Will any future president be in danger of being ousted by the military whenever they feel like it? Will there even be another president in the near future?

Not many people seem to care I see.

You mean the one in Egypy?

There's three threads about it...

"What do people think this will mean for the future of democracy in Egypt?"

I didn't even know it was a democracy...

People in egypt seem to care about the coup, but most of them are in favour of it.

@Sbyvl, egypt had it's first fair and democratic elections about a year ago after the revolution.

It's a step towards democracy. In the Arab world they seem to think "If the people voted me in, I get to do whatever the hell I want" which is what Erdogan and Morsi were doing. That is not democracy. The military is working to bring liberals, secularists, moderate Muslims and Christians all together in this process. That, I would say, is a step forward.

"There's three threads about it..."

If you notice, my thread was started first.


It's too soon to say, but this looks incredibly promising. An organized, explicitly secular and democratic movement in the Middle East? Yes please!

Invictus, that was my response to Abge's third post.

@Invictus, isn't that what Turkey was established as? (though in fairness, the transition from Ottoman Empire to Modern Turkey was what left most of the rest of the middle east in the mess it is... well that and the British and French mandates.)

Ataturk was no democrat.

Maybe I should add "contemporary" and "Arab" to the list. But, this could all still go very wrong. Morsi doesn't appear to be acknowledging that he's no longer president, and the potential for sustained unrest remains.

"In the Arab world they seem to think "If the people voted me in, I get to do whatever the hell I want" which is what Erdogan and Morsi were doing."

Frankly, it is a bit racist to claim that that is only an Arab phenomenon. What country or region has escaped it?

"An organized, explicitly secular and democratic movement in the Middle East?"

I like secularism as much as the next person, but it is a bit rich to call for secularism in the Middle East (when the US had a hand in smashing the secular left wing in the 50s and 60s) and excuse all the far-right religious schmucks that run around in Israel and the US.

Restrictions on abortion != stoning rape victims for adultery.

There is no moral equivalency between the Islamists and nutty religious right types in America, or even the lunatic settlers in Israel. You can oppose both without lying and saying they're the same.

As for smashing the secular left in the 50s and 60s, well, even now a Brotherhood Egypt is better than one hosting Soviet bases at the Suez Canal. And anyway, that is becoming more and more distant. It's like blaming Austria for opposing republicanism in the French Revolutionary Wars.

Sorry largeham, I didn't mean for that to come off as racist. It happens everywhere, but since the thread was about Egypt I kept my comment specific to the region.

And there are far-right religious nuts in the US, but they're generally losing their fights.

Invictus: "Atatürk wanted a "direct government by the Assembly"[61] and visualized a representative democracy, parliamentary sovereignty, where the National Parliament would be the ultimate source of power." (citing wikipedia) How is this 'not a democrat' ? That was 1923, I don't know what he did after the republic of turkey was established...

@Rascism, i don't think that admitting the existence of cultural trends counts a rascism. There are common cultural traits which exist across the arab world, just as there are common traits across the united states.

Racism requires 'certain attributes which make that group as a whole inferior' - though i suppose the very idea of american exceptionalism is (reverse) racist by definition...

That alright goldfinger, I hope it did not come off that I was calling you racist, but that the statement was somewhat. And Orathaic, but that is not a cultural trend, but a political phenomenon.

Invictus, if you can't see how the actions of the US decades ago affect politics to this day, then you truly are blind. Also, look at the amount of far right Israelis that call Arabs and Palestinians rates or insects or state that they should be wiped out. Or the attacks on African migrants and refugees.

"It's a step towards democracy. In the Arab world they seem to think "If the people voted me in, I get to do whatever the hell I want" which is what Erdogan and Morsi were doing. That is not democracy. The military is working to bring liberals, secularists, moderate Muslims and Christians all together in this process. That, I would say, is a step forward."

Oy vey. Either I've finally gone mad or the rest of the world has. Can someone please explain how a military coup that ousts a democratically elected government that replaced a brutal dictator is somehow "good for democracy"?

"even now a Brotherhood Egypt is better than one hosting Soviet bases at the Suez Canal."

What happened to "better red than black" from... what was it, three weeks ago?

If you look it as a military acting on the wishes of the people, then this is democratic, in the strictest sense.

On the other hand maybe this is democracy in a very imperfect sense, but i'm sure the protesters feel the 'democratically elected' president was not particularly perfect either.

While I would be thrilled by a military coup that would make Ron Paul or even Gary Johnson (hell, I might even be willing to settle for Rand Paul) president, I would not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to pretend such a happening was "democratic".

Think of this as their impeachment process, Tolstoy.

Except there is no "process" about it. What you're advocating for is Might Makes Right. Control of the army means control of the country - Egypt has become once again a country ruled by a military junta who are representative and accountable to no one but themselves. There's plenty of discontent about the Republicrats and Demopublicans in America, but this in no way would legitimize a system where General Petraeus (or whoever) decides who gets to be president in America.

Tolstoy, the relevant army head didn't decide to be president, he decided to appoint the former head of the constitutional court as president.

And in the real world...

So military coups are 100% acceptable so long as the leader of the coup doesn't appoint himself as president? Apparently the new "provisional president" was a Mubarak crony - how is this a step forward exactly?

"What do people think this will mean for the future of democracy in Egypt?"
Democracy is nor really the issue, the USA is a Democracy, so is Israel, so was Nazi Germany. They had Democracy lasy year and Morsi got elected .....
There are more fundamental principles here. Things such as:-
- abuse of power by democratically elected politicians
- corruption
- public accountability in public office
- economic & social policy
- freedom of speech
- human and civil rights
- freedom of the press
- Etc, etc
Democracy is just the means to an end, not the end itself !!

@Tolstoy, i believe i said the main difference was 'the military was an expression of the will of the people'

They didn't just decide that the foreign policy of the current government was not in the current interest of the army and so remove their problem... (which may be the more normal coup)

a small percentage of a country protests and a year after being democratically elected the military decides they can remove a president. great precedent and true democracy here....

SD - Democracy is just the means to an end, not the end itself !!

nigee, we can get in a debate about that, because i actually think many people would disagree with that statement, but ignoring that point, i will pretend to agree with you. then what? no constitutional violations, nothing horribly anti-democratic that he did that warrants his removal. and beyond that the military are not the force that should decide. whenever there is a protest should the military be able to remove the leader? if you get a few hundred thousand people at the mall (washington) protesting obamacare should obama and leading elected democrats be deposed and put under house-arrest?