On 2013-07-02, at 12:04 AM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2013, at 1:45 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>> There was nothing "democratic" about Morsi's election. The first round was falsified to present Morsi as the alternative to a Mubarek supporter, so the voters in fact had no choice. The "parliament" was illegal and dissolved. The "constitution" was written by the MB and imposed by plebscite. The most democratic outcome would be the popular overthrow of Morsi's "democratically elected" regime. But a destitution of Morsi followed by military-supervised democratic elections would be second best.
>
> We may well quibble about the definition of "democratic", but the process you describe sounds like the conventional democratic process practiced, for example, in the USA. (Though I'm not sure Americans ever got a plebiscite about their constitution. but that, again, is quibbling.) Anyway, it may not be ideal, but it is "democracy" as we know it.
>
> The point is I guess, Egyptians are new to the idea of democracy. They are having a bit of trouble swallowing the depressing reality of it. Perhaps many would prefer a military dictatorship? (Or "military-supervised democratic elections", as you put it.)
The army is highly politicized and the single most important institution in Egypt. It has been so since the 1952 coup d'etat against King Farouk by nationalist young army officers which catapulted Gamal Abdel Nasser to power. It arbitrated the accession of the Muslim Brotherhood to power last year despite the objections of the liberal establishment led by Mohamed al-Baradei and the more radical urban youth who ignited the mass protests. At the time, the MB enjoyed a high degree of popular legitimacy. But the Morsi government has since lost much of it because of the worsening economic situation and a too hasty and clumsy attempt to consolidate its power through various constitutional and political maneuvers. So now the army has reappeared to try and effect another stable reordering of the political leadership to give the liberals more say against a weakened Brotherhood, likely through a caretaken government drawn from both camps followed by another election.
It would be hard to call this latest overt military intervention a coup d'etat since Egypt has been under de facto military rule for decades. I'd be surprised if it feels the need at this stage to install one of its own generals and rule directly in the face of the popular mobilizations which have convulsed Egypt during and since Mubarak's ouster.