Looks like Morsei is out...military gave him the boot.
Printable View
Looks like Morsei is out...military gave him the boot.
Can't decide whether this is a good or a bad idea, but the results in the short-term probably won't be pretty either way.
Well, now this is getting interesting. In a bad way, probably. Didn't like Morsi, but I also don't like the military, and I am not encouraged that whoever ends up in power will be better.
I think the problem will be the ability of anyone to consolidate power, a problem that Morsi was never able to resolve.
I'm surprised it came to this Morsi had seemed to be consolidating power and had been very confrontational with the military months ago but had seemed to get away with replacing the very top brass. Seems the military has taken the excuse to get revenge.
He was able to replace the top brass because the lower-ranking officers wanted to remove the top brass. He never gained control over the military, or over the police, or intelligence services, or the judiciary. And that compromised his control over the economy.
I'm not surprised in the least. This new situation may not solve the problem of the power of the army, but at least it puts an end to the MB attempt to turn Egypt into a theocracy.
Seems Morsi's been arrested as has much of the top brass of the brotherhood and warrants out for 300 more. Whatever for?
Morsi may have been acting like a theocrat but he was doing so democratically.
You can't have a coup if the former president is still pretending to be a president. House arrest is pretty much the least the military could do.
Morsi's problem is that he was acting like Erdogan without first consolidating power like Erdogan. He thought that winning a majority of the vote entitled him to ignore the interests of the minority at will. Whether that's a democratic way to rule or not, it wasn't very smart when a vast majority of the elites were in the minority category.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c2
I don't agree with most of that, but it's a valid view of what the worst-case scenario is.
That's not very reassuring. But it's similar to what some Morsy supporters said on BBC radio --- that they'd take up arms and 'fight the military in the streets' to defend his legitimacy, and the Muslim Brotherhood. :(
Despite what you seem to think democracy and theocracy are mutually incompatible; the one denies the source of sovereignty of the other. Accepting theocratic principles in a democracy denies the freedom of future generations to take their own destiny in their own hands. True democracy starts with breaking old bonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Even in a moderate theocracy like Israel its rules are chaving for big numbers of people on a daily basis. Creating limits on their private choices that would be unacceptable in a democracy.
There are multiple democratic nations with theocratic influences. Abortion is still illegal (except where life of mother is at risk) in Ireland. De jure it is still illegal in Malta.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And while rules can be chaffing if theocratically inspired, they're also chaffing if inspired by socialism or most other -isms too and there's someone who doesn't like that ism. Why do you and I get in so many arguments on the EU? Because centre of political gravity in Europe is to the left of me and so I find many of its rules chaffing yet you don't object to those rules on that basis. I find limits on my private choices yet you don't give a shit as you like those limits while you oppose other limits.
I dislike socialist limits, I dislike theocratic limits, I dislike socially conservative limits. But many democratically like them (including you) and you'll find some I like too no doubt. But don't try and have your cake and eat it too.
You miss the essential difference (which doesn't surprise me); democracy derives its principles from the idea that 'the people' are the sole source of sovereignty, theocracy sees God as the only real source. Socialism can operate within the bounds of a democracy, theocracy can not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I said theocratic influences. You can democratically implement theocratic ideas - eg Ireland banning abortion.
Democratically banning abortion is not the same as being theocratic.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That doesn't make it a theocracy though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I think the conflict here is between a majoritarian conception of democracy and a liberal conception. The latter requires more than just free and fair elections.
Agreed. Some people think that a democracy is sufficient to turn a deserted country into a happy wonderland.
And Morsi's supporters would argue that he was democratically introducing his changes too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Allowing for religious influences is not the same as basing your system of government on divine sanction.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Voting to replace democracy with theocracy is not democratic, no matter how many people vote for it. It is submitting the demos to a higher power.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Technically speaking, as long as the people can undo the law, it's not submitting to a higher power. Politicians can make laws for what ever reason they desire, be it personal interest, divine inspiration, or sheer stupidity.
Technically, the reality of the theocracy is that the voice of those who deny its legitimacy is silenced, by different measures of supression. Violence is the norm not the exception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The reason Iran is a theocracy is because the Quran is part of the constitution and can be used to overturn any law passed by the elected parliament. Simply passing laws that are consistent with the Quran doesn't make you a theocracy, which is not to say it doesn't violate the rights of non-religious Muslims.
You are glossing over the fact that the Koran, being the unchangeable expression of the will of God can not be abrogated, changed or opposed. You have effectively abolished the sovereignty of the people if you make it part of your constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What remains is some wriggling space in the margin which typically gets abdicated to theologians. As is the case in Iran and was going to be the case in Egypt.
The dilemma here is that the people consented to this. I don't think there's an easy way to resolve the fact that a majority of Egyptian voters seem to want to undermine their own influence over future laws...
The problem isn't that they do so for themselves, the problem is that they do so for all others, now and and in the future. To elect a temporary dictator (as the Romans would) only binds the present generation. Voting in God as the head of state robs future generations of their freedoms. To allow it merely respects the will of the majority, but it's got nothing to do with democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
My problem with what's happened is that any more moderate Islamists have been shown that the ballot doesn't work over the bullet.
Since you guys are discussing theocracies and democracies, and whether an "Islamic Democracy" can work in the modern world....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'm wondering how the US is viewed? It seems to me the US is frequently seen as a "Christian Democracy" ("Judeo-Christian Democracy" first runner-up) -- not just by other nations, but by many of our own citizens, political leaders, legislators.
God Bless America, In God We Trust, it's all there, the whole nine yards. The US constitution protects religious freedoms, separation of church and state powers....but we're definitely not a secular nation. :think:
Does our constitution require that each law must be consistent with the Bible?
Of course not. But many of our "representatives" were elected on platforms based in "Biblical" ideology. Every American ism can be traced to New or Old Testament interpretations and its influences: imperialism, colonialism, militarism, racism, sexism....Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
and the proverbial terrorism.
Did Egypt's?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Source please as I've not seen that written anywhere.
The Egyptian Constitution of 2012:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Article 2
Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic Sharia are the principal source of legislation.
Article 4 of the same gives the scholars of Al Hazar jurisdiction over the question what is considered Islamic.
Thanks didn't know that. May not have been publicised much as it was much the same in the previous constitution apparently.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...-analysis-yet/Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What a shitstorm. And I can't believe the Egyptian army fell into the predictable trap of opening fire on a crowd. Actually, I can.
Where voters don't subscribe democracy cannot exist. Democracy requires a bit of apathy between elections.