Egypt wins, Democracy is safe now with 98% backing it

[Ziggy Stardust]

Things are looking very grim in Egypt. It does sound like by now it is worse than before the 'arab spring', and pretty much another huge protectorate where people die routinely by government forces.

Those things didn't happen while Egypt was a dictatorship?

But i am still surprised that the bbc has become such utter crap that they keep a straight face while arguing that it is not suspicious to get a 98% yes vote to any referendum, let alone one banning 1/3 of the political powers in that country.

He said it wasn't surprising. Not that it wasn't suspicious.

 

[Masada]

It's actually possible to get lopsided outcomes like that when the Opposition boycotts the polls. Northern Ireland's infamous Border Poll of 1973 had a yes vote of 98.9% in favour of remaining part of the UK because the Catholics boycotted the poll. The same thing happened in Thailand in 2006. The Phak Thai Rak Thai won 98.3% of the votes cast because the Opposition boycotted the polls. But the best example was the Bangladeshi Nationalist Party winning 100% of the vote in the 1996 elections... because you couldn't even vote for anyone else.

 

[Kyriakos]

^It could still be worse, as in the recent (iirc a few month's ago) election in azerbaijan, where the governing party was announced on the state tv there to have won the election with nearly 80%, one week before the election happened.

 

[Tahuti]

Actually, Azerbaijan is a very high-tech nation: They can predict poll outcomes. I wish the US was advanced that far!

 

[mrdab]

Actually, Azerbaijan is a very high-tech nation: They can predict poll outcomes. I wish the US was advanced that far!

<Cough> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight <Cough>

 

[Masada]

^It could still be worse, as in the recent (iirc a few month's ago) election in azerbaijan, where the governing party was announced on the state tv there to have won the election with nearly 80%, one week before the election happened.

Well, yeah it could. But the point was those were the results of free and fair elections. (The 2006 Bangladeshi election was apparently one of the quietest in its history).

 

[CavLancer]

As long as you vote for the government you will be well represented. :b:

 

[Masada]

That's not quite true. The issue seems to be more along the lines of: as long as there's an opposition results should seem more credible at first blush.

 

[Tahuti]

Northern Ireland's infamous Border Poll of 1973 had a yes vote of 98.9% in favour of remaining part of the UK because the Catholics boycotted the poll.

AFAIK Northern Irish in general favour being part of the UK and the Pro-British side probably still would have won if the Catholics decided to take part in it.

 

[Masada]

Yeah, that's why they boycotted. The result would otherwise have been 55%/45%. But that's besides the point: very lopsided elections are possible in free and fair polls if the opposition decides to boycott.

 

[classical_hero]

Not voting mean you have forfieted your right to complain, should the election be free and fair.

 

[CavLancer]

That's not quite true. The issue seems to be more along the lines of: as long as there's an opposition results should seem more credible at first blush.

Are you suggesting the dictatorship is benefiting from the opposition? Trust me, nobody believes the 98% figure. Get up into the high 90s and its BS every time, particularly in a case like this where the military is trying to stay in power. They always do this statistical BS because they have a real high opinion of themselves, but 73% would be much more believable. There is a significant minority in every culture who do not want anyone to be able to dictate justice, morality or integrity to them. Gays, lesbians, pimps, communists, thieves, pedophiles, criminals and various other counter culture representatives will always vote in a manner that allows them to continue their...whatever each group cares to call it. Anyway such are more than 2%.

98% of the folks making these claims are corrupted by power.

 

[Tahuti]

Not voting mean you have forfieted your right to complain, should the election be free and fair.

You might as well argue the opposite, as voting can be seen as assenting with the possible outcome.

 

[Kyriakos]

News just in...

Cairo (AFP) - Nearly 50 people were killed in weekend clashes that erupted during rival rallies marking the anniversary of Egypt's 2011 uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak, the health ministry said Sunday.


Three years after Egyptians rose up to demand the overthrow of Mubarak, thousands of demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square on Saturday chanted slogans backing another military man, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, as police clashed with Islamists and activists elsewhere.
Forty-nine people were killed, the ministry said, in 24 hours of fighting across Egypt as police and supporters of the military-installed government clashed with Islamist backers of president Mohamed Morsi, who was deposed in July after a single turbulent year in power.

Forty-nine people were killed, the ministry said, in 24 hours of fighting across Egypt as police and supporters of the military-installed government clashed with Islamist backers of president Mohamed Morsi, who was deposed in July after a single turbulent year in power.

http://news.yahoo.com/49-dead-24-hours-clashes-egypt-revolt-anniversary-073640751.html

Still better than if they let the terrists win. Then over 500 people would die each day. Do the math.

 

[Winner]

This is almost a North Korea like result. Reminds me of the Czechoslovak elections - "99.7% have voted for the National Front led by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia". Bam.

There is IMO no doubt it was rigged. We can debate how, but the fact is beyond question.

As for Egypt as a whole, the army (which in reality is a huge corporation which runs factories employing slav-- uhm, conscript labour) has gone from covert to overt rule. Until that institution isn't DISASSEMBLED and REBUILT from ground up, so that it does only what it is supposed to do (defend Egypt from external enemies), that country will remain a colossal failure.

 

[Tahuti]

I see you missed Masada's post. Unless there is Belgium style voting compulsion, lopsided elections are possible in free elections. That doesn't mean that vote rigging is out of the question in the Egyptian elections.

Dissassembling the Egyptian army is impossible also, unless Egypt manages to anger all its neighbours so much on purpose that Sudan, Israel, Hamas and Libya form a military alliance that has the backing of Iran and Saudi Arabia and succesfully occupy Egypt which is in itself an impossibility. Egypt's army must be politically outmaneuvred, as happened with the Chilean army after Pinochet.

 

[Winner]

I see you missed Masada's post. Unless there is Belgium style voting compulsion, lopsided elections are possible in free elections. That doesn't mean that vote rigging is out of the question in the Egyptian elections.

Not with a 98% result. Election boycotts and similar steps may indeed produce very skewed results, but not to such extent. Results in the high 90-ty per cent range are the domain of undemocratic regimes, with exceptions that prove the rule (such as confirmatory referendums when a country declares independence or something of this magnitude).

In other words, this result is clearly totally unrepresentative of the wishes and feelings of the Egyptian electorate. Ergo, the result is not legitimate because it circumnavigates the main point of democracy.

Dissassembling the Egyptian army is impossible also, unless Egypt manages to anger all its neighbours so much on purpose that Sudan, Israel, Hamas and Libya form a military alliance that has the backing of Iran and Saudi Arabia and succesfully occupy Egypt which is in itself an impossibility. Egypt's army must be politically outmaneuvred, as happened with the Chilean army after Pinochet.

Chilean army never was so deeply embedded in the country's political, social and ECONOMIC structure. Egyptian army now is basically an organization that runs a state, an organization so powerful that no amount of political manoeuvring will depose it. It needs to be done by force, either internally by a major uprising by the people (which would make the previous uprising look like children's play in terms of the material damages and loss of life) or externally (basically if Israel gave the Egyptian army another reality check, but that's not likely mostly because Israel has no wish or interest in getting entangled with Egypt).

 

[Kyriakos]

^An army with a country. Now where have we seen this before...

 

[Masada]

Not with a 98% result.

I've pointed to two occasions where that's happened. And I'm sure I could dig up more obscure elections that have returned similar results.

In other words, this result is clearly totally unrepresentative of the wishes and feelings of the Egyptian electorate. Ergo, the result is not legitimate because it circumnavigates the main point of democracy.

Voter turn-out has been consistently low (<60%) for each election and referendum since the Revolution. Hell the closely contested Presidential elections just cracked 50% participation in the all-important second round. At this point we just have to assume that persistently low turn-out and bloc voting are what passes for normal in Egypt at the moment.

needs to be done by force, either internally by a major uprising by the people (which would make the previous uprising look like children's play in terms of the material damages and loss of life) or externally (basically if Israel gave the Egyptian army another reality check, but that's not likely mostly because Israel has no wish or interest in getting entangled with Egypt).

we're back in 2003.

Egypt's army must be politically outmaneuvred, as happened with the Chilean army after Pinochet.

Indonesia after Suharto is a better example of a transition that can happen with relative peace. Mubarak's power like Suharto's didn't derive from the military when he fell. Mubarak had done a good job of keep the military out of the lime-light. You'll note that both of their cabinets were stocked with loyalists and technocrats not military figures. You'll also note that the military by and large had no idea how to grab power after they fell because, in both cases, the military wasn't in power. Had it been, the transition would have been smoother. I'd also suggest that outmaneuvering the army isn't going to work. You're better to just try and buy them and kick the whole purge thing forward.

 

[Tahuti]

Chilean army never was so deeply embedded in the country's political, social and ECONOMIC structure. Egyptian army now is basically an organization that runs a state, an organization so powerful that no amount of political manoeuvring will depose it. It needs to be done by force, either internally by a major uprising by the people (which would make the previous uprising look like children's play in terms of the material damages and loss of life) or externally (basically if Israel gave the Egyptian army another reality check, but that's not likely mostly because Israel has no wish or interest in getting entangled with Egypt).

The problem that an armed uprising against the army never comes out of nothing. For instance, the Syrian civil war may have started with demonstrations, but gained momentum because the Syrian army split. Idem dito for Libya. So for an armed uprising to work, the Egyptian army necessarily has to tear itself apart.