Skip to comments.US to Egypt: Stick to election plan, even if it favors Islamist parties
Posted on 11/23/2011 1:13:50 PM PST by mojito
The United States is encouraging Egypts military rulers to stick to a schedule of elections set to kick off next week, despite continuing violence and despite the likelihood that the electoral timetable favors the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist movements.
The Obama administration is in essence caught between two unpalatable options: pressing ahead for elections that the Islamists are likely to win, and thereby sounding like a force for Egypts democratic transition; or recommending a postponement that a growing number of liberal Egyptians prefer, but which risks coming across as anti-democratic.
Egypts transitional military rulers announced Wednesday that parliamentary elections set to begin Monday will go ahead, despite five days of violence that has left more than 35 Egyptians dead and scores wounded.
The plan to proceed with voting was worked out at a meeting Tuesday between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, the two most powerful institutions in post-Hosni-Mubarak Egypt. The new plan also calls for presidential elections to be held before July, an apparent acceleration of a previously announced transition plan.
Other political parties were invited to Tuesdays meeting, but most liberal secular movements boycotted it.
Still, many Egyptians in particular those who spearheaded the February movement that toppled a regime fear that the military, composed in large part of recruits from the countrys more conservative rural areas, favors a Brotherhood electoral triumph. They worry that a parliamentary triumph for the Brotherhood, combined with the military staying in power at least until mid-summer, would allow the two to write a constitution and to delineate civil and political rights to their liking.
Despite those concerns, the US is sticking to its support for the established electoral calendar.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
“...despite the likelihood that the electoral timetable favors the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist movements.”
That was a journalist typo. It was suppose to say “...because of the likelihood....”
hussein’s in the bag for the radicals.
This is unbelievable that a Muslim would be elected in a Muslim country. Imagine in England a Christian would be elected or in Israel, a Jew. You want elections, you get elections. Majority wins.
Obama meant “especially” if it favors Islamist parties
The theory of Islamic democracy: One man. One vote. One time. (Women need not apply.)
Obama is enabling “The Muslim Brotherhood”. Looks like they’ll be in charge.
WE should be worried.
Keep your nose out of the internal affairs of Egypt, Clinton/Obama!!!
10 minutes ago via Twitter..
Muslim Brotherhood praises some changes proposed by military but is calling for information and interior ministers to step down #cairo
10 minutes ago
Yeah that worked out so well for Palestine. Now a recognised terrorist group rules the streets and the blood runs freely.
Or is that the plan Barry Hussain Obama?
I really doubt that Egypt’s military is STUPID ENOUGH to listen to President Obama. They will do what’s necessary.
Nope, it’s completely believable.
You want to stop the vote just because you don’t like how it might turn out? Not every democracy is going to love the US. It’s a fact of the world. The people there make their own decisions about whom they want in power. You wouldn’t have wanted the US military to take over the country and cancel Election Day to stop Obama from being president, would you? I mean... as much as we all detest him, I’d rather elect a bad leader than have a military dictatorship deciding everything. That never goes well.
Let the vote go through, let the chips fall where they may. We have no idea what’s going to happen. But the fact that the new government might not be friendly toward us isn’t going to be, and shouldn’t be, a factor. Freedom is messy. Isn’t that what we tell liberals?
“You want to stop the vote just because you dont like how it might turn out?”
You’re damn right. I’d rather have countries friendly to the US than more Iran-type nightmares.
“Not every democracy is going to love the US. Its a fact of the world.”
“The people there make their own decisions about whom they want in power.”
Sorry, but I like the idea of us having some say also.
“You wouldnt have wanted the US military to take over the country and cancel Election Day to stop Obama from being president, would you?”
Considering our debt level and the future of this country...no comment.
“I mean... as much as we all detest him, Id rather elect a bad leader than have a military dictatorship deciding everything. That never goes well.”
It went great for Chile, and prevented them from becoming a Marxist state. A true US success story and more freedom there than could have ever been dreamed of, had their “people’s revolution” played out.
“Let the vote go through, let the chips fall where they may. We have no idea whats going to happen. But the fact that the new government might not be friendly toward us isnt going to be, and shouldnt be, a factor. Freedom is messy. Isnt that what we tell liberals?”
I prefer having friendly countries around the world. If we go isolationist, others (like China now) fill in the vacuum and we become Third World as they control our access to resources. You may be fine with that, but not me.
I’m not saying become isolationist. I’m saying that people around the world are going to make decisions on whom they want to be in power. It’s none of our business. We have no say in the matter who gets elected dog catcher in Moscow. The people that have to live under the rule of the president get to decide.
They didn’t elect anyone over here. We don’t get to take that decision from them.
It would be great if a guy friendly to the US was in there. But that’s not always possible. The people that live there do NOT want the military in charge. They want elections. They spent weeks fighting and dying to get Mubarak out of there. They are fighting and dying right now to protest what they see as the military going back on their word by trying to delay the election.
And, no. Despite the debt and everything, I’m sure you would rather not live under a military dictatorship than deal with Obama. We can make sure he loses his job in 2012. With the military, we wouldn’t have that luxury. Democracy has worked in this country for 222 years. Why not let other countries have that as well? They aren’t children. And the more that we treat them as children, the more they are going to resent us as a country, and hate Americans.
What would you think about Castro or Chavez saying “We don’t like Herman Cain at all. We don’t think he should campaign for President. We think that the election should be cancelled and Obama should be your glorious leader for the indefinite future. He shares our beliefs and he is someone that we can work with.”
You’d tell them to mind their own business.
What would you do if they elected someone that you don’t like? Sanctions? Bombing? Having the military keep delaying the elections?
Freedom is great. Democracy is good. It’s just not ok for everyone to have, right?
Or will he find a way to delay the elections... For Peace and Public Security, of course?
I’m not saying at all that we should stick our heads in the sand. Where did I say that? Of COURSE we’re going to look out for our interests overseas. That’s pretty much a given. What I’m saying that the people that live in that country have a right to pick their own leaders. If they want friggin’ Santa Clause, then Santa is going to be their President, and there’s not a damn thing that we can, or should, do about it.
We need to work with whomever they choose. Just like they work with whomever we choose.