Re this article about this statement by pundit David Brooks. Is Brooks being culturally obtuse or does he have a point that some countries are simply not socially and culturally ready for a democratic form of government?
Enlightened Despotism has gotten a bum rap.
I don’t think it’s a matter of not being “ready” but rather there’s no sense to stay with it when things are bad. A column by Jeb Golinkin is subheaded: “For any country to establish an enduring system of democratic governance, its citizens must develop an allegiance to their particular system of choosing leaders”.
The issue there is that, until you have a string of competent and admirable leaders selected via democracy, you don’t have a whole lot of reason to stick with it or say “Well, we agreed to give him four years so…”. Egypt has had one guy and he’s seemingly driven Egypt into the ground and made major domestic and foreign policy blunders so what’s the incentive to wait three more years? To avoid people across an ocean from clucking their tongues and shaking their heads?
That said, I don’t think Egypt innately “lacks” anything. They just made a bad pick going out of the gate. Hopefully the next time around will give them a government (both executive and parliament) that they trust or at least acts as a hedge against itself rather than being dominated by one faction.
That’s why we’ve got to bear the White Man’s Burden. :rolleyes:
Prime Directive is better.
The idea is to set up a society that has rule of law, not one where the military ousts whoever they don’t like.
I have no brief for Morsi, but doesn’t Egypt have a system of impeachment, or a vote of No Confidence or something? That’s how you get somebody out of office if you decide you don’t want them there anymore. You don’t oust them via a military coup.
As to the question in the OP’s title, no, there is nothing inherently wrong with Egyptian intelligence or self-control. They just do not have scarily enlightened people like Geo. Washington and Jefferson and Adams. Yeah yeah yeah - they were slave holders, that’s not the point. They knew that you do not establish a democracy by making exceptions at the beginning. And so Washington turned down the chance to be President-for-life.
And they had a commitment to secular government, which Islam does not. If you want to point to something the Egyptians don’t have that the Founding Fathers did, that would be a suggestion. It can be overcome - Turkey has a reasonably secular government in an Islamic society, but it is something that has to be overcome. And legally - not by having the military put your President under house arrest if he cozies up to the Muslim Brotherhood and breaks his campaign promises of inclusion.
OTOH, it’s the Middle East. Somebody is going to fuck it up no matter what you do.
Regards,
Shodan
Democracy is not magic. It won’t make all of the divisions in a society go away.
But neither will anything else. There is no other good option.