Does that include the people the government put in jail for advocating a No vote?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t. Why do you presume that I do. And before you answer, re-read my post and think about what it actually means-- not what you want it to mean. Here, let me give you a little hint. Think about the difference between these two statements:
Most non-votes were no votes.
Most no votes were non-votes.
I see you dropped ‘resorting to violence’ when you made your incomplete opposition to my point.
!!“Resorting to violence or disruption of government and economic activities in protest of what those who voted put in place may make you ineligible to vote in the future such as convicted felons are restricted here in the States.”!!
I was not talking about those who peacefully protest in Egypt. The violent MB members should lose their right to vote. I have heard no evidence that the preponderance of non-voters this time had their voting rights revoked. So if they didnt vote its on them. They should shut up if they don’t like the results just like in any democracy.
On another note, Terr’s link is quite an interesting find. It contains this
!!" The SCAF, like Mubarak, finds anti-Americanism useful in masking its strong relationship with Washington. Secular elites and felool (“remnants” of Mubarak’s regime) find it useful in deflecting attention from their own return to grace. The Muslim Brotherhood finds it useful in returning to the movement’s own anti-American comfort zone. Anti-Brotherhood activists find it useful as a way of appealing to nationalist public opinion to justify support for the coup. (Leaders of the anti-Morsy Tamarod campaign have been notably enthusiastic about this extreme state-nationalist agenda."!!
Read more: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/18/anti_americanism_egypt_muslim_brotherhood
That is right - More power to the military because the first president after Mubarak showed that the path to real democracy can’t happen if the power falls into the hands of a president that is overly sympathetic to religious fundamentalists and extremists that won’t tolerate much in the way of secular civil rights.
The path from tyrranny to democracy most likely must go through secularist control of the machinery of governing and the Egyptian military is the one part of government that can actually deliver for the moderate and secular minded members of society.
It’s a transition and probably a necessary transition from point a to point b,
Is there a comparable nation’s experience you can cite here? Because what you’ve written here is like something out of Orwell: democracy must be overthrown, so that democracy can, someday, hopefully, somehow, prevail. If you supported the coup because you think the wrong man got elected, then you don’t actually support democracy at all.
And what is this “real democracy” you keep writing about, and how is it different from “democracy”?
Is there some reason the 2012 constitutional referendum was invalid and can be ignored, but the 2014 referendum with a similar turnout and much more widespread intimidation and suppression is valid?
This isn’t the first time the secular-minded military has stepped in and held the country together. Egyptians try democracy, screw it up, take to the streets and now they’re back with the military. In Egypt’s particular case, it may not be that bad. The military from what I’ve read, is more entwined in business and profit and peace is in its best interest.
Not much of a democracy, though. I’ve read democracy in Egypt described as “a long-term goal.”
I see the irony was indeed lost on you, so much so that you responded to my post not once but twice. You’ll notice you used the word “or” after ‘resorting to violence’, so no, I didn’t drop it to make an incomplete opposition to your point. Either your point is that you are okay with removing the right to vote for resorting to violence or disruption of government and economic activities in protest or you failed to word your point correctly.
See? You even quoted yourself right here: Resorting to violence or disruption of government. So apparently you are in favor of removing the right to vote for peaceful protest of the government, or you don’t even know what your own words mean. This all of course dodges the point; you want violent members of the MB disenfranchised of their right to vote and the rest of them to STFU if they don’t like the results “just like in any democracy” without any hint of the irony that the current government of Egypt took power through violence when it decided it didn’t like the results of the vote that put the previous government of Egypt in power. Oh, and the reason that there is a vote for a new constitution in the first place? The military suspended the constitution when it took power by coup d’état.
It’s probably for the best that Morsi is out of power, but don’t piss on my leg and tell me that it’s raining.
Did you read what your link details:
!!"The posters read “…and “No to the Continuation of the Interior Ministry’s Thuggery.”
Upon seeing this last sign, officers at the checkpoint who arrested Emam punched him repeatedly, exclaiming: “We will show you the thuggery of the Interior Ministry,” Emam told Human Rights Watch. Abd al-Karim and Emam both said that when police took their pictures at the respective stations they were being held at, they forced them to hold signs that read “Posters in Opposition to the Regime.”"!!
Perhaps the posters should have stuck with the issue of the no vote and left out the part about police thuggery at a time when tensions are high.
And do you think Morsi was headed for tolerance for dissent if he could have gotten the police and army to go along with his agenda.
I’m not saying these arrests are proper or aligned with protecting basic human rights but there are conditions that over-ride the perfect path to democracy that you as an American thinks should be pure and painless.
The proponents in opposition to the Sisi constitution is wrongly generalized by the military run government as tied to the Muslim
Brotherhood and therefore tied to terrorists. That is wrong but lawyerly students lijr thise arrested for hanging posters should be able to develop a way to dissent without being wrongly tied to terrorists. Right now may not be the right time to have the same freedoms of expression that long standing democracies have in place.
This revolution is only three years old.
No you still have it all wrong. The active disruption of government can get you arrested in Egypt right now. But reality has to be that the vast majority of non-voters were not denied the right to vote for disrupting the government because they were not denied at all. So I’m telling you directly right now that I am not in favor of Egyotians losing the right to vote just for peaceful non-disruptive peaceful protest of the government or for any peaceful ativity. You injected that position falsely into my argument so you ought to drop it.
But then you don’t have much of anything left to argue.
My ‘Just like in any democracy’ was directed toward people who have the power to vote but did not use it last week. It is not directed to the military coup that rid the democracy of Morsi and his brotherhood that were hell bent on destroying democracy anyway.
And the coup was not because the military didnt like the Morsi election it was because Morsi was acting in ways that were seen as averse to democracy. And popular support rose to very high levels that Morsi was hijacking a moderate and secular driven revolution and need to change or go. Morsi had to go and that part I do not compare at all to normal democracy.
So try to get that right too. The coup was necessary to start the path to democracy over and it took violence to get that done. So there is no irony about the point I made regarding Egyptians who had the right to vote but didnt. They should shut up because they made the choice not to vote. The government did not stop them from doing so.
Wow, talk about blaming the victims…
He at least had the legitimacy of being elected, and the police and army could have nicely checked his power to do anything too egregious. After his term was up, the Egyptian people could have decided if they wanted more of the same, or something different. Instead, all power is, again, concentrated in the military.
You’re begging the question that military government will delivery democracy better than the actual democratically-elected government would have, which the military deposed. Why should anyone believe that the military is on the side of democracy, or that this period is a transition into anything but more military rule?
That’s right, they have their scapegoats all lined up, like most authoritarian regimes.
If not right before an election, then when? If you’re saying the time isn’t right for free campaigning, then you’re saying the time isn’t right for a referendum. If the time isn’t right for a referendum, exactly what great achievement is this thread dedicated to?
Other than banning their political parties and arresting their leaders, arresting people who campaigned for “No” on the constitution, arresting a man who wrote an anti-army statement on his ballot, distributing pro-Yes on the constitution material in the polling places, arresting demonstrators, and blanketing Egypt with pro-Yes billboards, the government has done nothing to interfere with a fair election.
Yes. I’ve explained it over and over again. The ‘mistake’ of electing Morsi became known and extraordinary measures were in or to correct the mistake. The evolution was secular driven and Morsi came late to the revolution and was attempting to hijack it. So the revolution had to assert itself again and the army was the only agency that could keep the revolution going. Religious freedom is a necessity for a real democracy. As I wrote earlier - getting there compatable with Islam is the tricky part. Democracy didnt really start in 2012. And it has not started yet - for real. Steps are being taken to sort out the tricky part and it sounds as if many Anericans don’t understand the need for patients as well as trial and error. Sometimes there are big errors And Morsi was a big error if real democracy with total religious freedom is the goal.
Is anyone trying to argue that the main reason a civil war is being avoided in Egypt over the deposing of the first elected government under President Morsi is that the Egyptian police and army have cracked down on pro-Morsi dissent?
And that invalidates the constitution that was voted on through referendum?
Is there some number of people who have to disagree with the president before the army can declare his election a ‘mistake’ and remove him from office illegally? The U.S. Army could use the exact same reasoning to remove Obama from office tomorrow, both have 35-40% of citizens who disagree with them.
Is this “revolution” lead in some way, other than electing leaders?
Please detail how Morsi suspended the freedom of religion.
When you say “real democracy”, I think you mean liberal democracy. Egypt is now farther away from it than it was pre-coup.
Lastly, your view of the military is extremely charitable. You have them acting selflessly in the universally-agreed best interests of the people, instead of in their own self-interest, in securing their own power.
So why can’t you respond to my actual point? The interference you speak of did not deny that many the right to vote.
You honestly think the MB, Freedom and Justice, Strong Egypt, and all the rest should participate in a vote which has been blatantly rigged against them? For what possible purpose would they do that? So you can tell them to shut up about losing a rigged vote? So they can be beaten and arrested?
I dont believe you are willing to try to understand the concept of democracy in infancy? You keep trying to compare the situation in Egypt to our democracy at the present moment. That is not realistic.
You’re asking me to believe that democracy, being in its infancy, is best served by illegally removing the only elected president Egypt has ever had. Forget comparing it to the U.S., compare it to anywhere. Where has this worked out?
So why can’t you respond to my original point? Yes they should participate in a vote that is rigged against them to show there is opposition that is counted.