It’s only a “failure” if the new Hamas-style government (1) like Hamas in Gaza, basically freezes the democratic process, imprisions opposition, etc. - thus ending the democratic experiment; or (2) focuses on issues which have nothing to do with fixing Egypt’s manifold and pressing problems.
After Hamas won the election the US funded the Dahlan faction of the PLO to launch a coup and overthrow Hamas in Gaza. And the PA basically suspended the democratic process and continued ruling the West Bank. Egypt wouldn’t be facing quite the same situation. Even if a new government there did nothing to deal with Egypt’s existing problems this wouldn’t make them any different to the previous regime that we propped up for decades. We’d see it as a “failure” because they wouldn’t be pro-Israel or pro-US Middle Eastern policy and would be far more nationalist and Arab nationalist than we would ideally like.
Eh? The Mubarak gov’t was clearly a failure. It did little to solve Egypt’s problems and was undemocratic. The issue is whether the new gov’t to follow would also be a failure. If it merely mimics the Mubarak gov’t, I’d say it was clearly a failure.
How the PLO (also a failure) compares with Hamas is irrelevant, as is whether Hamas has some sort of excuse for suspending democracy; pretty well all dictatorships have some sort of excuse for that.
Sorry, a regime’s “failure” or “success” is to be judged by its ability to stay in power. The regime established by the Egyptian revolution of 1952 did last 59 years.
Rubbish. There is absolutely no reason that economic growth requires democracy.
It is? Not by my definition.
In my opinion, a regime’s failure or success is to be judged by its ability to improve the lot of those goverened.
In fact, a big part of a regime’s success is its willingness, should the goverened so decide, to not stay in power.
The secret to a democratic gov’t (and the relative success of democracy vs. other systems of gov’t) lies not in being voted in to power, it lies in willingness to allow people to vote it out. North Korea’s regime has lasted even longer than Egypt’s, but it is not a glowing example of success.
[Though perhaps I’m being “wooshed” 
]
That’s how the success of a country is defined. The success of a regime is determined by whatever factors the regime chooses.
That is obviously not the definition of “success” looked for in this thread.
Well, the OP isn’t very clear about how to define success. First he asks whether people will still be broke and hungry, and then he asks whether people will blame their new governments for making them broke and hungry.
I gave a shot at defining “success” in this context.
The point I’m trying to make is that the west judging a new Egyptian government a failure because it doesn’t do anything to deal with Egypt’s problems is hypocritical as we never cared whether Mubarak did anything.
How did Hamas suspend democracy?
The West will no doubt continue to not do anything should Egypt prove a failure in the future. The West has no reasonable prospect of replacing the Egyptian gov’t in either event.
Hamas suspended democracy by the simple expedient of not having any elections once it seized power (and cracking down violently political dissent in its territories).
Cite?
Thinking about it, I guess I could ask this as two questions. Let me try to break things down to be more clear.
First, two statements.
- The reasons given in the news for the unrest in the various countries are:
[LIST=A]
[li]Corruption.[/li][li]Repression.[/li][li]High food prices.[/li][li]High unemployment.[/li][/LIST] - The new governments have a good chance to fix corruption and get rid of repression.
Now, the questions.
-
Once in power, will the new governments be able to do anything about high food prices and high unemployment?
-
If not, and assuming that problems A and B are fixed, will the people want a second regime change, or will they accept a 50% victory and leave the new governments in place? And of course the answer will probably vary from country to country.
I have a Modest Proposal.
Sparks: Debbie, I have something for you.
Debbie: Oh yeah? What?
Sparks: A book.
Debbie: What’s the book?
Sparks: “A Modest Proposal”.
Debbie: Who’s it by?
Sparks: Jonathan Swift.
Debbie: And what’s the book about?
[pause]
Sparks: Eating babies.
Debbie: What in the hell is that supposed to mean?
Sparks: Like veal… only babies.
Debbie: WHAT?
Sparks: And I’m talkin’ real baby-back ribs…
Debbie: “…the foulest thing I’ve ever heard!”
Sparks: “RIBS!!! Dripping with sauce!!! Falling off the bone!!!”
Debbie: “You sick bastard!!”
Sparks: "Just trying to help out a single mom
Cite for them not having elections? They haven’t had elections.
Cite for them cracking down on dissidents in Gaza?
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/20/gaza-hamas-should-end-killings-torture
Plenty of details here:
Note that Fatah is no better.
Hamas didn’t seize power, they were democratically elected by the Palestinian people ans they didn’t have to have any elections for four years after they won in 2005. Hamas won power in the Palestinian territories but Fatah refused to hand over the organs of government in the West Bank and a faction of Fatah launched an attempted coup against Hamas rule in Gaza. Fatah’s leader, Mahmoud Abbas has remained President of the PA for several years after his term had expired during which time Hamas were the only democratically elected represenattives of the Palestinian people with a valid mandate. Hamas are refusing to take part in future elections until all the restrictions on their members in the West Bank by Fatah are lifted and all the Hamas people Fatah have locked up without trial are released. Both Hamas and Fatah have cracked down on political dissent, most recently Fatah breaking up demonstrations in the West bank supporting the Egyptian/Arab revolutions.
EDIT: We could do a lot to change the regime in Egypt. We could stop giving them two billion a year in military aid and the current patronage system would fall apart. We could put them under sanctions until the army/cronies relinquishes its grip on the Egyptian economy. We can turn them into a pariah state until they let the people have free elections and clear out the old regime completely. But we won’t do any of that, we’ll actually spend millions influencing any election, because we liked things as they were and want to keep as much of the status quo as possible.
People seem to forget that it is not in ‘being elected into power’ that regimes show their democratic credibility, it is in ‘allowing themselves to be voted out of power’ - or at least the possibility of being voted out.
I’m in no way claiming that Fatah is democratic, btw. It is just as bad as Hamas. But the notion that Hamas is “democratic” because it once won a vote is a bad joke. Fatah and Hamas are, essentially, two rival gangs, and neither has any intention of allowing anything like real democracy to happen; both arrest and torture dissidents with impunity, or simply have them shot in the streets (see above cite).
That’s a slightly different take from claiming Hamas suspended democracy in the Palestinian territories.