Skip to comments.Egypt’s One Chance for Democracy
Posted on 08/18/2013 6:53:29 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Only capable armed forces can check the violent proclivities of Islamic supremacism.
As Egypt began to implode, yet again, John Kerry inadvertently stumbled into something a lot closer to the truth than the delusional Arab Spring narrative that has guided Obama-administration policy. The secretary of state, tied in knots by congressional foolishness that mandates terminating U.S. aid when a foreign government is ousted by a coup détat, rationalized that, quite contrary to a coup, the Egyptian militarys ejection of President Mohamed Morsi was an exercise in restoring democracy.
None of this was quite right, although that is to be expected. After all, the C-word on Kerrys mind was not coherence; he was struggling to avoid saying coup. But lets face it: Morsi was forcibly removed from power, and he is being detained, along with other major Muslim Brotherhood figures. That is a coup to most sensible people people who are not paid to fret over the statutory ramifications of admitting reality, and who have no patience for fastidious distinctions like whether the generals have actually taken over the government or are merely backing the civilian technocrats theyve put in place.
More to the point, Egypt has never had a democracy, so the military cannot be said to have restored one. Yet there was a welcome bit of common sense in Kerrys declaration, even if it eluded the declarant.
The defining mission of the Muslim Brotherhood is the implementation of sharia, as noted for several years by a hardy few of us Islamophobes. An Islamophobe, by the way, is someone who takes seriously the things Muslim Brotherhood operatives say and the scriptures on which they rely; the Muslims who say the things that Islamophobes have the temerity to mention are called moderates see how this works?
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Democracy? Sounds good. All we need to do is commit troops for a decade, sacrifice lives and double the military spending in the region. Why the hell not?
Really? After what we’ve experienced over the last 12 years some still think islam and democracy can coexist?
Nonsense. Democracy means rule by a (majority of) the people, generally by choosing leaders and policies in free elections. Nothing more, nothing less.
What Andy is describing is a liberal (original meaning) or civil society. Which can exist and has existed (to varying degrees) under a variety of systems of governance or ways of choosing leaders.
There is, for instance, no theoretical obstacle to a civil society existing under an absolute monarchy.
While civil societies and democracies have most often co-existed, there is no law that says this is inevitable.
Just as one can have a civil society without elections, one can also have elections without their creating a civil society. What if the majority of the population is opposed to a civil society, as appears to have been the case in the recent Egyptian elections?
I hesitate to invoke Godwin's Law, but it should be noted that A. Hitler came to power via legal and constitutional democratic means. While the Nazis rejected elections thereafter, this was an ideological decision, not based on their thinking they might lose. All observers of the time were in agreement that the Nazis would have won minimum 2/3 of the vote in free elections held later in the 30s.
Ran across a couple of epigrams that express the downsides of democracy, as such. One of them is pretty crude.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Gang rape is democracy in action.
This democracy = civil society notion is strongly held by both right and left. It is based on the idiotic notion that other peoples are "just like us." They want what we want, whether we think that is a social democracy or a free market utopia.
But what if they ARE different? What if they choose something other than what we would choose?
This reminds me of the meaning of words in “Alice-in -wonderland. Read this babble again. “Democracy” is not “democracy” if it comes out wrong.Wonton slaughter of civilians by the military is not atrocities (like it was for Mubarak) ,its clearing the streets to complete the Coup d’etat. But there was no”Coup d’etat” because if we don’t make that “determination” we can send weapons to the military to suppress DEMOCRACY. Total and complete madness
Egypt’s one chance for democracy was lost with the ousting of Mubarak. A dictator he may have been but he was bringing reform and he didn’t allow the slaughter of the Copts.
Despite the fantasy that the current government is “secular”, there are many in it who are calling for an end to the peace treaty with Israel.
“some still think islam and democracy can coexist?”
Democracy + Islam = Sharia Law + Dead Christians
You can say thanks to Bush/Cheney/Obama for their great social experiment that resulted in so much death and destruction.
Let's not jump off the cliff on this one. I have read that Israel is in talks with El-Sissi. I think it wise to wait and see what evolves.
I hope they forgo Democracy and go with a Republic.
One of the first things Morsi said her was going to do after being "elected" was to end the treaty with Israel.
No one is "jumping off of cliffs"
The more I consider the matter, the more I appreciate our founding principles that culminated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have veered off course over the past several decades, but the founders gave us a way to self-correct. And that (self-correction via constitutional amendments) is what we should be about over the coming years and decades.
I pray it’s not too late.
Democracy is not right for everybody. It’s even failing here.
Not when you think about it. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on a dinner menu. A Republic (what we supposedly have) is much more fair.