Elections in Egypt

[Winner]

It's also quite a challenge for a country to go down the democratic route when they've lived under a dictatorship for so long. Egypt, without any experience in political matters doesn't look towards political ideologies but towards the only other ideology they know. Which is the religious ideology. Now I would also like to have it differently and I would also have liked a few strong parties which represent various political ideologies. But they simple do not crop up overnight. They need to evolve out of experience with the democratic system.

And this is why I and a few others on this forum have been sceptical about all that "democracy is coming to the Middle East" hype. The sad fact is that the only really organized and ideologically well-supported opposition to all these regimes are Islamists of various kinds, I don't say they're all the same. A lot of people were saying that this would happen: give them free and fair elections, and you end up with a constitution written by people who say things like this:

"A spokesman, Yousseri Hamad, said his party considers God's law the only law.

"In the land of Islam, I can't let people decide what is permissible or what is prohibited," Hamad told The Associated Press. "It is God who gives the answers as to what is right and what is wrong."

Yeah...

Maybe we should look at our past when a few centuries ago the church also had a large influence in government. We grew out of it, and we didn't live in an environment where other countries did have the kind of democracy we have now. The worst thing we can do is alienate countries like Egypt by dismissing their democratic process, we can influence them but we can't control them.

We should alienate imbeciles who want to jump from one dictatorship into another. In any case, they'll pretty much do the alienating once they establish control over the country.

And speaking of comparing this situation to something else, I think anyone from Central Europe has a right to judge them. We were in a similar situation once, and we chose real democracy. Why the heck should I respect a wrong choice made by people in some other nation?

Outrageous!

They should have been smart like you and voted for your form of totalitarianism.

Which is...? Just tell me, I am itching to know.

 

[asbestos]

I dare anyone who objects to this revolution to go rot in a political prison while being tortured by regime police/sadists, just to get first-hand experience of the kind of trade they're willing to make in the name of other people. Even if somehow the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian army manage to reconstitute the former oppressive apparatus, it was worth a shot to try to knock it down.

 

[HannibalBarka]

And this is why I and a few others on this forum have been sceptical about all that "democracy is coming to the Middle East" hype. The sad fact is that the only really organized and ideologically well-supported opposition to all these regimes are Islamists of various kinds, I don't say they're all the same. A lot of people were saying that this would happen: give them free and fair elections, and you end up with a constitution written by people who say things like this:

​

Yeah...

OK, than you would like Mubarak Dictatorship to come back because MAYBE Muslim Brotherhood is going to install a new Dictatorship, nice logic Mr Genius !!!

We should alienate imbeciles who want to jump from one dictatorship into another. In any case, they'll pretty much do the alienating once they establish control over the country.

And speaking of comparing this situation to something, I think anyone from Central Europe has a right to judge them. We were in a similar situation once, and we chose real democracy. Why the heck should I respect a wrong choice made by people in some other nation?

You can judge my friend as it pleases you, they just won't care about what a newbie democrat, who does not even understand basic things as "The rule of law" can tell them about "why are they trying to establish a democracy that may end in a dictatorship instead of keeping the dictatorship they already have"
And I am still wondering why some Eastern European voted commies in after the fall of the wall, but you have the right to keep judging Egyptian instead

 

[Traitorfish]

And speaking of comparing this situation to something else, I think anyone from Central Europe has a right to judge them. We were in a similar situation once, and we chose real democracy. Why the heck should I respect a wrong choice made by people in some other nation?

The logic here would seem to be "I voted for the right guy, therefore everybody else loses the right to vote". That's scary logic.

I dare anyone who objects to this revolution to go rot in a political prison while being tortured by regime police/sadists, just to get first-hand experience of the kind of trade they're willing to make in the name of other people. Even if somehow the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian army manage to reconstitute the former oppressive apparatus, it was worth a shot to try to knock it down.

Who says they're even done yet? It's a badly-informed individual that thinks revolution are necessarily just a short, sharp BANG! and then we all settle down into another mundane routine. The French Revolution took, depending on whether you stand, anything from five to twenty-five years, so it's a bit premature to declare this one dead and buried after less than a year.

 

[warpus]

He's right that a theocracy is the last thing we want, as religion and politics shouldn't mix AT ALL.

He IS wrong on most counts, though..

 

[asbestos]

Who says they're even done yet? It's a badly-informed individual that thinks revolution are necessarily just a short, sharp BANG! and then we all settle down into another mundane routine. The French Revolution took, depending on whether you stand, anything from five to twenty-five years, so it's a bit premature to declare this one dead and buried after less than a year.

Exactly! And what's interesting here is the extremely low turnout for the runoff elections, which at the very least raises the possibility that the Islamists don't have the support of the majority of Egyptians. Add to that the fact that the Islamists are better organized than their opponent parties (having better funding and years to prepare), and the election result is neither surprising nor set in stone.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Guys, maybe we're being too hard on Winner in this thread. After all, there are many differences between Winner and the Islamists that give him reason to be upset:

1) They will view the world as a clash of civilizations, and be suspicious of the motives of foreigners at every turn.

2) They will not respect the rights of those who have differing religious opinions, and expect them to disappear from public life.

3) They do not respect the will and intelligence of the Egyptian voters, and will attempt to impose laws and a system of governance "for the good" of the Egyptians and/or the Middle East.

4) They might disregard the rule of law, and try applying laws only to those they feel the law was meant to target.

5) They might be ignorant and anti-intellectual, condemning, harrasing or refusing to patronize anyone who's thought is not useful to the regime.

I'm sure I'm missing a few that you guys can fill in.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And this is why I and a few others on this forum have been sceptical about all that "democracy is coming to the Middle East" hype.

Being sceptical of the hype is one thing.

Lets talk alternatives. Do you believe them throwing off a dictator was a bad thing for them? Do you see democracy, while overhyped, still as the better of the two situations? Do you even allow for the slimmest chance of an improving democracy over the course of a couple of decades?

I can understand rolling your eyes at too flowery presentations of democracy in Egypt. I think it is unfair to judge the early stages of their democracy as indicative of a dead end. Being cautious or sceptical is a far cry from judging premature and beforehand. That is not just scepticism, that is selective scepticism.

We should alienate imbeciles who want to jump from one dictatorship into another. In any case, they'll pretty much do the alienating once they establish control over the country.

You once sneered at me about me and my crystal ball. That's all I'm going to say about this.

And speaking of comparing this situation to something else, I think anyone from Central Europe has a right to judge them. We were in a similar situation once, and we chose real democracy. Why the heck should I respect a wrong choice made by people in some other nation?

First two things. 1. You have the right to morally judge whatever you please. 2. You don't have to respect anything.

However, the people from CE where in a situation with similarities, not a similar situation.

 

[Masada]

I don't actually mind the Muslim Brotherhood all that much. In terms of religiosity its on the moderate wing and has become thoroughly pedestrian in the last thirty odd years. Yes, it has a bad rap because it was involved in some radical stuff in the 60s and because some of its 2 million odd members are still radical. But that's not exactly unique to Muslim political parties in the developing world either.

Wasn't the Suharto regime established on the pretext of suppressing the Communist Party, which implies that a system of strong ideological parties was already in place?

Yes, fair point. Except that the last 'real' election was held in 1955 and the results only stood for a year. So for the entirety of Indonesia's independence before 1999 it had a total of one year with a free and fairly elected government. Elections did occur under Guided Democracy (1956 - 1965) but those excluded the largest party, Masjumi, and eventually the Partai Socialis, and were conducted under trying circumstances for the parties. Elections under Suharto (1965 - 1999) weren't free or fair in a meaningful sense, the results were all but decided. Prior to 1955, the National Revolution and rebellions like those of Darul Islam precluded a vote.

That said, I suppose that the existence of such parties in 1965 doesn't necessarily imply that they have anything to do with the emergence of strong parties in 1999.

Yes, the parties had only tenuous links with the pre-1965 parties. Hell some of them survived under circumstances not unlike those of the Muslim Brotherhood.

He's right that a theocracy is the last thing we want, as religion and politics shouldn't mix AT ALL.

Why? I understand having a separation of Church and State. Much as I understand having the one-man-one-vote, the secret ballot and a strong social welfare system. But I don't see why having a separation of Church and State means that we should impose a barrier to having religion and politics mixing. If we elect a Muslim does that mean he can't represent Muslims in his capacity as a Parliamentarian? Religion is about as possible to divorce from politics as race. The danger isn't at the point where the two mix but where you end up with a small vocal minority, like in the states, have a disproportionate say on what's going on. And really the same could be said of most countries. Australian politics is decided in the red-neck outer suburbs of the major cities which goes some way to explaining our ******** immigration policies.

 

[warpus]

Why? I understand having a separation of Church and State. Much as I understand having the one-man-one-vote, the secret ballot and a strong social welfare system. But I don't see why having a separation of Church and State means that we should impose a barrier to having religion and politics mixing. If we elect a Muslim does that mean he can't represent Muslims in his capacity as a Parliamentarian? Religion is about as possible to divorce from politics as race. The danger isn't at the point where the two mix but where you end up with a small vocal minority, like in the states, have a disproportionate say on what's going on. And really the same could be said of most countries. Australian politics is decided in the red-neck outer suburbs of the major cities which goes some way to explaining our ******** immigration policies.

Why? Because religion doesn't belong in politics in a secular state.

And it doesn't enter it at all* in places like Canada and most of western Europe, as far as I know, so you can't say that it's impossible.

We have a Sikh member of parliment in Toronto I believe. He got voted in because of the large Sikh population of Toronto (or Mississauga, I can't remember). That doesn't mean that he brings religion to the table into political discourse or his job.

*I'm sure it happens from time to time

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I think that the Muslim Brotherhoods success is due to the fact that they are well known in Egypt. Many people trusts them to do the right thing like we trust the clergy or priests todo the right thing...

Then you have the salafists who have been jailed, tortured and oppressed for a very long time and they now have a chance to finally do what they want to.

Bear in mind that Egypt might be considered by us a muslim country, but those that went fundamental where persecuted. Many people has been randomly arrested and held without any trial or anything for many years just for having a large beard and wearing a white Galabayyah.
The old regime and people in power(And the new regime, SCAF) were/are afraid of religion because it removes the fear for them.
The government even wrote the friday sermons for their authorized Imams to hold. The Imans that didn't would be arrested.

If there is one thing that I find more worrisome is the fact that NOT ONE woman got enough votes to enter parliament.

But there is hope... there are still some rounds left in the elections.

 

[Masada]

Why? Because religion doesn't belong in politics in a secular state.

That's a poor explanation.

 

[Winner]

OK, than you would like Mubarak Dictatorship to come back because MAYBE Muslim Brotherhood is going to install a new Dictatorship, nice logic Mr Genius !!!

Did I say that? Of course not, Mr. "Logic means putting my words in other people's mouths".

And I am still wondering why some Eastern European voted commies in after the fall of the wall, but you have the right to keep judging Egyptian instead

For the same reason the French vote for Le Pen - populist promises, protest voting, a sign of discontent with the existing state of affairs. The difference that escapes you (as usual) is that they don't run the country any more. Plus of course the analogy doesn't work, since the Commies represent the old regime. They Egyptians don't seem to be voting for Mubarak, they seem to be in favour of a different brand of dictatorship this time.

So, if the Czechs elected some sort of a clerical theocratic nutjobs right after they deposed the Communists, then you could perhaps complain. But we didn't, so I suggest you clap up.

The logic here would seem to be "I voted for the right guy, therefore everybody else loses the right to vote". That's scary logic.

What?

OK, than you would like Mubarak Dictatorship to come back because MAYBE Muslim Brotherhood is going to install a new Dictatorship, nice logic Mr Genius !!!



You can judge my friend as it pleases you, they just won't care about what a newbie democrat, who does not even understand basic things as "The rule of law" can tell them about "why are they trying to establish a democracy that may end in a dictatorship instead of keeping the dictatorship they already have"
And I am still wondering why some Eastern European voted commies in after the fall of the wall, but you have the right to keep judging Egyptian instead

The logic here would seem to be "I voted for the right guy, therefore everybody else loses the right to vote". That's scary logic.


Who says they're even done yet? It's a badly-informed individual that thinks revolution are necessarily just a short, sharp BANG! and then we all settle down into another mundane routine. The French Revolution took, depending on whether you stand, anything from five to twenty-five years, so it's a bit premature to declare this one dead and buried after less than a year.

Being sceptical of the hype is one thing.

Lets talk alternatives. Do you believe them throwing off a dictator was a bad thing for them? Do you see democracy, while overhyped, still as the better of the two situations? Do you even allow for the slimmest chance of an improving democracy over the course of a couple of decades?

There is no democracy in Egypt. Elections =/= democracy. Currently the country is a military dictatorship, and when/if the Islamists succeed in taking over the power in the country, it will change into a Theocratic dictatorship.

Overthrowing a dictator is such a romantic thing, but if there is no plan B, nobody to take over except A) the military, or B) religious loonies, then I struggle to see where is the good in it. For the countries in the Middle East, I think the best way towards democracy is a gradual reform under an authoritarian government, basically an enlightened autocracy which will establish the foundations which democracy needs to function (a strong middle class to name one thing).

The only country involved in the "Arab Spring" so far which I think will eventually end up as something approaching a functioning democracy is Tunisia, and there only because it is relatively rich and the middle class is largely secular (not irreligious, but unwilling to mix religion and politics too much).

I can understand rolling your eyes at too flowery presentations of democracy in Egypt. I think it is unfair to judge the early stages of their democracy as indicative of a dead end. Being cautious or sceptical is a far cry from judging premature and beforehand. That is not just scepticism, that is selective scepticism.
You once sneered at me about me and my crystal ball. That's all I'm going to say about this.

See above what I think about Egypt being a democracy now.

And so far all the developments seem to lead the country to something that is incompatible with democracy. Maybe I am wrong - maybe when the elections are over and the new constitution is written, it will turn out right after all. I just don't see any reason to think that will happen.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Did I say that? Of course not, Mr. "Logic means putting my words in other people's mouths".

You seem so upset about the Arab spring and the egyptian election, you are regrettting it to have happened, you seem to miss Mubarak, right?

For the same reason the French vote for Le Pen - populist promises, protest voting, a sign of discontent with the existing state of affairs. The difference that escapes you (as usual) is that they don't run the country any more.

And what if they do? if Le Pen win the election, do you think the french should abolish democracy? or the Czeck start patronizing them about not having made the right choice !!!
In France, French people have every right to elect whome ever they want. Same wise in Egypt. I really don't see what's your alternatiove again?

Plus of course the analogy doesn't work, since the Commies represent the old regime. They Egyptians don't seem to be voting for Mubarak, they seem to be in favour of a different brand of dictatorship this time.

it's an analogy not a copy
You consider Nazi=Commi=Islamist, OK, why not, I know that words do not have much meaning for you, but let's forget about that
Now you blame Egyptian for voting Islamist (ie nazi), Eastern European di the same, they voted commies (ie Nazi). A.N.A.L.O.G.Y

So, if the Czechs elected some sort of a clerical theocratic nutjobs right after they deposed the Communists, then you could perhaps complain. But we didn't, so I suggest you clap up.

If you think you have the right to judge Egyptian, I myself take the right to judge young and fragile newly established democracies in EE, even moreso, as I am supporting their burgeoning economies with my own money
Now if Czeck have voted for a clerical theocratic nutjobs or a porn star I wouldn't have cared less and in all case I would still support the young Czeck democracy over pre 1989 Czeckoslovakia, because you know I like democracy

There is no democracy in Egypt. Elections =/= democracy. Currently the country is a military dictatorship, and when/if the Islamists succeed in taking over the power in the country, it will change into a Theocratic dictatorship.

Humm Elections =/= democracy true, but without election, there is definetly no Democracy. Egypt is in the process of establishing a democracy, and the first step is to elect a government in a univerasl and free election and that's what have been done, and what you seem to regret .

The second point is your guess, you may end right or wrong.

Overthrowing a dictator is such a romantic thing, but if there is no plan B, nobody to take over except A) the military, or B) religious loonies, then I struggle to see where is the good in it. For the countries in the Middle East, I think the best way towards democracy is a gradual reform under an authoritarian government, basically an enlightened autocracy which will establish the foundations which democracy needs to function (a strong middle class to name one thing).

Ah, so you really miss Mubarak than
You don't think Egyptian should have a democracy, you think you are better placed than them to decide who and how is to govern them?
what makes you think so?

I is amusing to patronize countries about democracy and the rule of laws when you do not adhere to any.

The only country involved in the "Arab Spring" so far which I think will eventually end up as something approaching a functioning democracy is Tunisia, and there only because it is relatively rich and the middle class is largely secular (not irreligious, but unwilling to mix religion and politics too much).

I also that Tunisia is the one country where Democracy would have the best chance to be established because Tunisia is richer than Egypt (but much less rich than Libya though) is more homogeneous and is less stratigycally involved in its zone (unlike Egypt who has a big Coptic minority, and is directly involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict).
That being said, I still think Egyptian have the right to elect Islamist if they wish as long as it's in a free election because there is no better alternative. Egypt, I think will end like India where democracy works well even if there is a lot of violenceand a lot of corruption. But I rather have Egypt functioning like India than like Belarus to take an EE example

 

[Traitorfish]

There is no democracy in Egypt. Elections =/= democracy. Currently the country is a military dictatorship, and when/if the Islamists succeed in taking over the power in the country, it will change into a Theocratic dictatorship.

Overthrowing a dictator is such a romantic thing, but if there is no plan B, nobody to take over except A) the military, or B) religious loonies, then I struggle to see where is the good in it. For the countries in the Middle East, I think the best way towards democracy is a gradual reform under an authoritarian government, basically an enlightened autocracy which will establish the foundations which democracy needs to function (a strong middle class to name one thing).

The only country involved in the "Arab Spring" so far which I think will eventually end up as something approaching a functioning democracy is Tunisia, and there only because it is relatively rich and the middle class is largely secular (not irreligious, but unwilling to mix religion and politics too much).

And again, you assume that they are done. That the army and the Islamists are the only actors, even when the populace have shown themselves entirely capable of acting without and even in defiance of the both of them. To go back to the French example, it was two years after the revolution broke out before they even drew up the first constitution, and you're already willing to draw the line under Egypt? I think, perhaps, that the so-called "revolutions" of 1989 have mislead you into thinking that this sort of thing as a neater and more immediate process than it has ever historically been.

(And on the "strong middle class"- you're aware that the middle class has historically been the bedrock of fascist and para-fascist regimes, right? There's no real historical correlation there.)

 

[asbestos]

Even if future elections fail to empower the alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution has still managed to affect changes in the broader society as a whole; most spectacularly, in the burst of free speech and the strengthening of labor unions.

Apparently, many commentators in Egypt have been of the opinion that the quick elections are what led to the rise of the Muslim Brothers (the most well-known and organized party), and that the newer secular parties would have needed at least a year to organize and spread their message. That election referendum some months ago pretty much sealed the deal.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

Even if future elections fail to empower the alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, the revolution has still managed to affect changes in the broader society as a whole; most spectacularly, in the burst of free speech and the strengthening of labor unions.

Apparently, many commentators in Egypt have been of the opinion that the quick elections are what led to the rise of the Muslim Brothers (the most well-known and organized party), and that the newer secular parties would have needed at least a year to organize and spread their message. That election referendum some months ago pretty much sealed the deal.

Yes... when you are there now, after they toppled Mubarak, you can feel the difference. It's like people are happier, like a huge burden has been taken away.
Ofcourse there are people who think it is not enough and people who finds the elections fraudulent but still, I'd say there has been a huge improvement in the quality of life for the regular egyptian. Even tho they might make the same salary or be as poor as they were under Mubarak, the fact that he is gone and they feel they have something to say is a massive improvement.