No. It shows you can only have a revolution without guns if those with guns don’t fire them at you.
This could still all end in a bloodbath and a coup by middle ranking officers.
EDIT: interesting, from BBC News
Yeah, a full one-third strongly disapprove versus only 4% strongly approve. Assuming the poll is accurate, in any actual democratic situation, the best that the MB could hope for would be a situation analogous to the ultra-orthodox parties in Israel: holding the swing vote between coallitions and imposing their will on key specifically religious issues.
That adds fuel to the position that actual democracy in Egypt is nothing to fear. The fear is that actual democracy isn’t what we will see.
Mubarak resigns!
It certainly is the case that the army in Egypt could act like that in Turkey - a bastion of secular conservatism.
But such bastions have failed in other situations.
The Palestinian thing is a bit of a red herring, I think. Egypt has its own problems and the average Egyptian is moved more by those than by the plight of the Palestinians.
In fact, too narrow a focus on the Arab-Israeli matter has led the West into being surprised by the current ME situation. If the Palestinian/Israeli problem were solved tomorrow, nothing would change for most Arabs either in Palestine or elsewhere- most likely, the Palestinians would be goverened by a regime every bit as creaking, corrupt and undemocratic as Egypts’; the rest of the Arab world would still be third-world; the gov’ts there still as bad as ever, and the young people still as under-employed and future-less as ever.
True.
But armies don’t just vanish without a massive war loss. Certainly not an army like Egypt’s, which like the Pakistan army, has extensive manufacturing and business interests. The army will continue to be the guarantor against fundamentalism, like the Turkish one.
Let’s hope for more revolutions in the area, starting with Iran, Syria and Jordan.
It’s not a victory until there are fee and fair elections. Until then it’s just a military coup.
Also true.
If civil government is in control, an army can vanish, by attrition, simply because government won’t authorize it to bring in more than a tiny number of new recruits, or re-up soldiers whose hitches expire.
But something really needs to be done about that.
If only history was like that :rolleyes:
You can say whatever you want about Bolsheviks but they were the ONLY party in 1914 Russia calling for staying out of war.
The army won’t sit on their hands so it’s all hypothetical. In the real world all over the world the army is a powerful political actor (especially in islamic societies) that’s going to remain a political fact of life for the forseeable future.
And with the neighbours like they are the army isn’t going to go away. Besides - looking after the army is one of our hole cards. We’ll keep arming and training them if we have any sense.
How about I say about the Bolsheviks that they massive lost the popular vote in an election? And thus that it raises the possibility of an unpopular group seizing control from a weak democratic gov’t in a country under massive stress and with no real history of democratic institutions?
‘Say what you want about the MB, but they were the ONLY party calling for sharia law’.
My only point is that analogy with Bolshevik suffers some important structural points for such analogy to hold. Therefore, it should not be used as it is totally inappropriate and serves only one purpose – to scare people and sow fear.
On the other hand, it is an improvement from comparing Arabs to Nazis :o
The claim is not the the MB = Bolsheviks (or Jacobins for that matter), but rather that in a popular revolt the fact that a particular group has only a minority of popular support is no guarantee it will not end up on top.
If you think this is a mere smear, you are mistaken. This has nothing to do with them being Arabs, but with the nature of popular revolts - which does not change whether those taking part are French, Russian, Arab, or anyone else.
I count every fall of a dictator as a small victory, regardless of what follows.
Naturally I would like to see this small victory converted into a larger and more lasting one, and listening to what Egyptians are saying right now, I believe they will.
I’m not sure that’s exactly true…
In Russia, Bolsheviks were the ones who started and led October Revolution. They were not some minority that was on the sidelines and then kind of hijacked the movement once it was victorious.
In Iran, ayatollah people were the ones who started the Iranian Revolution. They were upfront riding the wave. Especially since the more centre-like parties were totally disbanded and destroyed in years under Shah.
Whereas this Egyptian Revolution, no one is leading. The people want “democracy,” but beyond that, what? The economic problems and unemployment will still be there, presumably, until some systemic or policy changes.
Isn’t that a good thing, if the model and process are seen as more important for now than any specific sectional interest?
I’ve seen a number of comments from Egyptians in the street that they just wanted a representative government, with “the best of all parties,” or words to similar effect. I find this very encouraging, actually.
It may not happen in the sense that Western citizens are under the thumb of a religious leader but an organized group has demonstrated how easy it is to cause immense economic damage. 9/11 cost nothing to execute yet came very close to killing all of our elected officials while causing a half trillion dollars of damage. If they indeed acquire enough nuclear material then we’ve already seen Pakistani nuclear technology exported under the table. It’s just a function of time before a handful of cities are attacked in a way that would destabilize an economy that is already weak.
The caliphate mindset is a fringe joke but the terrorism from the fringe is not.
Ok, for starters I’m not sure why you’re so aggressively insulting.
Second, if you want to use the term “caliphate” as short-hand for “global islamic(sic) state” then yes some have called for it.
Third, yes wikipedia isn’t reliable.
In fact one of your rebuttals actually illustrates this.
Well of course the first sentence of the wikipedia article is “Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic: حِزْبُ التَحْرِير Ḥizb at-Taḥrīr; English: Party of Liberation) is an international pan-Islamic political organisation whose goal is for all Muslim countries to unify as an Islamic state or caliphate ruled by Islamic law and with a caliph head of state elected by Muslims.[1”
Obviously, you started chortling to yourself when you saw that, fantasized about doing things to “my bleeding ass” and didn’t bother to click on the link to see what wikipedia’s source for this claim was.
Had you clicked on the number one it would have brought up their constitution which if you’d read through owes far more to Nasser than to Muhammad and never uses the word “Caliphate”.
Now, are there radical Islamic groups calling for a global Islamic super-state?
Yes, though none are that popular. You’ll notice Hizb at-Tahir isn’t remotely as influential as the Muslim Brotherhood.
However, a “global islamic(sic) state” is not the same as a Caliphate.
To give just one quick example. Shia radicals have made similar calls, however their envisioned state can’t be called a Caliphate because to the Shia only one man is acceptable as Caliph and that would be the Hidden Imam who vanished centuries ago, so until he reveals himself then nobody can be Caliph.
What they’re more influenced by is Nasser’s dreams of a giant Arab superstate.
Finally, if you’re trying to suggest I’m some sort of apologist by calling me “an ideological warrior” then you’re really misinterpreting what I’m saying.
I’m calling for precise language. The fact that Shia radicals don’t call for a “Caliphate” doesn’t make them somehow better.
Similarly, I’d object to anyone calling Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Taliban “nationalist” groups.
I honestly can’t think of a reasonable scenario where the Egyptian army fails and allows the Muslim Brotherhoods to take over the state like the Bolsheviks. At a purely military level it is well-organized and far more powerful than the Brotherhood which doesn’t have any serious fighting force. The military is also popular as recent events have shown and it has probably increased its legitimacy in the last few weeks. It is economically powerful and last but not least it has close ties with the world’s only superpower.
The Muslim Brotherhood isn’t even that popular and they don’t have a charismatic leader; no one even remotely comparable to Khomeini in Iran. It is really not even a contest ; the Brotherhood would be completely crushed if they tried some kind of violent takeover of Egypt.