah
Posted by: brian | Jul 2 2013 7:44 utc | 113
Voting for a government does not give it a mandate to do as it wishes and no government should be above the possibility of recall. The MB and Morsi had the chance to include that possibility in the constitution, they chose not to.
IMHO - If the citizens cannot feed themselves properly while thier leaders live in luxury they have EVERY right to demand the government steps down for that reason alone.
Defending the standard western style of "democracy" (Where we vote for the puppets and keep quiet while they fuck us for 4 or 5 years) does not even come close to defending real democracy. It's a distraction.
Posted by: Billy boy | Jul 2 2013 7:44 utc | 114
Democracy' is RULE BY THE PEOPLE
not 'Rule by elected self-appointed-representatives'
Posted by: brian | Jul 2 2013 7:46 utc | 115
looks to me like US generally prefer Islamic government
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3728/germany-new-ottoman-empire
Posted by: skybox | Jul 2 2013 7:52 utc | 116
Mr Pragma
Well thats because you are rehashing what CNN or even Fox news would say, populistic and blended with xenophobia.
Again you dont get it, and you certainly reject democracy.
In democracies you could change the rulings by the ballot or through other participation. Rioting in the streets, violently is not democratic, urging overthrow is nor democratic nor legal, not even in the US. Your argumentation is quite juvenile. Besides you again try to impose western view of democracy on non western states, totally useless and quite ignorant. And again change dont come overnight, you seems to lack basic knowledge on this issue. You should look up the estimated sum Egypt lost when they protested against Mubarak, if you are worried about the economic situation, you shouldnt be so happy about these riots. The loss are in the multiple billion-class.
Another thing you dont seems to get is that this protests are NOT against Mursi's foreign policy.
I find it quite amazing that when an overwhelming part of the people casting their vote show support for islamist state, you still cant accept it. What are you, Pam Geller?
Well of course the army give its support to the protesters, the army have suppressed the brotherhood for some 6 decades - they hate them!
Yes I could compare it to Occupy-movement but your ideology forbid you to take that logical step.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 7:55 utc | 117
There is a possibility that Muslim brotherhood already has its own revolutionary guard corp. In the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, the new ayatollah rulers didn't trust the army which was full of shah loyalists, so they created a second army of devout shias called the IRGC to keep the regular army in check.
Posted by: skybox | Jul 2 2013 7:56 utc | 118
re 108
When Hezbollah's Al Manar include a Guardian article by a Brookings employee, the only explanation I assume is that it makes senseYou mean it makes sense to Hizbullah. Hizbullah are not pro-Sunni, or favourable to the Ikhwan, so an article criticising them (the Ikhwan) might well be found in Hizbullah media.
Posted by: alexno | Jul 2 2013 8:15 utc | 119
I guess being Hizbullah Shiite and the MB calling for a Shiite genocide would make them not so favourable to the sectarian Ikhwan. And Hizbullah isn't against Sunnis. Against sectarian takfiris sure they are.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 2 2013 8:52 utc | 120
Sidenote: Anonymous, you repeatedly stepped over the frontier between an engaged discussion and pure ad hominems. Therefore I consider you disqualified.
@all
For one, I'm not that certain that receiving financial support *necessarily* and 100% translates to the Egypt army being a remote controlled tool of zusa. I do not say this with a firm voice and being sure of myself but neither do I see grounds for those who have a different view to speak with a firm voice and to be sure.
Right now it basically comes down to either have morsi step down (which isn't a solution in itself), have morsi stay but, at least for the moment dropping his mb agenda which seems very unrealistic, or the military to take over government temporarily.
Which leads us to the reason (or at least one very major reason) for the current problems as well as for morsi having been elected:
Egypt has no basis out of which to choose leaders.
After decades of an oppressive regime there are basically no proven candidates that could be assessed and appreciated based on well founded experience. morsi seemed to be strong (an important attribute in the current situation) and he had the bonus of having been locked away for a long time by the former regime. Well, evidently it was a wrong decision to vote him into presidency; that's anyway what very many, possibly a mjority of Egyptians seem to think now.
I think that most Egyptians want a president who respects democratic principles (they had the opposite for way too long), who is not extreme, i.e. neither bluntly saecular nor extremist like mb, who doesn't sell out to zusa, who isn't a friend of israel and who really, really takes care of the country and it's pressing (e.g. economic) problems.
Well, that's a portion. How to find that man when most candidates either where in or friendly to the mubarak regime, or have hardly more than academic or intellectual credentials or have lived in or with the support of zusa and others?
I think that Egypt needs some time and some credible fora for diverse candidates to show themselves and to possibly gain experience by e.g. governing smaller bodies like regions. Before they can have a meaningful election they first need to build and introduce a stock of candidates. If the military is capable of respecting basic right and of some sensibility, they might provide just that, a temporary leadership that administrates the country rather than taking major long term decision while providing a fertile and somewhat protected ground for candidates to form, to gain experience, and to allow the people to judge them properly.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 9:55 utc | 121
Funny, what kind of "democracy" is a state where women are second-rate citizens, where the state calls for the discrimination (and worse) of minorities openly, and where the president cannot be destituted even if he shows repeatedly he does not carry his functions normally! The whole judicial and executive systems are blocked, the president needs advice from the "murshid" of the MB for every step, and the only thing people actually see on the ground is the appointment of "fidels" at every odd position.
Just an example: last time I was in Cairo I bought some gifts at the duty free of the airport, and the bearded guy which came to the counter did not even know how to wrap a gift in a plastic bag (i wonder what would have happened if I had asked for a special gift paper). As he was trying to fold my hand-made pillow cases into 8, the other employees were looking at their feet. I had to insist for him to bring a normal plastic bag (he was trying to put the pillow case in a mini plastic bag...)
Add to this problems of drinkable water in villages that have not been solved, but only got worse, and the new phenomena of power cuts, and you get an idea.
The army has managed the transition 2 years ago, and has respected the people's will when they elected the MB (although one could say a lot about the 'irregularities' at many polling stations, and one has to add about the parliamentary election that they didn't win, without the votes of the Salafis, i. e. Nur and Abu al Futuh, and it is only through their support that they passed any of the laws they passed; now these very people are also calling for early elections, so you can see that his coalition has failed).
6 ministers have quit, just the same way as last years many members left the "constituant assembly" to protest on the way the consitution was being islamized.
Some claim he has won "six" elections, but the 40 percent of abstention (at the shura election, at the 1st tour of the presidential, etc) reflect the opposition call for boycott on one side, and the fact some people did not even know when the election were taking place, because of the weird system that decided for the first time to spread it on 2 month through the country.
Never has Morsi listened to any of these people. Why should he start now and why should anyone believe he is a "democrat"?
As expected the BBC is trying to sell that as a "military coup".
So funny... They should stop drinking too much Johnny Walker. With 14 million people in the street and a petition of 22 millions signature, a coup? (50 percent of the 80 million Egyptians are below 18).
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 10:09 utc | 122
Brian
I am the one being consistent, I dont urge Assad nor Mursi stepping down. Because both claims are illegitimate of various reasons.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 10:09 utc | 123
I find it quite difficult to pick up the official spin of the narration in german (which i assume to be the most us-poodle-ish) media on this topic.
I personally can't form any opinion, since there's hardly anything reported about what exactly the mass protestors are demanding - or maybe they're really just protesting "against" Mursi and not "pro" anything particular.
My speculation would be that the army has been more or less in charge all the time and, maybe under us pressure, had come to an agreement to tolerate mursi and to stay in line of us ("nato", "western", you get the point) foreign policy regarding libya, syria and the whole "spring" regime changes.
Mursi might have gone too far in setting up an autonomous policy or maybe he and the muslim brotherhood were overestimating their possibilities in grabbing power and key positions.
It'd be interesting to get the views of other players in this game, i.e. qatar, saudi-arabia, israel and the US - as far as I can see none of these have issued decidedly pro or against statements? Of course Egypt is a major player itself (unlike e.g. Syria where I think it's a real proxy war).
What I take for sure is, that this is not an overnight insurrection but has been set up by the army, probably they've made announcements that on June 30th it's safe to go protesting and that there'll be no violence from the army, so everyone can come and protest.
My guess for the things to come would be: army takes over, key positions (like the resigned ministers) will be shared with established power players, of the muslim brotherhood, too. Some kind of wider coalition coming, tolerated by the US as long as they keep in line with US policies on Syria, Iran and Israel. As always, I'm just wildly speculating, but from what I try to read in official news, I don't see a civil war or the like on the horizon. M.B. will come to terms with the army / old mubarak team. Maybe new elections that result in a more popular president than morsi (discontent of the population seems to be quite genuine, given the numbers of protesters).
On a sidenote I agree with ToivoS above, that Arnold Evans is indeed supplying some good points to this discussion, making it more informative overall.
Cheers.
Posted by: peter radiator | Jul 2 2013 11:03 utc | 124
Only governement that openly spoke in favour of Morsi and against the army today is the Iranian one
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/1/75469/Egypt/Iran-urges-Egypt-army-to-respect-vote-of-people.aspx
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 12:01 utc | 125
Let's see if Russia Today is right or if it is trying to influence the situation with a rumour: Egypt PM would have offered his resignation.
مصادرنا: هشام قنديل يضع استقالته تحت تصرف مرسي.. واستقالة المتحدثين باسم الرئاسة
http://arabic.rt.com/news/620081/ :روسيا اليوم
Some comments on the RT page are saying: the first thing which the next governement should implement is cutting the deliveries of natural gas to Israel. Something the MB did not even attempt. Neither did they have a "policy" apart from spreading sectarian rumours and polarizing the people by bringing figures such as the Qatari sponsored Qardawi on Tahrir to say that his next Friday sermon will be in free Jerusalem...
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 12:10 utc | 126
They have an incredible line in bullshit, these MBs. But another thing that's interesting is that the famous rivalry between Saudi & Qatar seems not to be a factor. The Egyptian Salafi organisations have given up trying to outflank the MBs from the right, by being even holier and more bogus than them, and instead have closed ranks with them against the godless hordes, I guess.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 2 2013 12:15 utc | 127
The MB accross the region cannot govern..That much is clear..They have no agenda other than their usual sectarian BS. When Morsi realized he couldn't deliver on his many promises, he turned to the MB's trusted tool - sectarianism..
he invited the most devisive Sunni cleric, Qardawi into Egypt to gin up his supporters, promoting sectarian hatred in Egypt..Something Mubarak did well to manage. Egyptians don't wanna live like Saudis and they will revolt.
Morsi IS toast!!! The MB in the region had their chance to shine and they blew it..Look what they're doing in Syria..Who in their right mind will want them to rule a country????
Posted by: Zico | Jul 2 2013 12:34 utc | 128
I really don't understand Iran's dreamy vision of Sunni islamists as their allies.
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 2 2013 12:53 utc | 129
The Paper
Why wouldnt Iran accept sunni islamists states?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 13:01 utc | 130
Arnold Evans
"I don't think after six election losses, people like Mina really believe they can win a fair election against the Islamists, because Egypt is an Islamic country and that is important to many Egyptians. She doesn't know she's working for the Americans to make Egypt less like a country accountable to voters and more like the US' other colonies in the area, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and others but she is."
Exactly and here is why many on left fails today, they have no idea whats going on in that region, instead adhering to the CNN-line.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 13:07 utc | 131
@What 'peter radiator | Jul 2, 2013 7:03:25 AM | 124' said, it is in line with my thoughts - if a technocrat rule was in place, happy days; most of Europe and world has a Holiday destination again, people are happy removes all the religious sentiment that should be private if anything, and the region moves on.
Then again I am not Egyptian...
Posted by: kev | Jul 2 2013 13:15 utc | 132
There is no such thing as an elected self-appointed leader. Morsi is the elected President of Egypt, ruling according to the Egyptian constitution that was ratified by a large majority of Egyptian voters.
If you're happy the first elected leader of Egypt which was a former US colony is toast then you never did favor democracy. You may claim democracy does not matter, but it's a question of whether or not you respect the people of Egypt to choose Egypt's leaders and policies rather than yourself and people who share your values but not necessarily Egyptians'.
The danger of Morsi to the US is not his personality. The US could maybe find relatively compliant leaders for its other colonies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and others.
The danger is that Morsi faces reelection and can only remain in power if the people of Egypt vote for him. So Morsi is accountable to the Egyptian people. The governments of the colonies are not. The US may use threats and pressure to get accommodation from Morsi on a case-by-case basis, but unlike Mubarak or the US' other colonies, Morsi needs Egypt's voters, not the US embassy to remain in power. If Egypt's voters want, that will lead to policies the US wants to avoid and it will increase the cost the US has to pay to gain cooperation with policies that are not in line with Egyptian values.
If most of the people of Egypt, not me, not even Mina, but if a majority of Egypt's voters think Morsi is not the best choice for any reason: too accommodating to Israel, too sectarian, too hostile to women, bad for tourism - whatever reason Egypt's voters think someone else would be better, they have the right to replace him in the next election or through the constitutional impeachment process by the legislature.
The holdover court has prevented elections to fill the legislature. Almost certainly this was done in concert with the US embassy. The delay of elections has robbed Egypt of what should have been the seventh test of strength between the secularists and Islamists. Egypt happens to be an Islamic country. Islam is important there. Islamists have an advantage because they reflect the values of more of the Egyptian people than their opponents.
The Islamists won the first six tests of strength, and they are not the ones stalling the seventh. The constitutional court keeps pushing it back. Instead, we are seeing rival protests with potential violence. In a country with a constitution and fair elections that is a shockingly bad way to try to change policy. But unfortunately there are a lot of people who do not respect Egypt's voters enough to resort to graceful peaceful tests of political strength.
It benefits the US and weakens Egypt to move away from the constitutional process.
What Morsi has done is completely defeat, until now, many direct threats to that process. He until now subordinated the Army, but the US spends $1.5 billion per year trying to undo that unfortunately seems to have made progress. He prevented the constitutional court from voiding both the constituent assembly and the remaining legislature body.
The complaints against Morsi are just plain false. They are of exactly the same nature as Republican complaints about Obama. Morsi is not responsible for the Western decisions to withhold funds. Nor for the cooperation of the US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others in this program to pressure Egypt.
The economic problems of Egypt are caused by the Western hostility to the idea of an independent Egypt. Not by Morsi. Morsi has saved rather than threatened the constitutional process that requires elections and reelections and has term limits for the President.
Mina should be protesting the constitutional court's refusal to allow elections for the People's Assembly. But unfortunately, whether she knows it or not, people like her are advancing the US' agenda of preventing governments from being accountable to the people instead of to the US Embassy.
Lastly, were there really 22 million signatures? Maybe. There has definitely been a well organized, certainly well funded anti-Morsi campaign in Egypt. Who organized and funded it? We may find out decades from now. It was confirmed almost 50 years later that the CIA was involved in overthrowing Mossadegh.
Egypt does not need signature contests or rival protests. Egypt has fair contested elections and representative bodies. If you don't like who is winning these elections and filling these legislative bodies, that is only because you, like the US, oppose democracy and do not believe the people of Egypt should determine the policies of the Egyptian government.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 13:26 utc | 133
Arnold Evans @ 133
Sorry to butt in but being "elected" doesn't give one the right to do whatever they like..Even if a leader's elected by a 65% margin, it still doesn't give them the right to impose their will on everyone. Otherwise, it becomes a totalitarian democracy - like they have in Turkey with Erdogan as the head.
The 30,40,49.999% who didn't vote for the president are also citizens of the country and must be heard. Morsi is ruling as if he was only elected by Takfiris and this is where the problem lies. Aside from the fact that he's also clueless.
I think the word "democracy" lost's it meaning as it's been thrown around and abused by those that see fit. Kinda like "anti Semitic"..Do you really believe America or any other European state is a true democracy??? In the US, it's even worse. They have this electoral college system that pretty much robs the majority of their votes..But that doesn't matter.
Most people in democratic Europe/West are against their government involvement in foreign wars but as we all know, their voices/opinions don't matter. This is democracy!!!
Posted by: Zico | Jul 2 2013 13:39 utc | 134
I definitely agree Arnold Evans deserves praise for wholeheartedly engaging in the discussion. That's why we come to this site.
@Anon "There is no financial disaster and what war are the preparing against an "old ally"?"
I'm not sure how you can deny there is a financial crisis in Egypt in front of all of these well-informed people. And the war against an old ally would be the jihadis Morsi is preparing to arm and send into Syria.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 2 2013 13:47 utc | 135
Zico, I read that so often I should have included it in the post above.
Sorry to butt in but being "elected" doesn't give one the right to do whatever they like..Even if a leader's elected by a 65% margin, it still doesn't give them the right to impose their will on everyone.
Morsi, by winning the election, has all of the rights that go to the President according to the Egyptian constitution. If that's what you mean by imposing his will on everyone, then yes, Morsi has the right to impose his will on everyone.
Morsi has not ended term limits or limited who can run against him for reelection. He has also not made lifetime appointments that the next elected President cannot reverse if that's what the Egyptian voters express that they want.
This Morsi is a dictator stuff is just nonsense. Morsi ensured that there is a constitution that he is subject to and if secularists become more popular, they will be able to do everything Morsi has done.
The US wants the military to which it gives $1.5 billion per year to stand between Egypt's voters and policy-making. As a "compromise" the US Embassy, through the military, will decide how many Islamists can run for which offices and have which powers.
That is disgustingly anti-democratic, disrespectful of the voters of Egypt and effectively in line with US policies in its other colonies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait - with the superficial difference of ultimately meaningless elections subject to military/US veto.
People who oppose letting Egypt's voters choose its leaders in elections are working for America, whether they understand that or not.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 13:52 utc | 136
As those 1.5 bln zus$ come up again and again ... does that really buy the Egypt military?
At first sight it looks like that. Egypt having a military budget of ca. 2.4 bln zus$ 1.5 bln zus$ is a major contribution.
Considering, however, the average Egyptian income and the demographic distribution, the mil. budget around 3.5% and some regional factors (like the mil. being involved in quite some companies), one can see that a) the non-personal related costs is 4 - 5 times the personel cost and b) the personel cost hovers around 0.5% of BIP.
In other words: While zusas 1.5 bln $ contribution is sure enough welcome and doubtlessly creates a certain influence it is by no means significant enough to plainly "buy" the Egypt military.
Furthermore, looking at Egypts potential as well as at the state of its weapons, zusa is doubtlessly more interested in regaining its investments through weapons sales, gaining a solid place in Egypts future economy, and keeping Egypt away from an evolution toward extreme or even anti-american position.
Considering that the Egyptians have thrown out one powerful dictator chances are that they will establish a more or less democratic system. This again means that the people (as opposed to just a dictator and some high ranking guys) have to be taken into account. Unlike in dictatorial times any profiteering in a future Egypt will very much depend on the peoples opinion concerning zusa.
So in my minds eye it seems somewhat over simplified to assume the often quoted equation "1.5 bln zus$ for the military = zusa more or less remote controls Egypts military".
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 14:19 utc | 139
The fact that the Egyptian army receives $1.3b in military aid from the US does not necessarily make it into a compliant US tool. What it means in practice is that a number of very senior officers make a great deal of money privately, in various ways we need not go into. But the Egyptian army is not their private fiefdom. I think it is probably fair to assume that the majority of junior and middle-ranking officers are still Nasserists. Nasser himself was only a colonel when he staged his coup, precisely against the corrupt generals of the day. Such patterns can repeat themselves. In contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood is run from the top by US agents.
We might also consider the possibilities of the Turkish army in this respect. I used to think (as I was doubtless supposed to think) that the Turkish army was a compliant US tool. When Erdogan came to power and the prosecutions against the army brass involved in the Ergenekon affair went into high gear, I assumed (as I was doubtless supposed to assume) that Erdogan was acting to thwart a CIA Gladio-type conspiracy. But the Turkish army officers' corps may be full of unreconstructed followers of Ataturk.
In both cases, we are talking about anti-colonial nationalism. When such movements come to power via military coups, they do not necessarily sell themselves immediately to the highest bidder. They are certainly not 'democrats' in the 'Jeffersonian sense' USAians talk so loftily about, or in any other. In fact, technically, they could be described as fascist: they want to build strong, independent states, and tend to retain capitalism while being intrusively dirigiste. But that may be the only way any country can avoid becoming a US pawn.
It was the same a hundred years ago, except the world empire of the day was Britain. It's very interesting to observe how modern world empires are made. It's done by means of the tacit complicity of a global network of central bankers, who agree to build one particular currency up to global supremacy over all the others. From time to time, they move shop, and the old 'global hegemon' very suddenly becomes a 'second-rank power'. Still, this is another story.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 2 2013 14:50 utc | 140
The Egyptian Twitterati should put up or shut up. What is Morsi supposed to do if the opposition refuses to engage in talks? Just like Syria, where an opposition (a minority opposition) believes that huffing and puffing will blow the house down - rejecting all moves for reconciliation and a national dialogue.
Morsi is the spawn of the revolution. 3 more years.
Posted by: Pat Bateman | Jul 2 2013 15:03 utc | 141
Zico
Thats the issue, Mursi hasnt taken any power as you claim.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 15:08 utc | 142
guest 77
That doesnt mean its a crisis. Syria and Egypt has been allied, that was like 40 years ago.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 15:10 utc | 143
@73
Uh, Gamal Abdul Nasser was a secularist leftist, and was against the US. Youre totally strawmanning.
I fail to see how you can think that pro-us is a leftist position, or a secular one for that matter?
By the way, Anonymous, would be nice if you actually used some kind of handle. You know, to call you something.
Posted by: Massinissa | Jul 2 2013 15:41 utc | 144
Arnold Evans: Dont you think most of this crisis could be resolved if the government just held an early election?
If 51% of the people still support him surely there is nothing to fear?
Posted by: Massinissa | Jul 2 2013 16:00 utc | 145
Egypt's voters are voting with their feet and they are kicking the sectarian inept corrupt MB out of power. They could have allied with the ones who wanted change, but they allied first with the army, then with the US and Israel (for fear they would stage a coup) and a somewhat later with the salafist and the gulf genocidal wahabists. But they never thought about allying with the people. They are well served by their decisions.
Of course the army will try to get their game going and to keep control of the state. It's the Egyptians task to make their plans fail like those of Mubarak (hereditary presidency) or MB (crony sectarian caliphate). The revolution continues.
And for the MB apologists claiming about 'democracy' which they don't really believe. 'Western democracy' governments all around have and are being kicked out by protests since parliamentary democracy was created. When it's pretty obvious that they have lost support of an important part of the population they are supposed to represent and serve. New elections or other mechanisms are used. Happened just a few weeks ago in Bulgaria (and still going after the opposition party somewhat won the new elections and some people still see them as the same problem).
Posted by: ThePaper | Jul 2 2013 16:14 utc | 146
Just like ThePaper states at #146, the first elected president of Brasil after the dictatorship was kicked out by means of parlamentary impeachment. And that was prompted by manifestations much, much less crowded and intense as the current ones going over there (which are not asking for any stepdown).
Posted by: citizen x | Jul 2 2013 16:39 utc | 147
Massinissa
I am not talking about this or that leader, I am talking about the people of egypt, today.
Why would Mursi held another election? Besides we see now that the opposition dont accept elections when Mursi/MB wins.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 16:42 utc | 148
This was probably an adendum to the U.S. financial package to the Egypt military.
Egypt protests: army threatens to dissolve parliament and suspend constitution if no breakthrough in talksEgypt's armed forces will suspend the constitution and dissolve parliament if talks between the government and opposition fail to reach a settlement by Wednesday, the country's military sources have warned.
The drastic measures, which would effectively push the country back towards military rule, are contained in a draft political roadmap that will the army will unroll if the current political deadlock is not resolved.
On Monday, the army gave the government and the opposition 48 hours to reach a political accommodation, in a bid to take the heat out of violent anti-government protests.
If that does not happen, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, known by its acronym of SCAF, will step in, military sources told the Reuters news agency on Tuesday evening.
Egypt possesses many historical relics, like the Pyramids of Ale, Luxor, the Finks, and all that stuff. Egypt should encourage tourism to see those wonderful wonders. Lot's of money in tourism. It would help if they made that Bangles song their anthem. Although there's a lot to be said for the Steve Martin "King Tut" number. There was once a Pharoah who went around correcting the Egyptians in the most minor matters. They called him King Tut-Tut! No, really.
Wait, I've got it! "There's Mor-si in Egypt!" (Get it? More to see!)
Posted by: Mooser | Jul 2 2013 16:52 utc | 150
This "crisis" should be resolved by holding free and fair elections for the people's assembly and transferring power when called for by the constitution of Egypt that was ratified by a large majority of voters. Amendments to the constitution should be made by the reasonable amendment procedure already ratified. Also Morsi should have to stand for reelection after his term unless the representatives of the Egyptian people impeach him according to the law before that.
Instead passing power under no law to the military which has been receiving annual billion dollar bribes from the US to influence Egyptian policy for decades is a huge step away from democracy, from anti-colonialism and from respect for the right of Egyptian voters to make Egyptian policy rather than the United States.
Anyone who favors passing power to the military rather than following the procedures ratified in the constitution is supporting American colonialism in Egypt.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 16:59 utc | 151
(Reuters) - Egypt's armed forces would suspend the constitution and dissolve parliament under a draft political roadmap to be pursued if Mursi and his opponents fail to reach a power-sharing agreement by Wednesday, military sources said. The sources told Reuters the SCAF was still discussing details of the plan. The sources said the military intended to install an interim council, composed mainly of civilians from different political groups and experienced technocrats, to run the country until an amended constitution was drafted within months. That would be followed by a new presidential election, but parliamentary polls would be delayed until strict conditions for selecting candidates were in force, they said. The armed forces planned to open talks with the main opposition National Salvation Front and other political, religious and youth organizations once a deadline set for Mursi to reach a power-sharing agreement expires on Wednesday. The sources would not say how the military intended to deal with Mursi if he refused to go quietly. The emerging roadmap could be amended as a result of those consultations, they said. Among figures being considered as an interim head of state was the new president of the constitutional court, Adli Mansour. The emerging army blueprint closely resembles proposals for a democratic transition put forward by the NSF, which appointed ElBaradei on Monday to negotiate with the military on the way forward. The military sources said the new transition arrangements would be entirely different from the military rule that followed the overthrow of Mubarak. Then, the armed forces' council held effective power but was widely criticized by liberal and left-wing politicians for failing to enact vital economic and political reforms, and siding with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 2 2013 17:47 utc | 152
What make you say Morsi has won "six times"? Could you be more specific?
If you had ever followed the Egyptian elections you would know that according to the law, new elections were supposed to be held as soon as the new constitution would be passed. This did not happen yet, because Morsi has postponed them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-egypt-elections-law-idUSBRE93A0J720130411
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Shura_Council_election,_2013
The referendum for the constitution witnessed only 33 percent of participation (most people were not aware about what it was about and because they had been told new elections were going to follow, many people did not see that it was important).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Egypt
As for the "Constituant assembly" which "approved it", half of its members had walked out, in particular the representatives of the opposition and of the minorities, to protest against a farce.
Sudan is governed by the Muslim Brothers, look at what they've done with a country that once had brilliant universities. Their openly "anti-US" calls do not prevent them to rent agricultural lands to the Gulf.
What makes you think Morsi is anti-American? He has been recruited in the muslim brotherhood while in America and until now he obeys the orders from Qatar day by day.
Again, I don't think in a democracy there should not be ways to destitute a president. Popular unrest is one.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 17:48 utc | 153
The only thing Morsi can do now is hold new elections. If he wins that one as well then so be it. But it seems very obvious that he does not hold a plurality of the nations support.
In a democracy, it is important that if a leader loses his majority, there should be new elections. If you vote for someone, and he angers you and many others who voted for him, how then is he legitimate?
Posted by: Massinissa | Jul 2 2013 17:54 utc | 154
I instinctively agree with Arnold Evans that the recent events in Egypt are "fundamentally disrespectful of the democratic process" and are "an attack against Egyptian democracy" (I say instinctively agree, as I lack the time to get more than superficial knowledge of what's really happening). Arnold Evans asked: "Which statement that I wrote do you believe is not true, if any?" My answer: Arnold Evans is wrong when he claims the recent events are "an attack, ultimately instigated by the United States, against Egyptian democracy" and are heading toward "the destruction, probably by the US, of Egypt's democratic system". The United States has nothing to do with this! It's all Egyptian politics in Egypt, by and for the Egyptians in (guess where?) Egypt.
The MB won the referendum on amending the constitution, then the people's assembly election, then the shura council election, then the first round of the presidency, then the second round president then the ratification of the constitution. In each case the Muslim Brotherhood side got the most votes.
The voters of Egypt are the only group that can decide who should make policy in Egypt and the voters of Egypt have six times expressed trust for the Muslim Brotherhood.
As you would expect, the MB has no problems with elections as soon as possible. The Constitutional Court, which is in open coordination with the US and the military, has been delaying the People's Assembly election.
Egyptian elections postponed until October
Electoral law considered unconstitutional by courts challenging president Morsi
This is a pure lack of respect for the voters of Egypt.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 17:59 utc | 156
Massanissa
Again, why would he? Obama doesnt have 50% approval does that mean US need new elections? Quite juvenile argumentation by you.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 18:02 utc | 157
I'd be shocked if the 22 million signatures campaign did not have Western and US organization and funding. But we're not going to see that for a while so it's just speculation. The United States did not intend to allow Egyptian policy to be accountable to Egypt's voters with no opposition at all.
Also there is absolutely no chance the military is voiding all elections and the constitution without clearance from the US. That's absurd.
This is not just Egyptian. The elections were just Egyptians and the MB won a string of them.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 18:04 utc | 158
The Tamarod movement had a clear list of desiderata, and have already said who should rule the country for an interimary period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_%28movement%29), but as usual the US knows better:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/02/officials-u-s-urges-morsy-to-call-early-elections-warns-military-against-coup/
As for the investors, they would be happy with the ousting of Morsi,
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/75512/Business/Economy/Egypt-stocks-close-on-whopping--rise-Tuesday-.aspx
Egyptians are proud. Being the 21st governorate of Saudi Arabia is not on their menu (but it is the dream of Egyptian expatriates in the Gulf, who happen, alas, to vote massively in elections).
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 18:06 utc | 159
You either respect election results or you do not Mina. Morsi won more votes from Egyptians than his opponents. If you want to see the military void the election, it's because you lost and because you don't respect the voters who won.
I think you'll even admit that. Mina, you don't respect the people who voted for Morsi, do you?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 18:15 utc | 160
Look, it seems like a deaf dialogue.
There are 14 million people in the streets, you understand?
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 18:18 utc | 161
Mina
Again it doesnt matter if it is 1000 or 1 million people out, in democracies you cant overthrow a government just because the side you voted for lost the election.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 18:21 utc | 162
It seems that some reduce democracy down to elections. Actually the very principle of democracy is the rule of the majority (but for all and respecting the rights of minorities, too).
Elections, however, stem from practical necessities and technicalities and are merely a practical implementation of finding out about the majorities will. They are merely "probes" into the sometimes more and sometimes less shifting stream of a peoples wishes, needs and preferences.
Ideally, a democracy would probe every day or at least whenever a not insignificant issue comes up. Practically this is evidently not feasible, therefore probes are taken that is, elections are held every 4 to 6 years in most democracies.
So, when a very considerable part of the citizen clearly show their discontent and when supposedly even many of those who voted for morsi are on the streets, one can not simply ask them to wait another 3 years because, you know, morsi won the election. That position just elevates a technicality to a basic prinicple - which it is not.
morsis - and for that matter any leaders in a democratic system - power is based on the will of the majority which is typically but not always - and not only - expressed in elections.
Right now, for instance, the will of the people and quite probably a majority is expressed clearly and evidently on the street.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 18:25 utc | 163
Mina:
There's been a successful campaign to bring people to the streets. We don't know who organized and paid for the campaign, but if there was a successful campaign to bring out voters, and that side got more votes than the MB's side, then that is the way Egypt's policy should change.
The Mubarak-era court is delaying the vote for the People's Assembly which can bring impeachment proceedings if that's what the people of Egypt's representatives choose.
Instead you're calling for a process with no rules, directed probably from the US embassy by the Egyptian military that has been taking billion dollar bribes from the US to set policy for decades.
Do you respect the people who voted for Morsi or not?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 18:26 utc | 164
It seems some here are considering that a president who has just in the last two weeks
- called for war on another country (namely Syria, namely by promessing to sent 1 million djihadists),
- publicly supported attacks on minorities (namely the Shiites, who exist in Egypt at least since the 9th century, and who have founded al Azhar)
- is facing demonstrations gathering one fourth of the country's population,
does not lose his legitimacy.
Sounds like Israeli politics to me.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 18:30 utc | 165
Mr. Pragma:
I'm going to assume you're aware of the impeachment process of the Egyptian constitution. What makes you consider it unreasonable that instead of following it, power should go without any legal basis to the military?
Mina:
If everything you say is true, but Morsi got more votes than his opponents and is not impeached by the People's Assembly whose elections the Mubarak-era courts are delaying, certainly in coordination with the US Embassy, then Morsi should not be removed from office.
Do you respect the people who voted for Morsi Mina?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 18:34 utc | 166
Mr Pragma
"It seems that some reduce democracy down to elections. Actually the very principle of democracy is the rule of the majority (but for all and respecting the rights of minorities"
Again you try to use western views on demcoracy on non western states, I have told you this before, why do you keep doing it?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 18:41 utc | 167
As you know, the Egyptian army's statement issued yesterday was intended to induce constructive dialog and negotiations among the contesting political opinions -- that's according to the words of the statement itself. Now here's from today's news from Egypt:
(1) The liberal opposition coalition has ruled out even starting negotiations with Mursi, saying they are simply waiting for the expiry of the deadline, which was set on Monday in dramatic fashion by General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the military chief-of-staff. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/02/us-egypt-protests-idUSBRE95Q0NO20130702(2) The anti-Morsi Rebel campaign has released a statement saying that it will participate in the negotiations called for by the armed forces to set a new road map. The Rebel’s central committee announced that 90 percent of the campaign’s organising committee have agreed to participate in the negotiations, declaring them “a dialogue for handing over power” -- i.e. they intend the negotiations to cover nothing more than the details of how the government performs its abdication. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/1/75511/Egypt/Live-updates-Egypt-takes-to-the-streets-as-army-de.aspx
Thus the army's statement has subverted the democratic institutions, and empowered the rebels. This is bad for the institutions, as Arnold has been emphasizing.
What's bad for the institutions is bad for the country, because these institutions of power are the only workable framework anybody knows of for the contest of conflicting political ideas, except for the framework of sheer violence. And a basic part of the democracy framework is that the citizens consent to submit to the Rule of Law and to wait till the next scheduled free and fair election contest as the only legitimate instrument for trying to unseat the government.
Massinissa #145 said: "Dont you think most of this crisis could be resolved if the government just held an early election? If 51% of the people still support the government surely there is nothing to fear?"
Arnold Evans #156 said: "the MB has no problems with elections as soon as possible."
Okay, there's the simple peaceful solution. Let's have early elections.
Parviziyi
Thats not how democracies work. Assad in Syria offered elections too and was rejected by the opposition just like the egyptian opposition refuse this because they know very well that they would loose.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 19:04 utc | 171
The Tamarod petition has an article to complain about the fact Morsi that he was following into US footsteps too closely (but it was also in the link posted above about the Tamarod (Rebel) movement on their Wikipedia page) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23142387
It seems that the MB have forgotten to appoint someone to show some support in the comments section of this CNN blog (which indicates that Obama threatens the Egyptian army of cutting the aid, if it dare make a coup against Morsi), maybe some readers of MoA could help?
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/02/officials-u-s-urges-morsy-to-call-early-elections-warns-military-against-coup/
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 19:08 utc | 172
Arnold Evans (166)
I'm going to assume you're aware of the impeachment process of the Egyptian constitution. What makes you consider it unreasonable that instead of following it, power should go without any legal basis to the military?
Well, while I can see your point I tend to consider it somewhat theoretical in this case. morsi has already before ... uh ... strongly influenced the organs of justice and I, and more importantly probably many Egyptians, might not be unreasonable when asking what the value of an impeachment process in a ... uh ... shifted (favouring morsi and his mb gang) judicial system might be.
Furthermore, I understand your concerns about the military (re?)taking power. I do, however, also see two other factors: a) the Egypt military has so far neither put itself against the people nor has it rudely putsched morsi out of power. It seems therefore not an unreasonable assumption that the military actually might dethrone morsi - but not to take power itself but rather to accompany and protect the process toward a new proper government and/or to administer the state affairs until a democratic and widely agreeable solution is found.
Second, I see that the military quite probably (sorry, I'm not an expert for Egypt constituational or legal matters) has the protection of the people and the state of Egypt written in teir books as one high priority. As long as they do not usurp or unconstitutionally abuse their power but rather use it to protect the people and the state I do see that well based in the constitution. And yes, I know that's sometimes a very thin line * sigh
Front up: Apologies to other users for getting somewhat direct here ...
Anonymous (167)
Again you try to use western views on demcoracy on non western states, I have told you this before, why do you keep doing it?
First: Who the f*ck do you think you are? My professor? My father? Stop annoying me and rather try to trim your arrogance and replace it with some sound reasoning.
Second: While, from what I know, many detail issues in the implementation of a democratic state are - rightfully and understandably - different from typical western implementations, I have not yet come over an eastern definition of democratic principles that are different from western ones. So, what are you blabbering about?
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 19:13 utc | 173
170:
I was referring to Elections for the People's Assembly which are being delayed by the Constitutional Court.
Egypt Court Cancels Parliamentary Elections
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/world/middleeast/egypt-court-cancels-parliamentary-elections.html?_r=0
The main anti-Islamist political coalition had already declared that it would boycott the coming elections, demanding the restoration of stability before any vote as well as an overhaul of Egypt’s new Constitution. The coalition’s withdrawal effectively turned the vote into a contest among moderate, conservative and ultraconservative Islamists, while ensuring that anti-Islamists would continue to assail the government’s legitimacy whatever the outcome.
I'm also posting a reminder of the collusion between the Constitutional Court, the US and the military. The only thing new in the past weeks is a campaign to add the cover of people in the streets. Again, who organized and paid for that campaign? We'll have to wait if we want confirmation.
When the military first seized power, it positioned itself as a guardian of the peaceful revolution, a force that was aimed at helping achieve the goals of a democratic Egypt. Demonstrators in Tahrir Square chanted that the people and the military were one, and there were promises of a quick transition to civilian control.
But the evidence since then has piled up demonstrating that the military had never intended to fully submit to democratically elected authority.
Now as Egypt’s new, popularly elected president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, tries to fashion a role for himself as head of state, he is facing a military council that retains virtually all executive and legislative authority. The generals have again pledged to transfer power after a new Parliament is elected and a Constitution drafted.
Some argue that this is in Egypt’s best interest.
The generals “want to make sure before they leave that the Constitution is not monopolized by any group or direction,” said Anwar el-Sadat, nephew of the former president and a member of the Parliament that was dissolved. He was referring to the Islamists, who had won control of the Parliament and went on to win the presidency.
One side is following the established rules and the expressed preferences of the Egyptian people and the other side does not respect either the idea of democracy or the people of Egypt.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 19:16 utc | 174
Mr Pragma
Please keep a mature tone. If you arent prepared to learn something, well why are you here arguing for?
I am glad that you however admit you lack definitions on the view of democracies globally thats what I have been trying to say to you over and over again. For example the minority argument you used are a typically western invention.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 19:17 utc | 175
Mr. Pragma,
You're just babbling now.
Mina,
You can answer yes or no. Do you respect the people who voted for Morsi or not?
If you refuse to answer, that's actually an answer.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 19:20 utc | 176
Evans, please stop babbling and open the links I have pasted. I was in Egypt during several of the elections you claim to have followed and have heard from very different people about the irregularities. Look at the results of the first tour of the presidential elections, understand that when people are not used to vote, you can't tell them once "there is a fine if you don't vote" and another time "there is no fine (and by the way there is no public transportation to go to the polling station nor gas for your car)".
You have not answered on the "liberalities" taken with the constitution, with the fact half the constituent assembly has walked out, on the fact people did not feel the urge to vote in the parliamentary election because they had been told new elections would be held after the constitution would pass (except for the MB and Salafis who got free busses and Qatari-paid meat and gifts).
Worse than that you don't answer on the calls for public lynching and the jokes on raped women that one can see on religious channels so frankly, your opinion does not interest me, and I believe my opinion certainly does not interest you.
The US administration is now denying the statements published by CNN, so it might be a good idea to paste what CNN has published:
The Obama administration is urging Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy to call early elections and has warned the Egyptian military that it risks losing U.S. aid if it carries out a military coup amid the political crisis, senior administration officials tell CNN.
At the same time, the officials stopped short of saying Morsy should step down immediately.
"We are saying to him, 'Figure out a way to go for new elections,'" one senior official said. "That may be the only way that this confrontation can be resolved."
The White House disputed the characterization the administration was "urging" Morsy to call early elections.
National Security Council Spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said, "It is not accurate that the United States is 'urging' President Morsy to call early elections. President Obama has encouraged President Morsy to take steps to show that he is responsive to the concerns of the Egyptian people and underscored that the current crisis can only be resolved through a political process. As the President has made clear since the revolution, only Egyptians can make the decisions that will determine their future.”
In multiple conversations with Morsy and his aides, the pther officials said, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson and other senior State Department officials have explained that the demands the Egyptian people are making on the street are similar to the ones both Washington and allies have been urging Egypt to take for weeks.
"We are trying to get President Morsy to appoint a new prime minister, a new Cabinet, and get rid of the prosecutor general," one senior official said. "This is the kind of outreach he needs to do to demonstrate to the opposition that he is governing all Egyptians. So far he hasn't done anything to show that."
President Barack Obama reiterated that Morsy must take action in his phone call to the Egyptian leader on Monday, the officials said.
Although the officials said nothing in the Egyptian constitution gives Morsy the authority to call for new elections, they say it may be the only way to end the political crisis that has engulfed Egypt.
Officials have also warned the Egyptian military that a military coup would trigger U.S. legislation cutting off all U.S. aid, which totals about $1.5 billion per year.
"There are specific consequences," the senior official said. "As much as we appreciate their statement that they intend to protect the Egyptian people, they need to be careful about how they inject themselves into the situation. We are telling them that playing a role with their ultimatum to get the two sides together is completely appropriate, but anything that looks like a military takeover is walking a very thin line."
Conversations with the opposition have basically reiterated the U.S. line to the government and military, the officials said.
The United States has been concerned about the perception that the Obama administration was in support of Morsy, but officials hoped the deliberately-muted U.S. response to the Egyptian military's statement would signal the United States does not support the president's non-democratic behavior.
"We really have been pushing him since his November 23 constitutional fiasco," another official said.
One senior official said the United States doesn't know how the political crisis will end, and doesn't know the opposition's bottom line.
"We aren't sure they know their bottom line," the official added.
Posted by: Mina | Jul 2 2013 19:31 utc | 177
Anonymous (175)
I gave you a new change and you disqualified again. Sorry. Annoy someone else.
Arnold Evans (176)
You consistently ignore whatever considerations and arguments you are offered and rather try to limit and force others ("You can answer yes or no.") or try to marginalize them.
Your attempt to again (although this time someone else, Mina) force others for example into your black and white rasters fails to convince.
It starts with "respect". What does "respect" in "Do you respect the people who voted for Morsi or not?" mean?
To top it you conveniently ignore that not few of the protesters actually *are* people who have voted for morsi. So, do they dis-respect themselves? morsi? democracy?
Of course, you also - and very bluntly so - lack any respect for those on the street. May there be millions, may there be good reason to assume that actually a majority is against morsi, you don't care; all you have to tell them is "morsi was elected".
Well, Hitler was elected, too. And with a majority. Was that to be respected, too? Even when he changed laws and built up a diktatur? Even when he attacked or took over other countries?
And no, this is not way off; actually there is something important in common with morsi. Both, Hitler and morsi were not elected in normal times but in "tight" situations. And, as it seems, both did major things with "their" countries and went way off what very many even of their voters wanted.
You can talk all day and bend things any way you like, that doesn't change one very important fact: A leader not only without a majority (here and now) but actually with a major part of the citizens enraged against him does not have legitimicy.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 19:39 utc | 178
There should already have been elections for the People's Assembly. Again, the Constitutional Court prevented those elections. Again, the Constitutional Court openly believes the military should not be under the control of elected officials in order to be free to continue to pursue policies on behalf of the United States.
Once the People's Assembly is in place, if the representatives of the Egyptian people want Morsi out, they have legal mechanisms to make that happen.
The US, the Military and the Constitutional Court are subverting democracy with the assistance of some naive if passionate supporters such as Mina.
You either respect the people who voted for Morsi or you do not.
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 19:39 utc | 179
@ Anonymous #171: I'm told that if elections were held today the Muslim Brotherhood's party would get a whole lot less votes than in last year's elections, particularly among the lower-middle classes. At #22 'b' said Morsi's approval rating in polls is now about 25%, down from about 75% during Morsi's "honeymoon period" last year. Some other items of evidence that the MB's popular support has been seriously slipping among the lower-middle classes, dated 26 Jun 2013: http://imanbibars.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/what-is-happening-in-egypt-my-opinion-as-an-egyptian/ . If early elections were called, the various non-MB political parties in Egypt would gain more power from it.
How about "morsi, you respect the majorities' will or you don't".
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 19:45 utc | 181
Mr Pragma
I am not too conerned that you reject to answer, I am more interested in demolish your arguments for others here.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 19:52 utc | 182
Anonymous (182)
At least you are profoundly funny. Thanks for giving me a good, loud laughing.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 20:01 utc | 183
I'm in agreement with Arnold regarding the legitimacy of elections and lack of legitimacy of a military coup. But I do not think the US is trying to orchestrate a coup against him. He has been as compliant with US/Israeli wishes as just about any president could be. Sadly, the worse the economic condition becomes, the more Egypt depends on external financing, the less maneuver room any president will have to resist western diktats.
Also, Morsi's anti Shia' sectarianism has been put on display in the hopes of getting the Salfists on side. The mob murder of Sheikh Shehata, Egypt's top Shia' cleric, along with 4 companions was, IMHO, a serious turning point for many. The government's condemnations that followed seemed weak and hedged.
Morsi's best bet right now is to submit to early elections, alongside a new parliamentary elections. He would be wise to invite the opposition to write a new constitution, or propose amendments to the existing one and have the public vote on that as well. I'm sure Arnold would point out, correctly in my view, that it is unfair to force Morsi to submit to another election before his term ends. But given his current circumstances, it is his best chance of survival. Morsi has taken a huge hit in popularity, but I'm not sure any opposition candidate could actually beat him.
He can also challenge Baradei, who seems to be leading the opposition, to run against him.
Mina, I'm Egyptian like yourself, though I left at a very young age. If you don't mind, who was your choice in the first round elections last year?
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 2 2013 20:05 utc | 184
Lysander (184)
I'm in agreement with Arnold regarding the legitimacy of elections and lack of legitimacy of a military coup.
The military demanding the will of the people to be taken as binding guideline is not yet a coup. And even if the military ousted that would not necessary or automatically be a coup. The military could, for instance, simply arrange for new elections (rather than to take the power themselves).
I'm sure Arnold would point out, correctly in my view, that it is unfair to force Morsi to submit to another election before his term ends.
This basically comes down to "democracy is to be elected and then to do whatever ones pleases - including illegitimately changing the rules, running counter the division of power principle or even having the opposition shot".
No!
morsi has not been elected king or dictator, nor has he been given carte blanche for 4 years. He has been elected to do something well defined, namely to implement the will of the majority. Evidently having failed to do that he has no right whatsoever to complete his term, no matter what.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 20:31 utc | 185
Lysander
"I'm in agreement with Arnold regarding the legitimacy of elections and lack of legitimacy of a military coup. But I do not think the US is trying to orchestrate a coup against him. He has been as compliant with US/Israeli wishes as just about any president could be. "
Actually the pro western liberal/secular protesters would be to the interests of the US and Israel.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 20:40 utc | 186
Lysander:
Do you think the military is acting against the wishes of the United States when it signals that it is preparing to remove Morsi from power?
Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jul 2 2013 21:01 utc | 187
In continuation from Parviziyi #180 against Anonymous #171: In last year's Egypt presidential election, the opposition candidate Ahmed Shafiq got 48.27% of the votes, and the winner Morsi got just 51.73%. That is very different from the political landscape in Syria. (In Syria no opposition candidate could get even remotely close to the share of votes that the loser got in Egypt, even in the impossible scenario where all Syrian opposition factions united behind a single opposition candidate for president).
Mr Pragma, what are the criteria for deciding a president has overstepped his bounds and needs to be overthrown? I personally can't stand Morsi or the brothers. But the precedent being set that elected officials can be overthrown by mass movement is a bad one and it will bedevil whoever is president next. The same economic problems will be there. Do you think the Islamists will quietly accept being overthrown by mass protests and the Army? Do you think they will not be able to do the same thing themselves?
Anon, 186. Doubtful. The Nasser and Assad (father and son) were the most consistently anti-Zionist leaders the Arab world ever had. The "Islamic" Persian Gulf monarchies have been the most consistent puppets. It is the west's "Islamic" useful idiots who are trying to destroy Syria right now.
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 2 2013 21:12 utc | 189
Lysander
Please dont make this into an religious argument.
The opposition wont be no "useful idiots" instead they will make their ties to US and Israel more open than Mursi ever did.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 21:17 utc | 190
@Anon "Please keep a mature tone." "demolish your arguments..."
You're really being juvenile now. Mr. Pragma is making solid points. Let someone mature like Arnold take them on if you can't without acting like this is recess.
Arnold, you make good points, but your final calculation seems to be the one the powerful always offer to the powerless: "you're with us or against us, you respect us or you don't."
If that's all Morsi has to offer - this zero sum game of bowing to him and his policies - he's going to go. That's all there is too it.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 2 2013 21:18 utc | 191
Arnold, the precise wishes of the United states, beyond whatever is best for Israel, are not entirely clear. IMHO I think the US would have been perfectly happy had the protests never happened and Morsi went about doing whatever he wanted inside Egypt, so long as Gaza stayed closed, security cooperation with Israel continued, and-as an added bonus-anti Shia sectarian tensions were inflamed.
Now it is possible, though I doubt it, that Morsi was cooperating as he had to while secretly working to regain control of the state bureaucracy. His call for a NATO imposed no-fly zone and invitation to Egyptians to go fight in Syria dissuaded me of that notion.
Yes, the army is very much supported by the US. The trouble is, so are the brothers. If the opposition aren't influenced by the US now, they soon will be.
There is no outcome, with Morsi or without, that will allow Egypt to break free of the US orbit. What is needed for that is another sponsor nation, but there aren't any who think it is worth their while. It is possible that in some years a combination of Iraq, Iran and Russia would be able to support an Egypt independent from the US, but that's a long way off, if ever.
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 2 2013 21:26 utc | 192
@Anon "Actually the pro western liberal/secular protesters would be to the interests of the US and Israel."
Really, this is just the silliest. most simplistic formulation possible. I might say I've already told you that once.
But seriously, if you believe that 22 million Egyptians are marching on the streets - risking their lives for the second time in a couple years (at least 800 were brutally killed last time round) - for the "interests of the US and Israel" you're out of your mind.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 2 2013 21:28 utc | 193
guest77
You seems to missunderstand, I have nowhere stated that these people demonstrate because they back the US. They demonstrate due domestic reasons for one.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 21:35 utc | 194
@Anon "instead they will make their ties to US and Israel more open than Mursi ever did."
I'd suggest to you that that would be impossible.
Posted by: guest77 | Jul 2 2013 21:37 utc | 195
Lysander
Agree. The problem is the army indeed, they have too much power especially dangerous when they have strong ties to the US.
After Mubarak went, the military should have been rebuilt.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 21:37 utc | 196
@Lysander and Arnold Evans
Lysander says:
"IMHO, the fall of Morsi will create a huge number of embittered Islamists who will feel cheated by a democratic process in which they competed and won."(#104)
*IF* there is a strong evidence that a president has lost his majority support and people feel strongly enough about him to demand his term being cut short and an early election, there is absolutely nothing "illegitimate" or "undemocratic" about that, provided that the sitting president is allowed to run in the early elections along with his opposition.
People owe NOTHING to their elected officials, and the elected officials have legitimacy only so long as they have majority's support.
Having said that, Morsi did not have majority's support even when he was elected in 2012 (%27 of eligible voters). Still one could argue that in 2012 at least he had more support than his opponents. *IF* there is a strong evidence that he may no longer have a support even bigger than his opponents, then there is no reason not to go for early elections. Now so far as I understand MB can no longer bring into streets crowds larger than Morsi opponents. That to me is a strong enough evidence to go for early elections PROVIDED that Morsi is allowed to run in this round of elections too.
"...lack of legitimacy of a military coup. But I do not think the US is trying to orchestrate a coup against him. He has been as compliant with US/Israeli wishes as just about any president could be." (#184)
I agree with Lysander on this part 100%. I wish Arnold would explain which part of Morsi's policies USA finds objectionable, which would require that they would try to bring a "coup" against him? What has Morsi done so radically different from Mubarak which would require a "coup"? Do you (Arnold) think that it was USA which destabilized Mubarak's Egypt in 2011? If USA did not try to bring Mubarak down, why would you think it would try to bring Morsi down?
By the way Arnold, you never made any comments on the Iranian elections (2013) and how democratic that one was? I remember that you were really upset about Khairat El-Shater being disqualified from 2012 elections.
Do you feel as strongly about Rahim Mashaei and Rafsanjani (the two major candidates in the elections) being disqualified? How much legitimacy do you think Rowhani has? How much legitimacy do you think ElBaradei would have had, if -in a hypothetical situation- only Omar suleiman, Ahmed Shafiq, Gamal Mubarak were allowed to run against ElBaradei and we had ElBaradei as the winner?
"Sadly, the worse the economic condition becomes, the more Egypt depends on external financing, the less maneuver room any president will have to resist western diktats." (Lysander #184)
And the more your "presidents" submit to the Western diktats the more dependent your economy becomes and the more enslaved your country becomes.
Sadly there is no easy way out. Unless your people realize that the only way out is resistance even at the cost of famine. Until then you will be doomed to jump from Mubarak, to SCAF, from SCAF to Morsi, from Morsi to SCAF(?) to ElBaradei(?), to Khairat El-Shater (?) etc. You will be in the vicious cycle of going back and forth between the secular and Islamic versions of neoliberalism, and all the time submitting more and more to the Empire and its strongest ally in this region (ie. Israel)
Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jul 2 2013 21:44 utc | 197
guest77
Not impossible at all in fact, if the westernized leader El'baradei now rumored to be elected as the leader of the opposition it shows where this is going.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2013 21:51 utc | 198
Pirouz, 197, I think you've just encapsulated the US plan. How to fight it is a different matter.
Posted by: Lysander | Jul 2 2013 21:57 utc | 199
Lysander (189)
Mr Pragma, what are the criteria for deciding a president has overstepped his bounds and needs to be overthrown?
It seems to me that part of the problem (at least in the discussion here) is lack of differentiation, exaggeration, and mixing up diverse threads.
I don't think, this is really about overthrowing, a putsch or the like.
First and foremost it's about very, very many people - many of them morsi voters - who feel deceived (don't put that word on the fine scale, OK).
Here ...
Do you think the Islamists will quietly accept being overthrown by mass protests and the Army?
... you describe quite well, what generates so much heat.
*any* Egypt president - incl. morsi - had to not ignore but somehow balance the (partially radically) diverse factions and groups in Egypt.
While it is difficult to find the right way to do that, one thing is strikingly evident: The solution was and will not be to take the banner of one of those groups and to carry it to the extreme.
That's also why I have limited trust in the Egypt army. They themselves, at least throughout the ranks, widely consist of people of all those diverse corners and factions; they can not possibly be interested to simply choose another groups banner and to carry it into some extreme corner. And actually what they did does seem to support my assumption; they chose the one group everyone in Egypt can accept: the people.
While morsis faction, the muslim brotherhood, is a particularly ugly faction, the real issue at hand is not pro- or anti mb. It rather is to
somehow identify and elect to power a *uniting* or at least not further splitting president.
The problem is bad and hard enough. There is simply no need and it's sure enough not helpful to escalate or complicate the matter by exaggerations ("putsch"), mixing in additional factors ("does israels bidding") unless, of course, they are well established to be relevant and proven, and to generally paint the anyway complicated picture dark and unsurmountable.
Whatever is done by whomever, nobody whoever can somehow magically make "the other", the unwelcome factions vanish in air. And sure enough at the end of the day every faction must have something on their plate, none can be simply ignored as "evil"; consisting of millions of people is by itself a reason to exist and not be ignored.
That's also one reason why I'm so opposed to A. Evans' black and white stance. Because neither faction is a solution, not morsi nor the opposition, not leaving morsi in power, nor putsching against him per se.
The solution will necessarily be some shade of grey allowing all major factions some freedom and participation and at the same time demanding all of them some restraint and willingness to meet on some middle ground.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 2 2013 21:58 utc | 200
The comments to this entry are closed.
Arnold Evans | Jul 1, 2013 8:05:30 PM | 97, 1. Weakening of ‘Tourism’, becoming strictly Islamic will kill tourism, unless it hold jihad retreats? As for ‘Withholding funds’ is not like it's their money, for the most part it’s given for a returns, you make it sound like a debt owed or even earned for that matter. Yet he did get 1 billion, and the fruits of that are negative thus far.
You state "Which specific policy does someone claim is going to prevent a non-MB candidate from winning the presidency after Morsi's term if that candidate is more popular?" then give your own answer "The only way Egypt can have a better next president is if there is a competitive process free of outside/US influence to select Egyptian leaders".
As for anti-Islamist, sure, this is about running a Country politically and economics not religiously and ideology based madness.
Where does one start - Morsi purged key judicial officials and issued a decree that granted himself sweeping new powers - He stated court cant overturn him! He is not governing, rather enforcing an Islamic religious ideology. As a result Egypt has now a new constitution which approved only by 20% of the registered voters and does not represent the country Christians, women, journalists, farmers, academics, liberals, labour and moderate Muslims as representatives of all these groups withdrew from the writing assembly protesting the marginalization of their views by the Islamists.
Morsi’s police killed some 100 protesters and injured thousands during his first seven months in office, not back going for the winds of change.
Remember back - Morsi in 2010 as a MB’s leader asked Egyptians to ‘‘nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred,’’ and referred to Zionists as bloodsuckers who attack Palestinians, describing Zionists as ‘‘the descendants of apes and pigs.’’ So he is not diplomatic, he is radical. On either side that is not good or moving forward.
OK, The Muslim Brotherhood is all about democracy - It opposes Syria’s Assad because it supports democracy? Morsi visits Sudanese butcher Omar al-Bashir because he is a great fella? OK, just because Omar has a friend or two like Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Obama’s cousin in Kenya, then I guess it’s fine, but the name ‘Butcher’ did not come from the family business in supply of goat meat. Then Morsi warned about the common enemies that want the two Islamist regimes to be divided – Who, is still speculation, but take a stab in the dark.
George Orwell’s dictum: “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.”
Posted by: kev | Jul 2 2013 0:57 utc | 101