It is transitional to a "legitimized" military ruled regime in which the constitution gives the military the right to appoint the defense minister, to try civilians in military courts, and in which the military budget is beyond civilian scrutiny.. The final transition will be the election of coup leader and head of the military geneeral Sisi as president of Egypt. This will complete the transition to a military regime that can easily be a western approved democracy.
Cheers, ken
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 3:23:31 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Bill Bartlett <william7 at aapt.net.au>wrote:
Its valid to try to argue that. Its valid to try to argue that a military
> coup is not necessarily a bad thing.
>
And the thing itself (not a particular term for it) has rather different connotations in Egypt. Nasser, whose Revolutionary Command Council seized state power in 1952, remains tremendously popular. SCAF's 2011 deposition of Mubarak is remembered fondly by many as well, although maybe not as much as the Revolution now. Of course Egyptians faced with a military takeover are more likely to think of those examples than some bloodbath in Latin America.
But there is one intelligent argument against calling the ouster of Morsi a coup: that since the military, and the extensive state and commercial apparatus it controls, had never, since 1952, ceded power, they couldn't very well be said to seize it. (That was formulated by someone more clever than me, although I can't find the link right now.)
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk