Not really. Either a state is democratic, or it’s not. A system that’s democratic until the wrong person or party wins an election, after which the military takes over, isn’t democratic. At best it’s an anocracy.
You aren’t actually pro-democracy.
You don’t get to “good enough” by deposing the only elected president, you get there through rule of law, and multiple elections over time. That’s how you get a political culture. It’s absurd to suggest that the path to democracy is through the military deposing the democratically-elected leader. It’s a statement on faith, and nothing more.
For someone who claims to be pro-democracy, you sure make a lot of the classic anti-democracy arguments. People are entitled to choose their own leaders, whether or not they can read, or how poor they are, or any other reason.
Are you back to saying Morsi’s election (the actual election, where people voted) was invalid, here?
No you don’t get it at all. I argued in response to you comment that it was up to her and her fellow revolutionaries to decide. I did not argue to you that it was not a coup. That is because your comment was not addressing whether it was a coup or not. Your comment was addressing that it was up to Obama to decide.
I made no argument as to the label to apply to Morsi’s fate. Shortly thereafter I did say call it a coup if you like… At that point it did not matter because Congress and Obama were working things out for the aid money.
I later stated my position that it is technically a coup. You know that but you did not include ‘technically’ on your list. I do understand why you leave terms like that out.
Meh. Neither of us has a crystal ball, I’m just looking at history. Nations where the rule of law and democracy are maintained are far more likely to become modern, stable, prosperous states than nations where they aren’t. Imagine if John Adams were deposed by the military over a political squabble, and the Constitution suspended and replaced by a new one that gave the military enormous powers, which was ratified in an vote where people who campaigned against it were jailed. Where do you think we’d be today?
Egypt could go through 20 years of brutal military rule, and if we were both still posting here in 2034, you’d still never admit you were wrong about the coup, because you don’t admit it when you’re wrong about anything. It’s gone past being irritating, now it’s just funny.
No. Morsi was elected and it was valid.
There is not an anti-democracy bone in my body. And stating facts about what happened in Egypt’s elections does not make me anti democracy. I didn’t say the peasants were not entitled to choose their own leaders. I said they were not prepared to see through the buying of votes and make an independent choice. They certainly are entitled to be fooled by gifts for votes.
I’ll add that the MB had a huge advantage in the vote buying business because of the ties of their civic operations through the mosques. The revolutionaries were not so well set up … to compete.
And you are avoiding the question, how did *‘good enough democracy to satisfy H.Action standards’ *suddenly happen the first time around after decades of dictatorship? Why is it not possible that the first election of Morsi was a mistake that could not wait to be corrected for three more years? How have you determined that in Egypt specifically they could survive what many saw as a glaring threat to democracy in the way Morsi was governing?
Harmful as it may be to your self-image, you need to honestly confront what you’ve advocated for in the this thread, which is in now way pro-democracy.
So you just mentioned this allegation, apropos of nothing? Odd.
How? Through a reasonably free and fair election. Which is what occurred.
There’s an impeachment process in the 2012 constitution. Again: rule of law.
By granting the power to remove the president from power if they decide his election was a mistake to the military, you again are anti-democracy and advocating minority rule.
Was Morsi Doctor Doom, now, working to literally destroy Egypt? Come now. The 2016 election was still scheduled. If it had been cancelled by Morsi, then you could argue that he was a threat to democracy. What he was was a threat to certain political factions.
That has already been done, notwithstanding your refusal to accept facts and cites. You’re the only one who doesn’t. And as I noted above, I’m not debating with you. I’m simply debunking your erroneous statements, and so I have no interest in whether you accept it or not.
Sure. The same is true of military authoritarian governments. The 2012 Constitution doesn’t permit theocracy, something the hardline Islamists complained of at the time it was passed. Now, if the Morsi government ignored all that, then it’d be time to talk impeachment. This pre-emptive coup was nothing but a power grab. It’s not a coincidence that the military has more power under the new constitution than it did under the old (where it already had far too much power).
That’s an early cop out? 20 years out and I’m the one that is wrong. I doubt it.
Is Egypt’s military rule ‘brutal’ now? Its tough on the militant Islamists but ‘brutal’ I don’t know. What was the American Civil war all about? Did we have our brutal internal squabbles … in a pretty well established democracy.
You are so naïve to think Morsi staying in office was going to lead to better faster democratic rule without one side or the other or both sides shedding more blood than already been spent.
Just consider how the economic factors with Morsi in there were deteriorating. The US aid to domestic support pales in comparison to what the Saudis are now sending in since the toppling of Morsi.
http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/Post-MorsiEgypt_pkpradhan_270913
Economic realities have to be considered in this transition to democracy. How do you stop players like Saudi Arabia from supporting a military run government in Egypt? Do you stop foreign funding that gets those peasants enough to survive another day because your principles about democracy are not up to snuff? Come on!
Your facts and cites have all been refuted. You have not that I know of explained how your July Comment was an argument that Morsi’ was removed by a coup. And since you can’t explain that you cannot explain why my going with an Egypt revolutionary who believes is was not a coup mean that I made that argument.
You have not accepted or rebutted the facts I have put up over an over again. You have debunked nothing. You have been able to cite an erroneous statement by me. That is more error for your long list of errors on your part.
Its been explained to Mace over and over again. He cannot refute the explanation.
I was responding to Mace’s comment last July on the Aid to Egypt after a coup issue. Mace wrote that it was Obama who gets to decide. I responded saying that it was the Egyptians who should decide. At that time Mace had not said one way or the other if it was a coup or it wasn’t a coup. I had not argued one way or the other either. The issue I was responding to was who decides what to call it.
A dozen posts or so later I wrote that what we call it doesn’t matter… I wrote *call it a coup if you want *it does not matter. That’s because the aid issue was being worked out… already paid… for the year and whatever.
Then Mace began telling a story that when I quoted an Egyptian I was ‘arguing’ that it should not be called a coup. Mace went there because he was hard up to find a quote saying it was not a coup because the usual bunch had said I said that. I never said it was not coup and that is a fact.
This is just more of the usual where context and reason have no priority with several posters here. They take the snippets and go with them. That is what this is. There was no argument about what to call Morsi’s fate at that point and time and within a day I said *call it a coup if you like… it does not matter *in the big picture anyway… And it doesn’t as it all turned out. The aid is going though because our government thinks the Military in Egypt is working toward civilian control. You must doubt that right? So should the aid be canceled?
Its was a typo… YOu are wrong again.
Again context overrides a typo… I’ll correct it for the record.
Your facts and cites have all been refuted. You have not that I know of explained how your July Comment was an argument that Morsi’ was removed by a coup. And since you can’t explain that you cannot explain why my going with an Egypt revolutionary who believes is was not a coup mean that I made that argument.
You have not accepted or rebutted the facts I have put up over an over again. You have debunked nothing. You have been UNable to cite an erroneous statement by me. That is more error for your long list of errors on your part
That is desperate to jump on something like that in the context of all the rest I wrote.
I did not “take the snippets [sic]” when I first cited your arguing that it was not a coup. I quoted everything you wrote in that post, except for “Read more”. Are you going to now claim that “Read more” somehow offered some context that was not there without those two words?
And HA is not talking about that anyway. He’s talking about what you posted in this thread just a few hours ago by El Saadawi.
Please be more careful in the future. I don’t want to be wrong again because you made a typo!!
I can only respond to what you write, especially since you assured us you had no problem with the English language. Did you want to revisit that claim?