Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alain Colcer]

I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.

I invite you to review the case of Pinochet's Dictatorship and the transition to a widely recognized democracy in Chile.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Oh no, Seriphyn is right: There is no guarantee. But what is guaranteed?

[Samira Kernher]

I've been impressed with the Egyptian military thoughout both of these incidents, tbh. At least from what I've seen, they appear to be the ones with the most level heads on their shoulders. /shrug

[Katrina Oniseki]

But what is guaranteed?

The lowest prices in town at Bob's Used Cars!!!

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Turkey has had a fairly rich history of the military overthrowing the government and then immediately handing power back to the citizens with the Caveat that "Party X" cannot run in the election.   Maybe Egypt's military is trying for the same sort of thing.

[orange]

I remember a case where a democratic system gave birth to a dictatorship. When you think about it, it always comes down who the military supports whether it is 'good' or 'bad'. Regardings its capacity - it's likely the only organisation within a nation that would be able to function when the government is in disarray.

It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.

I swear I have read something like this in something important.

[Louella Dougans]

I remember a case where a democratic system gave birth to a dictatorship.

Was it the Senate and Caesar ?

[Karmilla Strife]

I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.

No but it can be a safeguard, especially if the "elected leader" strongarms the new constitution into place.

[Felix Rasker]

The plebs only have themselves to blame for not electing the kind of leader they ideally wanted.

You know that doesn't work in the rest of the world either, right? Americans can vote all they like for presidents and congressmen and judges, they still don't get to vote on legislature to legalize oligopolies, they didn't get to vote on the Glass-Steagall Act being suspended or the Patriot Acts...

Democracy doesn't inherently let citizens have control over their country.  Egypt is still rusty at the very idea of voting, let alone how long it takes a democratic process to take effect. I'm not saying letting their army control the government is a good idea, but it's not shocking that "let the guy we don't like run out the clock on a 4-year term" didn't sit well with them, either. Especially not now, when they have a taste for the bad habit of using coups to solve everything.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

I don't think the military should ever be the vanguard of democracy. There is no guaranteed way to remove them once any semblance of constitutionalism is in place.

I invite you to review the case of Pinochet's Dictatorship and the transition to a widely recognized democracy in Chile.

I invite you to consider that this was only permitted to happen because he got a free pass on murdering people. And his cronies are still very much in the power structure, with the implicit threat that if they don't like the way the country is going they'll just murder some more people.

[Tabor Murn]

I have to agree with Samira. I can't  be perfectly informed but as I see it, the Egyptian military has played a fairly even hand.

1) democracy in the middle east is a tricky affair.

Who the fuck are you? What do you know about this? Well I worked in Central Asian and Middle Eastern embassies for a few years and I literally was there for for the drafting of a constitution. I have to admit: it seems to have failed, but I was involved in the process in a small way.

2) Initially the Egyptian military submitted to first the will of the people and then Morsi.

Again it's how I understand it from my limited access to US and European news sources. But I remember several months ago the military backed down for Morsi because he had a popular mandate.

I don't see the military as wanting to impose a a new Mobarak regime. But I do see them working to ensure that a similar but more islamist regime isn't established.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

The moment that Morsi set aside the secular Judiciary as the first step in installing Sharia law the secular majority was unlikely to sit still for it.

[Tabor Murn]

I agree, but I'm admittedly biased. I learned Arabic from a Coptic christian from Alexandria.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.

I swear I have read something like this in something important.

I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.

[Lyn Farel]

It's also the only instance that has the power to enforce order in such a case... Thus, there are good reasons why, in a democracy, the military power should rest with the people. Like, say, in the Swiss citizens army.

I swear I have read something like this in something important.

I think there is a big difference between a mob that has the right to be armed and a citizens army... but yah.

Generally speaking firearm power belonging to the military and executive power to the people may be the healthiest (?) for a democracy.