Why would being a be democracy contingent on apathy between elections? It may be a bit unwieldy in the case of Egypt but you don't necessarily have to have elections to still be a democratic nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Printable View
Why would being a be democracy contingent on apathy between elections? It may be a bit unwieldy in the case of Egypt but you don't necessarily have to have elections to still be a democratic nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Democracy is somewhat an elected dictatorship between elections.
I beg to differ.
By a bit of apathy I mean not ousting an elected official by unsactioned means. By subscribe I mean following the rules layed out before the election ever took place even if it doesn't go your way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
BTW, I don't know of any democratic nations that don't use elections to fill leadership positions. Maybe some tiny island nations I guess?
I know the origin of that line of thought but it's still ridiculous. You could as easily say that direct democracy is a dictatorship after an issue has been voted on. The implication of the statement is that anything but anarchy is dictatorship. And that's a bit of an over-definition of dictatorship.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Hence the word somewhat. Its not exactly one but democracy doesn't work if people won't expect the result.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/wo...ned-morsi.html Bureaucratic coup. :noob:
I am trying to wrap my mind around the kind of reasoning I get from a young guy from Egypt. According to him the old Mubarak state was a horrible police state (that part I could still get) but the risks of a Mursi theocracy according to him were so bad that he was seriously happy that a revered institution like the army was taking over; they would control both police brutality and Islamism. How naive.
The Egyptians have a weird relationship with their military (which, I should note, hasn't won a major war in its entire history). They see that it's part of the autocratic elite, they see that it's engaged in human rights violations, they see that it controls a large part of the economy, and yet they believe the military only has the interests of the nation at heart...
And now the Islamists are blaming the US/Israeli/Christian/Martian nexus for the coup: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/wo...hristians.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=QeDm2PrNV1I
Is this for real or is it a clip from the upcoming Ender's Game movie? respec'
That was a quite impressive monologue indeed. Even if he memorized it.
The thing is that I have little hope for these countries untill they manage to write a Constitution which contains no references to a source of legislation outside its own remit. Holy books nor their interpretation have any place in a basic law.
Dictatorship is a Democracy, elections are just held less regularly and more violently.Quote:
Democracy is somewhat an elected dictatorship between elections.
That is because you live in one of the few countries if not the only country where there is an actual democracy rather then illusion of democracy. And even here since late 1990s I am not entirely convinced that the government is not passing certain laws that are not in the interest of the country by either not publicizing them sufficiently or misinforming the public as to the consequences. I in particular refer to the war Swiss government is waging on its own banking sector.Quote:
I beg to differ.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/wo.../egypt.html?hp
What is the Egyptian left thinking? They're not content with gaining power; they want to annihilate the Brotherhood as well. The same Brotherhood that has the support of ~60% of Egyptians (another 20% are to the social right of the Brotherhood).
Must be faux political reporting from the NYT, huh.
So... given the latest clusterfuck, are we looking at more years of de facto military dictatorship? A real transition to democratic government in Egypt is seeming less and less likely. I think the US is also going to get put in a very tricky situation vis-a-vis military and economic aid. Obviously the current situation is unacceptable, but withdrawing aid eliminates our leverage and can have other unfortunate knock-on effects.
Meanwhile, the Sinai is increasingly lawless and we're seeing stepped-up Israeli military activity on the border - just this past week there were rumors of an airstrike in Egyptian territory, there have been occasional rockets lobbed at Eilat or elsewhere, and Israel has quietly moved more troops and surveillance to the border. Are we looking at a new norm - a lawless border/desert region while the military concentrates its hold on the major cities? This does not bode well for regional stability.
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of "leverage" is if it can't be employed without removing the "leverage"...
I agree in principle, Loki, but IMO the leverage is really to keep the Sinai largely demilitarized, not to affect domestic Egyptian politics. The country has been run as a military fiefdom since Nasser took power, this isn't actually that different. Is it worth sacrificing our pull in the country (and potentially seeing a realignment with some not-so-friendly countries) over a return to essentially the status quo?
Personally, I question whether the US' guarantee of the Camp David Accords is actually necessary any more, but then again I wasn't alive during the existential concerns of the 60s and 70s, so what do I know?
I think we're sufficiently hated by all sides involved that nothing we do in the short-term would improve our long-term influence with either side. We will be viewed as self-interested traitors by both sides unless we 100% back one of them, which isn't wise for a whole slew of reasons. It's probably in our interest to just stay on the sidelines and tolerate the abuse that will get leveled at us by both sides than to get involved and inflame the situation.
This whole mess makes me think of looking on while two school yard bullies give eachother a bloody nose.
The alternative is getting beat up by both of them. The "liberals" in Egypt are showing their true face though; they're more interested in wiping away ideological opponents than in having anything resembling a democracy.
'The liberals' ? I'd say 'The Egyptians'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I just reread our first Egypt thread a couple years back. It's fascinating how many of us (including myself) were wrong on many projections, but essentially right on others.
Indeed, I didn't expect the Ancien Regime to come back quite the way it did. Though the army seems to have the backing of a large proportion of Egyptian society as they kill MB supporters.
I really wonder who's behind the attacks on churches and Christians the last few days; the MB (arab) rhetoric is said to be extremely anti-christian, but it might just as easy be other sectarian extremists or simply the 'deep state' trying to fire things up in order to legitimize the harsh repression by the army.
There's a popular portrayal of Christians being behind the coup. It's probably your average Islamists (with or without a party affiliation).
This reminds me of Iran in the 80's. That didn't turn out very well in the long run. :(
Well, were part of the problem then too.
The West has a long and messy history of "influence" in the middle east. It took until now for the CIA to officially admit their role in the Iranian coup of the 50's, and "installing" the Shah....which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. Ironically, it was the NSA using the Freedom of Information Act to get ahold of the documents, but not clear when they became de-classified.
It's no wonder there's a general mistrust in that region, and even a hatred, for the west. And it's no surprise many Americans and Brits are waking up to our conflicting interests, principles, policies, and interventions....and getting fed up. :(
The increasingly crazy PM of Turkey now claims to have 'evidencef' that it' s really Israel that' s behind the coup in Egypt. The proof supposedly is that a jewish french intellectual had a conversation with the minister of foreign affairs of France in 2011.
How dare he. :p
Well there you go, amirite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The plot thickens; it turns out it wasn' t the French foreign minister who Berhard Levi talked with but with Tzipi Livni, who hadn' t been (the Israeli) minister of foreign affairs for like 2 years already during the conversation/debate/whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
In Erdogan's Turkey, Jews aren't allowed to talk to other Jews. :o
What's really funny that as Erdogan is telling everybody that the Egyptian government is a mere handpuppet of 'the West', the same is responding to Erdogans interventions on behalf of the MB that they don' t need 'agents of the West to tell them how to be muslims or arabs'.
I'm starting to wonder if Erdogan is any more informed about world affairs than Palin.
Well, it seems that his omni-science of all things Western is based on little more than the view from his Istanbul offices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki