Interesting developments. Morsi's reportedly retired Tantawi and cancelled the SCAF's supplementary constitutional decree, which gave the military very wide powers.
Being Egypt, no one knows if his is a very bold move indeed or a back room deal.
He's also appointed a very prominent reformist judge as one of his VPs.
It's very smart timing after the Sinai debacle.
So the military has more power, which is probably good for the short term for helping push more democratic ideas. However as in Turkey, where the military was taken down a notch and the Islamists are gaining power which may lessen democratic ideas, I fear the same in Egypt sooner than later unless a democratic system is well entrenched in place.
As the day's gone on the perspective's shifted.
The military-judiciary deep state revoked Parliament (where the MB didn't have a majority) and approved the old constitution which gave the President vast powers.
Morsi seems to have conducted an internal coup within the SCAF. Tantawi and his deputy were replaced by young members of the SCAF with more support within the military. Interestingly both are known to the US and, apparently, Morsi ensured that Peres was informed in advance.
At the same time Morsi's promoted a reformist judge as VP.
Meanwhile the elected Parliament's still dissolved and the constitutional decree of the deep state (reserving lots of power for the military) has been abolished making Morsi legally as powerful as previous Egyptian presidents.
He's promising a speedy constitutional convention and a new Parliament. But I think two striking things are that democracy should generally be left to work (the non-MB Parliament would be sitting and, ironically, the Tantawi wing of the Egyptian military would still be in more power) and that the institutional and charismatic power of the presidency, in a presidential system, is difficult to resist.
Also worth noting is that Morsi's become an apparently very strong and charismatic speaker. As with Putin in Russia, that matters.
My impression remains that Egypt's still a post-revolutionary mess, but a hopeful one.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 12, 2012, 08:00:40 PM
My impression remains that Egypt's still a post-revolutionary mess, but a hopeful one.
That's sweet.
Thanks for the summary Sheilbh.
So basically the Muslim Brotherhood has the all-powerful presidential position now, unless the army starts a full-blown military coup. And that I guess is unlikely, as the public would probably be quick to rally against it.
Soo, we need to see the MB relinquish most of the power they desperately fought for since who knows when. Or they can stick to it and become THE force in the muslim world if they do it right.
:hmm:
Not looking good Shelf
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/23/15384363-egyptian-protesters-police-clash-as-morsi-defends-wide-new-powers?lite
QuoteEgyptian protesters, police clash as Morsi defends wide new powers
By NBC News staff and wire reports
Updated at 5:05 p.m. ET: Opposition protesters clashed with police in several Egyptian cities Friday after new Islamist President Mohammed Morsi awarded himself sweeping new powers.
Police fired tear gas in an attempt to disperse tens of thousands of protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, the center of anti-regime protests that ousted longtime U.S.-backed leader Hosni Mubarak in 2011.
"The people want to bring down the regime," shouted protesters, echoing a chant used in the anti-Mubarak uprising. "Get out, Morsi," they chanted.
State TV also said Morsi opponents set fire to Muslim Brotherhood offices in the Suez Canal cities of Suez, Port Said and Ismailia.
Clashes also erupted between police and opposition protesters in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, the southern city of Assiut and in Giza, the sister city of the capital. In Alexandria, Morsi opponents hurled stones at Brotherhood supporters outside a mosque and stormed a nearby office of the group.
However, Muslim Brotherhood backers gathered in front of the presidential palace in northern Cairo to support Morsi -- illustrating a widening gulf over Egypt's future.
Wide powers
Buoyed by accolades from around the world for mediating a truce between Hamas and Israel, Morsi on Thursday ordered that an Islamist-dominated assembly writing the new constitution could not be dissolved by legal challenges.
Other changes give Morsi power to take security measures to protect his position, which rights groups say are like new emergency laws.
Quote
Bel Trew - بل ترو @Beltrew
Protesters have burned a CSF (police truck) tear gas very heavy now, #Egypt #Tahrir
23 Nov 12
Morsi belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood until he ran for the presidency and still depends on the group for political support.
On Friday, Morsi confirmed that he will move forward on his plans because he insisted they were for the good of the country.
"I am for all Egyptians. I will not be biased against any son of Egypt,'' Morsi told the crowd outside the presidential palace, adding that he was working for social and economic stability and the rotation of power.
"Opposition in Egypt does not worry me, but it has to be real and strong,'' he said in response to his critics.
Morsi also said Friday that his government would pay $5,000 to the families of those who died in the protests to oust Mubarak and $3,333 to those who were injured.
Quote
joseph dana @ibnezra
Tahrir square is flooding with protesters. Street battles on at least two streets. #egypt t.co/cEozlmnf
23 Nov 12
'New pharaoh'
The changes, announced late Thursday, prompted outrage among secularists and liberals.
Mohammed ElBaradei, a prominent pro-democracy figure and former head of the U.N.'s nuclear agency, accused Morsi of declaring himself a "new pharaoh."
QuoteMohamed ElBaradei@ElBaradei
Morsi today usurped all state powers & appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh. A major blow to the revolution that cld have dire consequences
23 Nov 12
"Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh," ElBaradei said on Twitter. "A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences."
"Morsi a 'temporary' dictator','' was the headline in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Youm.
The U.S. State Department signaled its concern Friday over Morsi's declarations.
"One of the aspirations of the revolution was to ensure that power would not be overly concentrated in the hands of any one person or institution," said spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. "The current constitutional vacuum in Egypt can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that includes checks and balances, and respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights, and the rule of law consistent with Egypt's international commitments."
Nuland called for calm and for all parties in Egypt to resolve differences through "democratic dialogue."
Meanwhile, the United Nations expressed serious concerns Friday about human rights and stability in Egypt.
"We are very concerned about the possible huge ramifications of this declaration on human rights and the rule of law in Egypt," Rupert Colville, U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay's spokesman, told a news briefing at the United Nations in Geneva. "We also fear this could lead to a very volatile situation over the next few days, starting today in fact."
Morsi's decree is also bound to worry Western allies, particularly the United States, a generous benefactor to Egypt's army.
NBC News' Charlene Gubash, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Oust Morsi and install a Coptic Christian Queen.
It's not looking good - personally I still think the problem was the military dismissing the elected Parliament because they didn't like it and the judiciary agreeing. It was sort of the transition's original sin and meant that Morsi's the only really elected element (with the Constitutional Assembly) while the new constitution's being written.
There were problems with the judiciary and there are other real problems that Morsi's addressed. All of this would be fine if, as one writer put it, he becomes an Egyptian Cincinnatus.
But at this point it looks a bit like he may have over-reached. The popular response has been far greater than I think was expected. I don't think the MB have much support within the Egyptian security state yet - from what I've read - so one thing to watch for is if they start forming their own security force, which could happen especially if the police and army don't help them enough.
Another thing is that liberal and Mubarakist Egyptians have, for some time, argued that there's a US-MB conspiracy going on. The Gaza ceasefire, followed by Morsi's declaration, followed by the limp US statement will feed that view on the non-MB wing of Egyptian politics.
What a shame. :( The Gaza cease fire, gave me some real hope. It looked like the new Egyptian government might play a positive role in a Palestinian peace. Hamas seemed to respect Morsi and listened to his advice, and I was hoping that meant he could help mediate between the US, Israel and Hamas.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
What a shame. :( The Gaza cease fire, gave me some real hope. It looked like the new Egyptian government might play a positive role in a Palestinian peace. Hamas seemed to respect Morsi and listened to his advice, and I was hoping that meant he could help mediate between the US, Israel and Hamas.
Stop being an infant.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
What a shame. :( The Gaza cease fire, gave me some real hope. It looked like the new Egyptian government might play a positive role in a Palestinian peace. Hamas seemed to respect Morsi and listened to his advice, and I was hoping that meant he could help mediate between the US, Israel and Hamas.
I don't think there's necessarily any link between Morsi's democratic credentials and his foreign policy. So you can go on hoping.
On Gaza he had no choice but played the situation very, very well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 06:20:39 AMAnother thing is that liberal and Mubarakist Egyptians have, for some time, argued that there's a US-MB conspiracy going on. The Gaza ceasefire, followed by Morsi's declaration, followed by the limp US statement will feed that view on the non-MB wing of Egyptian politics.
I feel tempted to post Daniel Pipes' article on conspiracy theories in the middle east... well, I succumbed..
http://www.danielpipes.org/214/dealing-with-middle-eastern-conspiracy-theories
QuoteWhile the conspiracy mentality exists in all regions of the world, it is outstandingly common in the Middle East. Few there resist its impact; leading politicians, religious figures, intellectuals, and journalists espouse wild fears of world domination by enemies. These ideas have a home at the heart of the political spectrum and therefore influence the tenor of Middle East political life. Nothing is so false that someone will not believe it; and transparent silliness does not reduce the importance of conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories spawn their own discourse, complete in itself and virtually immune to rational argument. Five assumptions distinguish the conspiracy theorist from more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all.
In the Middle East, moreover, almost every speculation about the hidden hand ultimately refers back to two grand conspirators: Zionists and imperialists. And imperialism, of course, means primarily the U.S. government. Communists and others come into consideration only to the extent they ally with one of these two principals.
That the U.S. government is blamed for so much that goes wrong in the Middle East means that the fear of conspiracy in the Middle East has many implications for the U.S. government. Much of the region's anti-Western, anti-Israeli, anti-democratic, anti-moderate, and anti-modern behavior results from fears of clandestine forces.
The U.S. government should integrate conspiracy theories into its reporting, briefing, and negotiating activities. It should also consider exploiting opportunities created by the conspiracy mentality.
Now with Iran, HizbAllah and HAMAS declaring victory on the grounds that assuming an Israeli Conspiracy to do unspeakable things to the people of Gaza victory is obvious since unspeakable things were not done.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 07:40:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 24, 2012, 06:35:41 AM
What a shame. :( The Gaza cease fire, gave me some real hope. It looked like the new Egyptian government might play a positive role in a Palestinian peace. Hamas seemed to respect Morsi and listened to his advice, and I was hoping that meant he could help mediate between the US, Israel and Hamas.
I don't think there's necessarily any link between Morsi's democratic credentials and his foreign policy. So you can go on hoping.
On Gaza he had no choice but played the situation very, very well.
Not his democratic credentials, but rather his Islamist stance. His democratic credentials helped him with the West. His Islamism helped him with Hamas. He made a good bridge.
Quote from: Viking on November 24, 2012, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 06:20:39 AMAnother thing is that liberal and Mubarakist Egyptians have, for some time, argued that there's a US-MB conspiracy going on. The Gaza ceasefire, followed by Morsi's declaration, followed by the limp US statement will feed that view on the non-MB wing of Egyptian politics.
I feel tempted to post Daniel Pipes' article on conspiracy theories in the middle east... well, I succumbed..
http://www.danielpipes.org/214/dealing-with-middle-eastern-conspiracy-theories
QuoteWhile the conspiracy mentality exists in all regions of the world, it is outstandingly common in the Middle East. Few there resist its impact; leading politicians, religious figures, intellectuals, and journalists espouse wild fears of world domination by enemies. These ideas have a home at the heart of the political spectrum and therefore influence the tenor of Middle East political life. Nothing is so false that someone will not believe it; and transparent silliness does not reduce the importance of conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theories spawn their own discourse, complete in itself and virtually immune to rational argument. Five assumptions distinguish the conspiracy theorist from more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all.
In the Middle East, moreover, almost every speculation about the hidden hand ultimately refers back to two grand conspirators: Zionists and imperialists. And imperialism, of course, means primarily the U.S. government. Communists and others come into consideration only to the extent they ally with one of these two principals.
That the U.S. government is blamed for so much that goes wrong in the Middle East means that the fear of conspiracy in the Middle East has many implications for the U.S. government. Much of the region's anti-Western, anti-Israeli, anti-democratic, anti-moderate, and anti-modern behavior results from fears of clandestine forces.
The U.S. government should integrate conspiracy theories into its reporting, briefing, and negotiating activities. It should also consider exploiting opportunities created by the conspiracy mentality.
Now with Iran, HizbAllah and HAMAS declaring victory on the grounds that assuming an Israeli Conspiracy to do unspeakable things to the people of Gaza victory is obvious since unspeakable things were not done.
I reckon he would know, after all he buys into the conspiracy bullshit that Obama is or was a Muslim.
The Pipes family is worthless.
It looks like the protests were far more than was expected and they've kept the momentum - crucially they've spread way out of Cairo and even the FJP (the MB's party) headquarters in a stronghold like Alexandria were burned last night.
The problem for Morsi is that he's going to face ongoing, violent protests, or he gracelessly backs down and becomes a lame duck President. Or he could try and become the full tyrant and eliminate the protests, but I don't think he has the institutional support to do that, if the army wouldn't crush a revolt for Mubarak it seems unlikely that they would for the MB. Indeed according to some sources some 'leaders' of the protests (made up of left-liberals, Mubarakist ultras, angry revolutionaries and Salafists) have been in touch with army officers and the officers are supporting the protest movement.
This isn't Mubarak's Egypt though, so the courts are apparently going on strike over this and newspaper editorials have condemned him as a 'dictator' - apparently his new nickname is Morsolini.
I think he has to try and reach out to other groups to build more of a coalition of support - the MB aren't popular enough to do this sort of thing alone. So there probably has to be at least some sort of climbdown. One other possible wrinkle in it all is working out quite what Morsi's roles and powers are. He wasn't the first choice of the MB (that was Shater, ruled ineligible by the courts because his mother's an American citizen) and the power within the MB still lies elsewhere.
On conspiracy theories the anti-MB in Egypt point out that this move and when he sacked Tantawi both came the day after meeting Clinton. My suspicion is that rather than a conspiracy he got broad US assurances of support and acted. More generally there is a problem with conspiracy thinking in the Middle East but I think as much as anything that's a symptom of their government systems. I'd add that febrile revolutionary atmospheres often produce absurd conspiracies too. It wouldn't surprise me if we start hearing about Queen Noor's diamond necklaces soon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 08:18:36 PM
apparently his new nickname is Morsolini.
:lol: See, Muddled Easterners do have a flair for humor when it doesn't involve the Zionist Entity.
QuoteOn conspiracy theories the anti-MB in Egypt point out that this move and when he sacked Tantawi both came the day after meeting Clinton. My suspicion is that rather than a conspiracy he got broad US assurances of support and acted.
I'm sure Senators Graham and McCain will do their part as well.
QuoteMore generally there is a problem with conspiracy thinking in the Middle East but I think as much as anything that's a symptom of their government systems. I'd add that febrile revolutionary atmospheres often produce absurd conspiracies too. It wouldn't surprise me if we start hearing about Queen Noor's diamond necklaces soon.
Yes, it's a symptom of their government systems, but it's as much as the lack of education, knowledge of the outside world and the cocoonism of their own culture; granted, those issues were always molded and massaged by the government, but let's face it: Mooselimbs are a very silly people. The masses are still blissfully content 3rd Worlders wrapped in the ignorance of their moon god religion and Jew hate. You give them too much credit.
It cannot be a symptom of their government, because, in my opinion, any government reflects the culture of the people it reigns upon. Governments that manage to stay long term, that is.
Local political culture is reflected in the government, not the other way around
Tamas just made baby Imre Nagy cry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 24, 2012, 08:18:36 PMapparently his new nickname is Morsolini.
A case of damning by faint praise if I ever saw one. Faro Morsis the Great or Ptorsi Soter would be more respectful.. as well as better political criticsm, especially when done within quote marks.
Latest rumour is that Morsi's planning to close down the Constitutional Court. Which would be an escalation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2012, 07:52:34 PM
Latest rumour is that Morsi's planning to close down the Constitutional Court. Which would be an escalation.
btw, shelf, I told you so. Muslim Brotherhood = Bad just like I said.
Quote from: Viking on November 25, 2012, 07:54:59 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2012, 07:52:34 PM
Latest rumour is that Morsi's planning to close down the Constitutional Court. Which would be an escalation.
btw, shelf, I told you so. Muslim Brotherhood = Bad just like I said.
But he's popular, and the Tahrir Squares, the moderates and other intelligent people are in the minority. Yay for democracy in moon god countries.
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2012, 02:52:42 AM
It cannot be a symptom of their government, because, in my opinion, any government reflects the culture of the people it reigns upon. Governments that manage to stay long term, that is.
Local political culture is reflected in the government, not the other way around
I think it's more complex. The Arab world is mainly ruled by some form of monarchic state or other - whether republican or actually a monarchy seems to make little difference. With the exception of the biased satellite news channels (al-Jazeera is Qatari so backs the MB, al-Arabiya is Saudi and tends to back 'stable' monarchies and Salafis, and so on) there's little free press - though there is the internet. The ruling elite is made up of various, often kleptocratic, courtiers whose influence is based on their access and intimacy with the ruler or their ability to build internal states that make them indispensable. On top of that there's often an element of tribalism and, in certain states, sectarianism.
Now bits of that are cultural obviously - for example I think the idea of using the state to get money and patronage goes quite nicely with a tribal or sectarian society. But what it all means taken together is that very often rumour, conspiracy theory and gossip will be more accurate than reported 'truth'. This is true of Western reporting of the Middle East as much as it is of their own state press. I think people tend to universalise from their own experience. I remember reading that the Kremlin simply didn't believe that the British government couldn't lean on newspapers to stop talking about Litvinenko and so the persistence of the British press hurt British-Russian relations as much as the British government's policies did.
So I think in some ways that Western reporting isn't informed or in depth enough (and can't be, because there's not enough people who are interested in inter-tribal struggles within the Syrian government) or necessarily cynical enough. So even the free press I think often presents something closer to the 'official story' when discussing these governments. Often, I think, the theories inspired by rumour and gossip and potentially unlinked facts are as useful because of the system. From a Western perspective I think the best thing is to read the best Arab, English-language sources who tend to be very cynical and the Western Arabist professor who's started a blog.
It's nonsense to say that all conspiracy theories boil down to the US and Israel - there's lots of suspicions on Iran, Saudi, Qatar, the MB, the Army and all the rest too. I think, reading the China thread, that there's something similar there though their system is different. So I think that example of the Shah being convinced that the US was behind his ouster was a bit like the Kremlin: to him a popular revolt would probably be unimaginable, it was almost unprecedented, he had SAVAK and, as the CIA famously reported, Iran seemed amazingly calm in the mid to late seventies. Add to that the circumstances of 1953 and his own personality, which was rather paranoid, his own habit of often brutally betraying subordinates and the conspiracy theory is reasonable but wrong. (On the Iranian revolution I recommend 'The Crown for the Turban' which I've since given to a charity shop but has a lot on the Shah's paranoia and suspicions of US betrayal which is fascinating.)
Quotebtw, shelf, I told you so. Muslim Brotherhood = Bad just like I said.
Democracy is good. I still think the fundamental problem is that the army and Constitutional Court disbanded the elected Parliament and are trying to disband the constitutional assembly which will leave Morsi the only democratic figure in post-revolutionary Egypt. Morsi's powergrab is wrong but so was the army's in April. A lot of this is trying to deal with that.
Personally I'm still unsure. A couple of days ago I thought it was too soon to tell but I was pessimistic, now I think it's too soon to tell and I'm optimistic again. The protests and the response have been far stronger than I expected which I think is a good sign.
The reports now are that Morsi is going to be meeting with some senior judges including the head of the Constitutional Court - so we could be back to him trying to broaden his coalition and possibly climbing down.
QuoteBut he's popular, and the Tahrir Squares, the moderates and other intelligent people are in the minority.
Actually he's not. That's precisely his problem with moving so fast. He got around 25% in the first round and around 52% in the second round run-off.
I thought this piece by a Belgian liberal who's been in Cairo since the revolution began was interesting:
QuoteEgypt and the psychology of dictatorship. An outsider's perspective.
What was Morsi thinking on the evening of November 22? Everyone expected him to take some measures to appease the clashes that commemorated the many killed revolutionaries one year ago in Mohamed Mahmud Street. Instead he made a Constitutional Declaration of seven articles, giving himself unlimited powers. Article 2 says: "All constitutional declarations, laws and decrees made since Morsi assumed power on 30 June 2012 cannot be appealed or canceled by any individual, or political or governmental body until a new constitution has been ratified and a new parliament has been elected. All lawsuits against them are declared void." Article 6 says that "The president is authorized to take any measures he sees fit in order to preserve the revolution, to preserve national unity or to safeguard national security."
Not only the world was stunned, Mohamed Morsi himself was also surprised, by the overall negative reaction. Didn't he take these powers to give blinded revolutionaries pensions, to reopen the trials that let those responsible for the killings unpunished, to give the liberals more time to finish the constitution? And above all, didn't he fire one of the most hated remnants of the old regime, the public prosecutor, who refused to investigate so many cases filed by revolutionaries? So, what was Morsi thinking when he issued his declaration? Was it amateurism or bad will? A lot of people on Tahrir said: "Told you so. The Muslim Brotherhood is a Masonic-like organization who wants to take power in order to turn Egypt into a second Iran." I believe the problem lies somewhere else.
I asked sources, close to the president and the government, in private what was going on. What they told me struck the historian in me. They unfolded to me that the government had proof that the judges, the administration and the media were conspiring against the president and the government. Not to overthrow them but to block whatever they wanted to do to make progress. The media, they said, did not bring the good news. They only criticize. No wonder, because they were paid by foreign funds. There was even proof that some liberals were in the same kind of conspiracy.
Sure there is some truth to it. The media hasn't been very kind. The Constitutional Court had dissolved the People's Assembly and was poised to dissolve the Constitutional Assembly as well. The public prosecutor has indeed not been very cooperative. The judges seemed to have used legal grounds to motivate political rulings. The bureaucracy is dragging decisions into the administrative mud. And the liberals walked out of the Constitutional Assembly. But labeling al this as a conspiracy is more then one bridge too far. I have worked in opposition and government in Belgium. Every politician gets that feeling at least once in his career. The 'they-are-all-against-us-motif' is an all time classic. It happens in all countries in the entire world. The question is how do you react to it?
The biggest danger is going into the bunker-mentality, closing your self up in retreat, waiting for the right moment for a counter-attack. In a fully fledged democracy this counter-attack is always pretty harmless, because the bunker-mentality makes you misread the situation and loose the next election. Nicolas Sarkozy is a good example. In a post-revolutionary situation, the counter-attack is mostly very dangerous. Because whatever you decide, your bunker-mentality will make you only more suspicious and will encourage you to go down the path of dictatorship, step by step.
Egypt has seen this evolution before. When Nasser took power in 1952 he didn't shut down democracy immediately. I even think his initial intentions were good. He wanted to liberate Egypt from its foreign occupiers and their puppets. But then he was drawn into the bunker-mentality. He didn't trust his former friends anymore and surely not the political parties that wanted to block his plans. Gradually, Nasser turned into a brutal dictator himself, sacking president Naguib, abolishing political parties and imprisoning all 'anti-revolutionary forces'.
This is the psychology of post-revolutionary dictatorship: fighting the enemy of the revolution from an ever smaller becoming bunker. Many revolutionary leaders went down the same path. After the French revolution some leaders wanted to fight against the counterrevolutionary forces. They weren't butchers by nature. On the contrary, they were mainly intellectuals who were suddenly overwhelmed by the fear that the revolution might fail. Lenin made the same mistake. Initially, he wanted to install a government out of representatives of the Soviets. The Soviets were the councils set up by soldiers, farmers and workers against the reign of the Tsar. But when the councils – without which no revolution would have been possible – criticized the plans of Lenin, he labelled them as enemies of the people and sent them to Siberia.
I am not saying that Morsi is a dictator or that the Muslim Brothers are the same ruthless people as the Bolsheviks. But they should realize that there is no such thing as a big conspiracy against them. There simply is no human brain big enough to master media, judges, politicians and the street. That only exists in films of James Bond. Most people just fight for their ideas or for their own position. Of course, there are many opponents who would like to see them fail, but that is the case in every democracy. The Central-European countries needed two decades to become well-functioning democracies after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Transition is not easy and it takes an awful amount of time.
The problem is that once you go down the path to dictatorship, there is hardly a way back. So Morsi has the choice: either he sticks with his declaration and has to start a crackdown in order to maintain it. Or he leaves his bunker, cancels his declaration and faces the difficulties every post-revolutionary transition has to deal with. There is always a way out. The president and the opposition should start a dialogue instead of setting ultimatums. Deleting articles 2 and 6 and agreeing on a way to move forward with the Constituent Assembly might be the only solution to avoid a major political deadlock. It is not easy and often very frustrating. But thinking that a short period of dictatorship will set everything right is wrong. History proves that the path to democracy never leads through dictatorship.
One thing that struck me is that I almost automatically capitalised 'revolution' (in part this is because I loathe the phrase 'Arab Spring', so I try not to use it). Thinking about it I'm not sure if this is because I think the Egyptian revolt is important and historically very significant (though I think it is) or if it's because the way it's talked about by some Egyptian writers I read and by Morsi himself reminds me of the French. The 'revolution' is a thing which is sacred and needs to protected from her enemies - it seems to be discussed with a capital. If it's the latter then that in itself seems a worrying development.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2012, 11:51:27 PM
Quotebtw, shelf, I told you so. Muslim Brotherhood = Bad just like I said.
Democracy is good. I still think the fundamental problem is that the army and Constitutional Court disbanded the elected Parliament and are trying to disband the constitutional assembly which will leave Morsi the only democratic figure in post-revolutionary Egypt. Morsi's powergrab is wrong but so was the army's in April. A lot of this is trying to deal with that.
Personally I'm still unsure. A couple of days ago I thought it was too soon to tell but I was pessimistic, now I think it's too soon to tell and I'm optimistic again. The protests and the response have been far stronger than I expected which I think is a good sign.
The reports now are that Morsi is going to be meeting with some senior judges including the head of the Constitutional Court - so we could be back to him trying to broaden his coalition and possibly climbing down.
Democracy is good. That is the point. The other point is that you can't have democracy without democrats. That's what happened in Germany in the 1930's. The Republic only had the Social Democrats, everybody else was hoping to replace it with something else. The Muslim Brotherhood is not democratic it has never been democratic. It doesn't see democracy as a value or even as an end goal. They think that law comes from god, nobody who thinks that will ever be democratic.
In general I agreed with his move against the army, though now it seems merely a first step to rending the greatest threat to him impotent. I was as uneasy then as you profess to be now. The army was the only institution influenced by a solid democratic force acting for rule of law and democracy in Egypt, the US State Department. I was worried that he neutered the army to prevent it from coup'ing him when he went and usurped some other branch of government, like, say (checking yesterdays newspaper), the judiciary.
The activists of Tahrir (who, to my surprise turn out to be much more liberal than I thought at the time, just badly organized) have stood up again. That is good. What the army couldn't do thugs using violence against sin and vice in the streets can do perfectly well without government support, merely acquiescence, Green Revolution style.
Morsi moved to remove any input from what seems more and more like a put up job on the constitution from outside the convention which is dominated by the Brothers.
As I said at the start, you cannot have democracy without democrats. The brothers are not democrats. They are willing to play by democracy's rules, they can do that without supporting them. As with any religious party or movement the problem remains that you don't vote for which god is true and which theology predominates, god and theology tell you how to vote.
:rolleyes:
Viking is right.
And a lot of you people are overanalyzing this. That region has no history of any kind of semi-advanced political culture. Of course their democracy will be shortlived (eg. about 6 months like in Egypt).
The Arab Spring was about a bunch of desperate, poor people going into unrest. It was not a mass of facebook-generation western liberal arabs as the clueless journalists claimed.
The best Egypt can hope for I think is a Putin-esque (or Hungary-esque) pretend-democracy. I seriously doubt there is real mass demand for anything more. If there is, it will be eliminated by the democratic regime's guaranteed inability to lift up the country in a couple of years.
Quote from: Tamas on November 26, 2012, 02:50:03 AM
That region has no history of any kind of semi-advanced political culture.
Turkey?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2012, 03:13:11 AM
Quote from: Tamas on November 26, 2012, 02:50:03 AM
That region has no history of any kind of semi-advanced political culture.
Turkey?
Right. Introduced and maintained by no-compromise military ruthlessness. MAYBE it will survive after the military spent 80 years forcing secularism down the throat of everyone. Maybe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 25, 2012, 11:51:27 PM
So I think that example of the Shah being convinced that the US was behind his ouster was a bit like the Kremlin: to him a popular revolt would probably be unimaginable, it was almost unprecedented, he had SAVAK and, as the CIA famously reported, Iran seemed amazingly calm in the mid to late seventies. Add to that the circumstances of 1953 and his own personality, which was rather paranoid, his own habit of often brutally betraying subordinates and the conspiracy theory is reasonable but wrong. (On the Iranian revolution I recommend 'The Crown for the Turban' which I've since given to a charity shop but has a lot on the Shah's paranoia and suspicions of US betrayal which is fascinating.)
All strongmen are convinced by decades of reinforced infallibility in their own bubbles. That's why they rarely choose exile, and usually wind up dead. It's not unique to Muddled Eastern strongmen, either.
I'm too tired to address Viking's points tonight. I would note however that you do need democrats for democracy - not, I'd note, liberal democrats. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be a thing for the leadership. Not every revolution has a Havel or an Aroyo and, in fact, the Arab revolts have been strikingly leaderless. Over the last few days it looks more and more like the Egyptians are the democrats, still shouting 'enough!' If there's strong enough popular commitment to democracy that matters more, if there's not then you end up with Hungary :(
Anyway the Islamist dominated Constitutional Assembly have released their draft which will be voted on in a referendum December 15th. Chances are it'll pass, first constitutions tend to and I think most Egyptians would rather some rules than what Marc Lynch has rightly called this Calvinball transition. The BBC has a good guide to the differences between the new constitution and the last (Sadat-era ) one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20555478
For me the key question is whether it's poorly or maliciously written and I really don't think that's necessarily clear.
What is striking of course is the depth and persistence of protests against Morsi. We've seen hundreds of thousands occupying Tahrir and major streets in Cairo again - Morsi had to leave the Presidential Palace a couple of days ago and still hasn't returned. This has spread across all Governorates and the FJP's HQ has been burned in a number of cities. I thought this piece on the protests was good, I love the slogan 'shave your beard, show your disgrace, you will find that you have Mubarak's face!'
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/world/middleeast/egyptian-newspapers-and-broadcasters-protest-draft-constitution.html
It won't be another revolution but as ever in revolutionary situations we're still seeing the participants defining what this revolution is about. For many in Egypt I think it was an end to this style of rule, for the Brothers it was an opportunity to govern. In comparison with the glory days of 2011 the US is more or less in the same place, the military is more reluctant to take power or to take on the streets, al-Jazeera is entirely supportive of Morsi. The MB's repeatedly postponed their 'million man march' in support of Morsi but today there were counter-protests and some violence. Interestingly there's a fair few reports the police were taking the anti-Morsi protesters' side.
Anyway Morsi's apparently going to address the nation later today with 'good news'. My own view is still broadly optimistic. I think the MB made a big power-play and I think it's very difficult for them to win this given the lack of institutional support from the military and the police. What's more I think they're being discredited. A lot of Morsi's support was based on the fact that he was better than the ex-NDPer Shafiq, that may be gone. This could change but right now it still seems more likely that the MB will have to give way one something.
Here's two interesting (and differing) pieces that take a wider view:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138472/steven-a-cook/morsis-mistake
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/masoud-morsy-muslim-brotherhood/index.html
Edit: Incidentally the weakness of the Brothers PR wing has been shocking. They've said that all of the injured today were MBs - no exceptions - and that they were attacked by ex-Mubarak operatives. Similarly they were saying there were only 2 000 protesters outside the Presidential Palace, while Egyptian TV news was showing images like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gillettenewsrecord.com%2Fuploads%2Foriginal%2F1354671725_e669.jpg&hash=79c3d36603281edbb9938900c275766877024404)
Madness.
Edit: Also I think we can definitely see the superiority of Tunisia's rational timetable for transition: revolution - elect constitutional assembly (they're still at this stage) - elect President and Parliament according to new constitution.
Egypt's version was always a bit mad: revolution - elect Parliament - elect President - elect constitutional assembly - write constitution :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2012, 11:03:43 PM
I'm too tired to address Viking's points tonight. I would note however that you do need democrats for democracy - not, I'd note, liberal democrats. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be a thing for the leadership. Not every revolution has a Havel or an Aroyo and, in fact, the Arab revolts have been strikingly leaderless. Over the last few days it looks more and more like the Egyptians are the democrats, still shouting 'enough!' If there's strong enough popular commitment to democracy that matters more, if there's not then you end up with Hungary :(
Show me a illiberal democrat and I'll rethink. The thing is that the entire western political spectrum fits within classical political liberalism. Calling somebody a liberal democrat is redundant. Self professed conservative, social democrats, progressives, liberals, nationalists and christian democrats are all political liberals today. Seeing democracy as the ultimate means of organizing government is what makes one a political liberal. Playing semantics won't change that. The brothers do not agree, they see democracy as a train they can travel to their destination (I think it was Abdullah Gul that said that).
I haven't seen the constitution or any discussion of it (will read your links though, haven't done that yet) so I can only judge it on the composition of the constitutional assembly (overwhelmingly composed of male muslim brothers and their sympathisers). The Soviet Union famously had a perfect constitution, we see how that turned out. The lowest acceptible result of the constitution is that it be a good one. If it is substantially flawed such as the rumor I heard that it would subject each egyptian to clerical courts of one of three acceptible religions (the abrahamic faiths) then it is doubly flawed since reasonable behaviour can only happen in the breach of the constitution.
Religious courts are there for 'religious and civil matters' so I think family issues etc. There's interesting reflections on the constitution here - it's links and resemblances with previous Egyptian constitutions and France's V Republic (striking given that the AKP are rather Gaullist in many ways):
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8172/reflections-on-egypts-draft-constitution
Here's a bit more:
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/draft-constitution-some-controversial-stipulations
The National Review's had great anti-constitution posts too. But obviously they're worth treating with a pinch of salt.
QuoteSeeing democracy as the ultimate means of organizing government is what makes one a political liberal. Playing semantics won't change that.
Not necessarily I think as the Middle East, Africa and, perhaps, bits of Asia democratise we'll see the emergence of a 'conservative democracy' which places more emphasis on community values than individual liberties, but still adheres to democracy as a way of choosing leaders and of getting accountability.
Edit: Incidentally it'll be interesting to see whether Aboul Fotouh will make any public statements about the protests. From what I can see there's pressure on him to join. So far though, silence.
I'm not sure Japan or Mexico under one-party rule would be classified as Liberal Democracies.
I've read that Singapore is considered an illiberal democracy.
I found an article on the idea http://fareedzakaria.com/1997/11/01/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/
I'm not really sure that Viking is a political liberal. I mean, last month he created a thread musing on ways to remove political rights of people he disagreed with by having them labeled mentally ill and prevented from running for office.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 05, 2012, 11:42:28 PM
I'm not sure Japan or Mexico under one-party rule would be classified as Liberal Democracies.
In Japan the LDP (Which to paraphrase Voltaire was neither liberal, democratic nor a party) won without cheating (not that vote buying isn't technically cheating), I doubt the same can be said about the PRI. I'd like to ask you can you say the same of ANC run South Africa?
I think you people are confusing Liberalum ad electoro with Liberalum in elector (no that isn't latin and you are supposed to get the reference or you don't belong here). Just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. I specifically went out of my way to specify classical political liberalism to avoid this idiotic clusterfuck in your brains.
The very center point of the liberal democracy is that the people are free to select their own assembly to make the laws an free to select their own government to implement those laws. If you are going to delegate civil and religious matters (which interfere with everything in life except defense and foreign affairs which any civilized society delegates to the government) then you aren't living under laws of men made by the assemblies chosen by the people you are living under the laws of <insert relevant muhammed expletive> interpreted by the guys who are best at office politics at al azhar. That is the polar opposite of living in a liberal democracy.
Sheilbh seems to think that the powerbrokers in society can forcibly put some laws outside of democratic control and still call that society a liberal democracy. And anybody who wants to reference the US constitution here I point out that not only has it been changed it has been changed back.
I am with Viking on this one.
Quote
I think you people are confusing Liberalum ad electoro with Liberalum in elector (no that isn't latin and you are supposed to get the reference or you don't belong here). Just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. I specifically went out of my way to specify classical political liberalism to avoid this idiotic clusterfuck in your brains.
First off, let me explain something about shaming. Shaming only works if the shamer has enough social clout to shame the shamee. So, if Sheilbh, Joan, AR or OVB were to do it-you know what, I'd probably not feel that great.
But you? You're a few sucked dicks from being Grallon. Don't fool yourself.
And you completely failed to address my point. I realize that the LDP was democratically elected. The LDP, however, made Japan into a one state system, including huge networks of patronage that you just don't typically associate with Liberal Democracies as we understand it in the west. They were also routinely harnessed Rightist groups to fight the Left.
In 1944, Japan had a brutal authoritarian, plutocratic, hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained relatively generous welfare state.
In 1954, Japan had a democratic, functionally plutocratic hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained a relatively generous welfare state.
Japan did not fall asleep one night and wake up a fully functional, recognizably Liberal in the western sense Democracy. Get your goddamn head out of your ass.
How about Nigeria? India? Russia? Hungary? Brazil? These are all nations that, while they have functional to semi-functional democratic processes are still just very, very different from most of our European and North American models.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 06, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
Quote
I think you people are confusing Liberalum ad electoro with Liberalum in elector (no that isn't latin and you are supposed to get the reference or you don't belong here). Just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. I specifically went out of my way to specify classical political liberalism to avoid this idiotic clusterfuck in your brains.
First off, let me explain something about shaming. Shaming only works if the shamer has enough social clout to shame the shamee. So, if Sheilbh, Joan, AR or OVB were to do it-you know what, I'd probably not feel that great.
But you? You're a few sucked dicks from being Grallon. Don't fool yourself.
Look I'm not sure here if you are proudly declaring that you don't know that there is a difference between jus ad bello and jus in bello or that you didn't get the reference or that you are saying that you are going to ignore my arguments because I'm making them. I'm not sure what you hope to achive with calling me names. I'm pretty sure cicero never started a case by calling the jurors stupid.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 06, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
And you completely failed to address my point. I realize that the LDP was democratically elected. The LDP, however, made Japan into a one state system, including huge networks of patronage that you just don't typically associate with Liberal Democracies as we understand it in the west. They were also routinely harnessed Rightist groups to fight the Left.
In 1944, Japan had a brutal authoritarian, plutocratic, hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained relatively generous welfare state.
In 1954, Japan had a democratic, functionally plutocratic hierarchical system that was run in collaboration with the various Zaibatsu, and maintained a relatively generous welfare state.
Japan did not fall asleep one night and wake up a fully functional, recognizably Liberal in the western sense Democracy. Get your goddamn head out of your ass.
How about Nigeria? India? Russia? Hungary? Brazil? These are all nations that, while they have functional to semi-functional democratic processes are still just very, very different from most of our European and North American models.
The LDP didn't win elections by stuffing the ballots, stealing elections, imprisoning political opponents, beating up political opponents or anything like that. It won because people voted for them voluntarily (or permitted themselves to be bribed). As I said above, just because everybody votes conservative doesn't unmake a liberal democracy. It's the process that matters. When Japanese voters tired of the LDP they voted in the opposition.
Japan did wake up one morning and it the whole population decided that it was their duty to make this new fangled thing called democracy work. It is actually the only state in history to do just that. You can argue if that date was August 15, September 2 1945 or May 3 1947.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2012, 11:42:06 PM
QuoteSeeing democracy as the ultimate means of organizing government is what makes one a political liberal. Playing semantics won't change that.
Not necessarily I think as the Middle East, Africa and, perhaps, bits of Asia democratise we'll see the emergence of a 'conservative democracy' which places more emphasis on community values than individual liberties, but still adheres to democracy as a way of choosing leaders and of getting accountability
While I'm not sure that I agree with Viking, I don't see how this refutes the specific point the bit you quoted from him makes.
Quote from: Viking on December 06, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
Japan did wake up one morning and it the whole population decided that it was their duty to make this new fangled thing called democracy work. It is actually the only state in history to do just that. You can argue if that date was August 15, September 2 1945 or May 3 1947.
Neither Japan nor Germany ever decided to become democracies--they had democracy imposed on them.
Liberal democracy I understand as a democracy in which there are secure protections for the rights of politial minorities. While in theory an illiberal democracy is possible, in practice it tends to default to sham because it allows the government to pick off oppositional minorities and reduce them to permanent electoral irrelevance - thus perpetuating effective dictatorship with only the empty forms of pluralism. Russia is a good present-day example.
A pre-requisite to liberal democracy but conceptually distinct is recognition and acceptance of rule of law. Liberal democracy cannot live without it because respect for the rule of law is needed for minorities to vindicate their rights and make them a reality. But rule of law can also exist in illiberal democracies (like Singapore) or even non-democracies (like Hong Kong - and the rest of the PRC is moving in that direction).
Morsi may be illiberal but the problem with his November declaration is not illiberality but its undermining of the rule of law.
Quote from: dps on December 06, 2012, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 06, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
Japan did wake up one morning and it the whole population decided that it was their duty to make this new fangled thing called democracy work. It is actually the only state in history to do just that. You can argue if that date was August 15, September 2 1945 or May 3 1947.
Neither Japan nor Germany ever decided to become democracies--they had democracy imposed on them.
They had a choice. To enthusiastically try to make it work (which is what they did) or actively (werewolf style (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf_(Freisch%C3%A4rlerbewegung))) try to sabotage it like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The deciding factor (imho) in germany was the total loss of legitimacy of the weimar anti democratic forces, the monarchists were by this time dead or discredited by their association with nazis and the army, the communists were discredited by the soviet union itself (what with soviet agriculture being in dire need of mechanization) and the nazis were discredited by the war and their behavior during it. Only the Sozis were left and they were still democrats. The catholic conservatives did what they always did and toadied to power while trying to weasle concessions.
In Japan the same source of legitimacy that justified the war then had an about face and supported democracy. This is one of those great man moments in history when the Showa Tennoheika (Hirohito) decided to cooperate with the americans to rebuild japan.
I'm on my phone and tired so will respond properly tomorrow.
But I'm suggesting that a form of 'conservative democracy' may emerge in the Middle East and Africa. The emphasis being more on community identity, rights and values under a democracy, rather than those of an individual. So democracy plus, for example, community defined limits on acceptable speech, the preservation of customary and Sharia legal systems and certain 'defining' institutions maintaining a special position. A more conservative version of Dev's Ireland. They may end up choosing a more liberal path, but I don't think that's where they will or necessarily should start.
On the rule of law I broadly agree JR, but I think this transition is closer to that Lynch analogy of Calvinball politics. There were no agreed laws and all sides have invented their own rules as they wen along. I think that would be a very real advantage of having even a flawed constitution.
I am taking this seriously, so don't think I am merely taking cheap shots here.. so I'll avoid the lebanon and iran comparisons.. you can make them yourself.
Or, now that I've made them they can stand for themselves and save me the time and effort to spelling it out.
BTW, having read Calvin and Hobbes in norwegian (translated to Tommy and the Tiger which pretty much ruins much the entire point...) my first association from reading Calvinball is gorey immaginations of what Calvin did to Michael Servetus' testicles...
The entire problem with a society focused on community identity, rights and values as well as a badly defined legal system like shariah is that it degenerates to arbitrary rule by community and religious leaders. This is precisely what has happened in Lebanon and Iran. They degenerate to whim.
What will happen is that Christian, Muslim and the few Jewish (if any) religious leaders that remain will set their own community standards and will be able to do so without limit or control. Egyptian cities are (like london) many villages that have grown into each other and egyptian life is still very much based on the extended family so the flight to the city which alleviated this problem in europe at the time doesn't exist as an option. This will apply more to Christian than Muslim egyptians since group confidence among muslims will allow more deviation from the norm than the oppressed christian group.
But, as you suggest, you can have a society which is not a liberal democracy but includes voting as one of the schemes for rulers to gain legitimacy. This is Iran today. Would you call Iran a Conservative Democracy? If no, what difference is there between your Conservative democracy (which you need to rename since the opposite of liberal is enslaved and the opposite of conservative is radical) and Veleyat-e faqih?
It's good to eliminate the rule of law. Lawyers are not our friends, and courts and judges serve their interests and not ours.
Quote from: Viking on December 06, 2012, 08:44:59 PM
BTW, having read Calvin and Hobbes in norwegian (translated to Tommy and the Tiger which pretty much ruins much the entire point...) my first association from reading Calvinball is gorey immaginations of what Calvin did to Michael Servetus' testicles...
Here's a guide:
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/18/calvinball_in_cairo
QuoteThe entire problem with a society focused on community identity, rights and values as well as a badly defined legal system like shariah is that it degenerates to arbitrary rule by community and religious leaders. This is precisely what has happened in Lebanon and Iran. They degenerate to whim.
What will happen is that Christian, Muslim and the few Jewish (if any) religious leaders that remain will set their own community standards and will be able to do so without limit or control. Egyptian cities are (like london) many villages that have grown into each other and egyptian life is still very much based on the extended family so the flight to the city which alleviated this problem in europe at the time doesn't exist as an option. This will apply more to Christian than Muslim egyptians since group confidence among muslims will allow more deviation from the norm than the oppressed christian group.
You seem to think I'm arguing that this is what should happen. It's what I think will happen in a democratising Middle East and Africa. I think the democratisation is good but that it'll probably develop in a different way, which is fine. My view is it probably has more chance of working if it grows from the social and cultural values of the society.
QuoteBut, as you suggest, you can have a society which is not a liberal democracy but includes voting as one of the schemes for rulers to gain legitimacy. This is Iran today. Would you call Iran a Conservative Democracy? If no, what difference is there between your Conservative democracy (which you need to rename since the opposite of liberal is enslaved and the opposite of conservative is radical) and Veleyat-e faqih?
Iran isn't a democracy of any type. It has elections, but only to a certain level. Iran is significantly more democratic than much of the Middle East. But it's not a country that allows for transition of power, or for democratic accountability, or for a democratic process of constitutional change.
The reason I've used the phrase conservative democracy is because I think what could emerge is a system that is democratic and has those advantages (accountability of leadership, peaceful transitions of power, public discourse) and the necessary prerequisites like the rule of law. But I think the significant aspect of liberal democracy to me is that it's fundamentally about the state and the individual. Under it what matters is the individual's rights which are protected and guaranteed by the state, to the extent they are circumscribed they are done by the state.
In the Middle East and Africa I think what could emerge will be a democratic system where the primary relationship is between an individual and their community. This may be for admirable reasons - to avoid a tribal or sectarian conflict - but also from a basic desire to conserve the current social structure (as the President of Sierra Leone recently put it when pressed on gay rights, 'we're very happy the way we are'). So whole rafts of family law and much civil law and perhaps even some minor criminal law will probably be adjudicated the way it is now through customary law or Sharia law, but that that will be recognised within the state. Similarly the individual's rights will be limited and circumscribed not necessarily by the state but by the community. So rather than the state having a relationship with individuals to an extent it's managing and mediating communities, who in turn guarantee and circumscribe the 'rights' of individuals. Some of this isn't so radical - Sharia law is available on family issues in Israel, it's mandatory for Muslims in India, it's already the norm in the rest of the Middle East and much of Africa.
Arguably it could be something to do with development. It seems to me that a required condition for liberal democracy is a strong state, because individual rights are also a duty on the state to protect those rights (against religious, or local leaders) and those strong states don't necessarily exist in these areas. Regardless I think as Africa and the Middle East become more democratic we will see democrats and democracies that aren't recognisably liberal in their concept of the state. As I say, I think that's fine.
Here's the Guardian liveblog on Morsi's speech:
QuoteMorsi announced a meeting to take place Saturday with the opposition. He blamed the violence on paid agents of unnamed forces wishing to destroy the country. He said an investigation was under way to bring those forces to justice.
He warned against further violent unrest, saying it would not be tolerated. He listed numerous targets that must not be attacked, including government buildings and institutions. The list of verboten behavior included, to the mirth of many listeners, blocking traffic.
He said the referendum on the constitution would proceed as planned. He seemed willing to discuss his decree of unchecked power – but he defended it as part of his duty as president to defend Egypt's "sovereignty."
Many snap analysts see no concessions in the speech whatsoever. Some think that Morsi may have signaled a willingness to back down from his decree at Saturday's meeting. The protesters outside the palace know what they think of the speech. They're crying for Morsi's exit as president.
His thunder was somewhat stolen by a journalist on one of the Egyptian networks. She'd interviewed Hamdeen Sabahi, the third-placed left Nasserist Presidential candidate. Apparently the network management wouldn't let her air the interview so she resigned live during the evening news :lol: :)
Also from the Guardian, this looks like highlights:
Quote"I speak to you while my heart is bleeding for the innocent loss of lives in front of presidential palace," he says.
"I feel a responsibility toward every Egyptian citizen, opposition or supporter, because we are one nation. We all should enjoy equally peace and security.
"After these painful incidents, under the guise of a political difference, the only way is dialogue to reach a consensus, to secure the interests of the country, and to achieve the will of these people, all these people who have dreamt of freedom under the many years that we were oppressed.
"I repeat that we all must do the will of the people, what is in the interest of the people.
"This is not expressed in anger but in wisdom and calm, that will let us get to the right decision whereby the majority will govern according to democratic principles. The minority should concede to the majority but still both should cooperate ... without any allegiance to anyone but to Egypt. [...]
"I address this speech to those who oppose me with honor, and to my supporters. Although we respect the right to peaceful expression, I will never allow that anyone should revert to murder or sabotage. I will not allow anyone to revert to that. I will not allow anyone to kill or sabotage or scare our citizens, or to destroy our infrastructure or to call for a revolution...
"The demonstrators have aggressed... on Tuesday the 4th of December, there was an aggression by some of the protesters, they attacked the cars of [the president], and one of the drivers was badly hurt.
"Why?"
He says it gives a bad image of Egypt. This can never be acceptable.
He says infiltrators ruined peaceful demonstrations. "Those will not escape punishment."
"The incidents of yesterday were worse than the day before, because the peaceful demonstrations were attacked by those who infiltrated."
"Firearms were used."
Six were killed and more than 700 were wounded, he says, including 62 wounded by bullets.
"What's unfortunate is that some who are in custody have ties to some [in political powers].
"Some of the weapons holders were hired hands, working for money... they gave names of who supplied them with weapons and who supported them."
He says more than 80 have been arrested, and they gave the names of 40 more who were their accomplices.
"The [decree of 22 November] had stirred some objection and this is acceptable. But to those who have abused this and used violence, and brought in weapons, and paid money, it's time now to hold account in law all those who have used these methods."
He said he made the decree giving himself power over the courts as a way of protecting the national sovereignty.
"As I said before, I only wanted this immunity declaration in matters of sovereignty. And what defies these sovereignty issues is the fair Egyptian legal system. And the judicial system in Egypt has always safeguarded the rights of Egyptians. ANd today we call on them to ensure they are continuing their role to protect [the country]. And I am sure that this is what the judges are going to do."
He says his "duty made me issue that declaration. And my duty is what I defined before, which is securing the sovereignty and to stop anyone from trying to threaten the security and sovereignty of the nation. And I will always carry this responsibility ... under any condition."
"The constitutional declaration will end as soon as we make public the results of the referendum, whether the result is a yes or no," Morsi says. "I intended the decree to be a stage in order to secure a constitution."
He does not back down on the power grab that brought the current protesters into the streets.
Then he somewhat reverses himself, calling for a meeting on 8 December, apparently to discuss the decree and other conflicts.
I thought that "liberal democracy" meant democratic elected governments + free market economies, as opposed to "social democracy" meaning elected governments + centrally planned economies.
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Then maybe you should do some reading.
Quote from: Viking on December 06, 2012, 06:24:44 PM
The deciding factor (imho) in germany was the total loss of legitimacy of the weimar anti democratic forces, the monarchists were by this time dead or discredited by their association with nazis and the army, the communists were discredited by the soviet union itself (what with soviet agriculture being in dire need of mechanization) and the nazis were discredited by the war and their behavior during it. Only the Sozis were left and they were still democrats. The catholic conservatives did what they always did and toadied to power while trying to weasle concessions.
In most societies the insane people are only allowed to take over after all the sane people have been discredited. In Germany it is the opposite.
The monarchists were the sane people in Germany. Republicans of any ilk don't have the best interests of the polity in mind.
Quote from: dps on December 06, 2012, 10:59:56 PM
I thought that "liberal democracy" meant democratic elected governments + free market economies, as opposed to "social democracy" meaning elected governments + centrally planned economies.
hehe... funny..
social democrats used to believe in central planning eh.. in the 1930s, but have long since given up on the idea. In the 1950's to 1970's they believed in owning the commanding heights of the economy iron/coal/oil etc. But, as these commanding heights went bankrupt/irrelevant they abandoned even that. The 1980's were the long dark tea-time of the soul for most social democrats as they were one by one realizing that Hayek was right about socialism, it just doesn't work and the only way to make it work is dictatorship. In the 1990's they launched the third way where they abandoned virtually all socialist economic theory. What remains is a belief in the value of redistribution and regulation. Social cohesion and social justice is achieved by taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth to the poor and regulating business so that it acts in the interest of the economy and society as a whole rather than harming the economy and society as a whole for the sole benefit of the business owner.
Social Democrats today do not believe in central planning.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2012, 10:04:50 PM
You seem to think I'm arguing that this is what should happen. It's what I think will happen in a democratising Middle East and Africa. I think the democratisation is good but that it'll probably develop in a different way, which is fine. My view is it probably has more chance of working if it grows from the social and cultural values of the society.
No, I think you are arguing that this is an acceptable outcome for us westerners. I just can't see how your Conservative Democracy (find another fucking word, cause liberal democracy uses liberal in its meaning as free rather than "on the left side of the political spectrum") is not a mix of what they already have in Iran or Lebanon.
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2012, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Then maybe you should do some reading.
I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2012, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Then maybe you should do some reading.
I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.
How could they be the same? Seriously.
Quote from: Tamas on December 07, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2012, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Then maybe you should do some reading.
I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.
How could they be the same? Seriously.
Cause Liberal in this context doesn't refer to economics but things like free speech, the ability to run for office, that kind of thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 03:32:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 07, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2012, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Then maybe you should do some reading.
I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.
How could they be the same? Seriously.
Cause Liberal in this context doesn't refer to economics but things like free speech, the ability to run for office, that kind of thing.
is it now?
If you don't consider economic freedom a meaningful freedom, of course you don't see a difference between socialism and liberalism. that's precisely the difference between the two.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2012, 07:31:01 PM
But I'm suggesting that a form of 'conservative democracy' may emerge in the Middle East and Africa. The emphasis being more on community identity, rights and values under a democracy, rather than those of an individual. So democracy plus, for example, community defined limits on acceptable speech, the preservation of customary and Sharia legal systems and certain 'defining' institutions maintaining a special position. A more conservative version of Dev's Ireland. They may end up choosing a more liberal path, but I don't think that's where they will or necessarily should start.
I lean towards Viking's view on this. It's theoretically coherent but in practice it will almost certainly devolve towards some kind of soft authoritarianism. The problem is that power if not properly checked by robust and enforcable individual and minority rights will eventually run roughshod, either abusing the privileged institutional structures to perpetuate themselves, or playing communal divide and conquer.
Quote from: Tamas on December 07, 2012, 03:53:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 03:32:15 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 07, 2012, 03:17:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2012, 12:29:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2012, 12:15:27 AM
I've never heard that social democracy was something incompatible with liberal democracy.
Then maybe you should do some reading.
I'm not sure you'll get many people to agree with you outside a few loopy conservatives.
How could they be the same? Seriously.
Cause Liberal in this context doesn't refer to economics but things like free speech, the ability to run for office, that kind of thing.
is it now?
If you don't consider economic freedom a meaningful freedom, of course you don't see a difference between socialism and liberalism. that's precisely the difference between the two.
I didn't say that, I simply said that the term doesn't refer to economic liberalism but rather social liberalism. That's why Singapore is considered an illiberal democracy. It has high economic freedom, but much less social freedom.
He's forced to backpedal. :)
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/08/15776159-egypts-morsi-annuls-orders-giving-him-sweeping-powers-but-keeps-dec-15-constitution-vote?lite
QuoteEgypt's Morsi annuls orders giving him sweeping powers, but keeps Dec. 15 constitution vote
By NBC News staff and wire reports
CAIRO -- Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi on Saturday issued a decree annulling the most controversial parts of earlier orders that granted him sweeping powers, including the ability to make laws and decisions that are not subject to judicial reviews.
The earlier orders had led to three weeks of violent clashes between Morsi supporters and the political opposition.
The president no longer has absolute powers, but his government's draft constitution will stand in its current form and will not be subject to change before a referendum set for Dec. 15, NBC's Ayman Mohyeldin reported from Cairo.
The new declaration still calls for the referendum to go ahead as scheduled, but the new referendum will not be a simple "yes" or "no."
If the draft constitution is rejected, Morsi said he will ask the public to directly vote for a new 100-member constituent assembly to write a new constitution. The existing 100-member assembly was appointed by the dissolved parliament.
Earlier Saturday, Egypt's military warned of "disastrous consequences" if the crisis that sent tens of thousands of protesters back into the streets was not resolved, signaling the army's return to an increasingly polarized and violent political scene.
The military said serious dialogue is the "best and only" way to overcome the nation's deepening conflict.
"Anything other than that (dialogue) will force us into a dark tunnel with disastrous consequences; something which we won't allow," the statement said.
Failing to reach a consensus "is in the interest of neither side. The nation as a whole will pay the price," it added. The statement was read by an unnamed military official on state television.
Egypt's once all-powerful military, which temporarily took over governing the country after the revolution that ousted autocratic leader Hosni Mubarak, has largely been sidelined since handing over power to Morsi weeks after his election.
But it has begun asserting itself again, with soldiers sealing off the presidential palace with tanks and barbed wire, as rival protests and street battles between Morsi's supporters and his opponents turned increasingly violent.
The statement said the military "realizes its national responsibility in protecting the nation's higher interests" and state institutions.
At least six civilians have been killed and several offices of the president's Muslim Brotherhood set on fire since the crisis began on Nov. 22. The two sides also have staged a number of sit-ins around state institutions, including the presidential palace where some of the most violent clashes occurred.
Images of the military's elite Republican Guards unit surrounding the area around the palace showed one of the most high-profile troop deployment since the army handed over power to Morsi on June 30.
A sit-in by Morsi's opponents around the palace continued Saturday, with protesters setting up roadblocks with tanks behind them amid reports that the president's supporters planned rival protests. By midday Saturday, TV footage showed the military setting up a new wall of cement blocks around the palace.
Tensions have escalated since Morsi issued new decrees granting himself and an Islamist-dominated constitutional assembly immunity from oversight by the judiciary. The president's allies then rushed through a constitution and he announced a Dec. 15 nationwide referendum on the charter.
The president has insisted his decrees were meant to protect the country's transition to democracy from former regime figures trying to derail it.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I'm considering giving the help sweeping powers.
More on what it means to live in a "Conservative Democracy", same thing's happening in Turkey.
QuoteEgyptian satirist accused of undermining Mohammed Morsi
An Egyptian satirist who made fun of President Mohammed Morsi on television has been accused of undermining his standing and will be investigated by prosecutors, according to a judicial source.
Bassem Youssef's case will increase worries about freedom of speech in the post-Hosni Mubarak era, especially when the country's new constitution includes provisions criticised by rights activists for, among other things, forbidding insults.
Mr Youssef rose to fame following the uprising that swept Mubarak from power in February 2011 with a satirical online programme that was compared with Jon Stewart's Daily Show.
He has since had his own show on Egyptian television and mocked Mr Morsi's repeated use of the word "love" in his speeches by starting one of his programmes with a love song, holding a red pillow with the president's face printed on it.
The prosecutor general ordered an investigation into a formal complaint against Mr Youssef by an Islamist lawyer. The complaint accuses him of "insulting" Mr Morsi, an Islamist backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and "undermining his standing".
Human rights activists say it is the latest in a series of criminal defamation cases that bode ill for free speech as Egypt reshapes its institutions after Mubarak was toppled.
It seems that Morsi does not love Bassam Youssef. If Shelf's Conservative Democracy is to exist it can only exist if altruists decide what is common decency and what is not. Unfortunately for use altruists don't exist in politics, else socialism or fascism might have worked.
Quote from: Viking on January 01, 2013, 05:02:26 PM
More on what it means to live in a "Conservative Democracy", same thing's happening in Turkey.
QuoteEgyptian satirist accused of undermining Mohammed Morsi
An Egyptian satirist who made fun of President Mohammed Morsi on television has been accused of undermining his standing and will be investigated by prosecutors, according to a judicial source.
Bassem Youssef's case will increase worries about freedom of speech in the post-Hosni Mubarak era, especially when the country's new constitution includes provisions criticised by rights activists for, among other things, forbidding insults.
Mr Youssef rose to fame following the uprising that swept Mubarak from power in February 2011 with a satirical online programme that was compared with Jon Stewart's Daily Show.
He has since had his own show on Egyptian television and mocked Mr Morsi's repeated use of the word "love" in his speeches by starting one of his programmes with a love song, holding a red pillow with the president's face printed on it.
The prosecutor general ordered an investigation into a formal complaint against Mr Youssef by an Islamist lawyer. The complaint accuses him of "insulting" Mr Morsi, an Islamist backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and "undermining his standing".
Human rights activists say it is the latest in a series of criminal defamation cases that bode ill for free speech as Egypt reshapes its institutions after Mubarak was toppled.
It seems that Morsi does not love Bassam Youssef. If Shelf's Conservative Democracy is to exist it can only exist if altruists decide what is common decency and what is not. Unfortunately for use altruists don't exist in politics, else socialism or fascism might have worked.
I'm not sure this is correct, an acquaintance of mine, a satirist artist was involved in a court case in Turkey about defaming the President, but the judicial progress ground out the 'correct' result in the end.
Whereas over here, he's had considerable problems over a free speech issue, something has hasn't been resolved and indeed might even see him serving jail time, this in a liberal/illiberal* democracy.
* Delete as applicable.
Well nowadays the UK appears to be quite worrisome in that regard.
At least it shows how liberal democracy is never a given, and how fragile it is.
Quote from: mongers on January 01, 2013, 05:10:51 PM
I'm not sure this is correct, an acquaintance of mine, a satirist artist was involved in a court case in Turkey about defaming the President, but the judicial progress ground out the 'correct' result in the end.
The fact that defaming the president is a criminal charge and gets prosecuted sort of proves my point.
Quote from: Viking on January 01, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 01, 2013, 05:10:51 PM
I'm not sure this is correct, an acquaintance of mine, a satirist artist was involved in a court case in Turkey about defaming the President, but the judicial progress ground out the 'correct' result in the end.
The fact that defaming the president is a criminal charge and gets prosecuted sort of proves my point.
I'm going to have to agree with SS-Wiking on this one. So what if the judicial process came to the "correct" result?
Laws like this actually do exist in a lot of European democracies (generally, most European countries do not perceive freedom of speech in the same way Americans do). So I'm gonna agree with mongers that it is not in itself a cause for concern.
By quick search Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark have criminal sanctions for defaming the monarch. In Poland, Germany and Switzerland you can face charges not just for defaming those countries heads of state but also foreign heads of state.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:41:46 AM
By quick search Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark have criminal sanctions for defaming the monarch. In Poland, Germany and Switzerland you can face charges not just for defaming those countries heads of state but also foreign heads of state.
You know that's not the same thing. I assume you got your list from Wiki (where I found the details).
Denmark merely applies fines for libel against the royal family more harshly.
Norway hasn't used its 110 year old law in the 110 years since it's passing during Union with Sweden.
Spain and Netherlands have fined editors for depicting royals participating in lewd sexual acts.
Germany and Switzerland have those laws but don't appear to implement them.
Poland, well, I defer to your highly attuned sense of propriety when it comes to the respect due to Polish politics and society.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:36:19 AM
Laws like this actually do exist in a lot of European democracies (generally, most European countries do not perceive freedom of speech in the same way Americans do). So I'm gonna agree with mongers that it is not in itself a cause for concern.
Except what Viking said was that it was a criminal charge AND it gets prosecuted is the cause for concern.
Quote from: Viking on January 02, 2013, 12:40:55 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:41:46 AM
By quick search Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark have criminal sanctions for defaming the monarch. In Poland, Germany and Switzerland you can face charges not just for defaming those countries heads of state but also foreign heads of state.
You know that's not the same thing. I assume you got your list from Wiki (where I found the details).
Denmark merely applies fines for libel against the royal family more harshly.
Norway hasn't used its 110 year old law in the 110 years since it's passing during Union with Sweden.
Spain and Netherlands have fined editors for depicting royals participating in lewd sexual acts.
Germany and Switzerland have those laws but don't appear to implement them.
Poland, well, I defer to your highly attuned sense of propriety when it comes to the respect due to Polish politics and society.
So some European countries do in fact have such laws.
Quote from: Martinus on January 02, 2013, 11:36:19 AM
(generally, most European countries do not perceive freedom of speech in the same way Americans do).
It's not a question of perception.
Some European countries choose to give more priority to reputational protections over speech rights and a few keep around lese majeste laws as anachronisms.
With respect to the former, this doesn't represent a different perception but a conscious decision to downgrade the importance of speech rights relative to systems (like the US) which apply more stringent standards to libel suits.
With respect to the latter, it also doesn't reflect perceptual differences but rather a failure to update the legal code to reflect the present reality.
In any case, none of these differences would suggest that the Erdogan government's pursuit of criminal lese majeste cases against media personalities is not of concern. It is of big concern.
Ominous!!111
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/24/17443030-morsi-issues-ominous-warning-to-egypt-opposition?lite
QuoteMorsi issues ominous warning to Egypt opposition
By Tom Perry, Reuters
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi threatened on Sunday to take unspecified steps to "protect this nation" after violent demonstrations against his Muslim Brotherhood, using vague but severe language that the opposition said heralded a crackdown.
In remarks following clashes outside the Brotherhood's Cairo headquarters on Friday, Morsi warned that would be taken against any politicians shown to be involved in what he described as violence and rioting.
"If I am forced to do what is required to protect this nation, then I will do it. And I fear that I might be on the verge of doing it," Morsi said in a statement. He did not elaborate.
Morsi has faced increasing anger since the Brotherhood propelled him to power in a June election, and several spates of protest have turned into violent riots.
The president's opponents accuse him and the Brotherhood of seeking to dominate the post-Hosni Mubarak era and resorting to undemocratic police powers two years after autocrat Mubarak was brought down by popular protests.
The brotherhood accuses its secularist opponents of stirring trouble to seize power they could not win at the ballot box, and says the relentless civil unrest is wrecking efforts to salvage an economy driven to its knees by uncertainty.
"They are very scary comments," said Khaled Dawoud, a spokesman for the National Salvation Front (NSF), an alliance of non-Islamist parties formed late last year to oppose Morsi.
"I can see language that is heading towards taking some suppressive measures," he added.
Dozens of people were hurt on Friday when several thousand supporters and opponents of the Brotherhood fought near the Islamist group's headquarters.
RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE
Dawoud said the NSF was not behind those protests, but added that some of its members may have decided to take part.
Morsi said everyone had the right to peaceful protest, but "what is happening now has nothing to do with the revolution".
"I urge all political forces not to provide any political cover for acts of violence and rioting. I will not be happy if investigations prove the guilt of some politicians," he said in the remarks, which were published on his Twitter account.
"Some are using the media to incite violence and those whose involvement is proven will not escape punishment," he added. "Anyone who takes part in incitement is a partner in the crime."
He also spoke of attempts to portray the state as weak but said these had failed: "The apparatus of the state are recovering and can deter any law breaker," he added.
Exactly what new steps Morsi is considering became the subject of speculation.
In late January, he declared a state of emergency rule in three cities near the Suez Canal to combat a wave of violence there. A declaration of a state of emergency elsewhere is unlikely, said Yasser El-Shimy, Egypt analyst for the International Crisis Group, adding arrests were more probable.
"My impression is that Morsi and the Brotherhood in general have had it with the violence that is taking place and they are running out of patience," he said.
"This is definitely the strictest he has spoken regarding the rioting," he added. "Now Morsi feels there is enough public opinion on his side to justify taking stricter measures."
One recent source of tension between Morsi and the opposition was his call for parliamentary elections based on a controversial election law. The vote, due to begin in late April, has been postponed by a court ruling and it is now not clear when it will happen.
Morsi's political supporters and opponents signed a document agreeing to renounce violence following riots in late January.
Morsi's opponents say they are committed to peaceful protest and have also accused the Brotherhood of using violence and inciting tension in the street. The Brotherhood says the opposition has done little to rein in its followers.
Additional reporting by Omar Fahmy
Not really. Preventing street wars is his job, Tim.