Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: An4ximandros on July 01, 2013, 10:55:53 am
-
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/01/19229528-egypts-military-gives-politicians-a-48-hour-ultimatum?lite
Even the military seems to oppose Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
I've said it all along, they should have left Mubarak in place. He was a secularist and the lesser of the evils. I hope the military seizes control of the government and installs an authoritarian, secular regime. At least until the people are ready for true democratic reforms.
-
I've said it all along, we should have left Mubarak in place. He was a secularist and the lesser of the evils. I hope the military seizes control of the government and installs an authoritarian, secular regime. At least until the people are ready for true democratic reforms.
Now you are voicing Kissinger. Hilarious man.
-
I don't know of any cases where a secular authoritarian regime oversaw a horrible nightmare period in any country's history, no sir.
-
I don't know of any cases where a secular authoritarian regime oversaw a horrible nightmare period in any country's history, no sir.
Greece, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.
All seem to be doing pretty well right now.
-
Wow, I had no idea! They're doing better now? That's an excellent reason to wish for further oppression of the Egyptian people.
-
Wow, I had no idea! They're doing better now? That's an excellent reason to wish for further oppression of the Egyptian people.
If you support further oppression of the Egyptian people, then you would be supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
I don't know of any cases where a secular authoritarian regime oversaw a horrible nightmare period in any country's history, no sir.
Greece, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.
All seem to be doing pretty well right now.
Your interpretation of history is alarmingly poor, and statement's such as "until the people are ready for true democratic reforms" are condescending and false at best and borderline racist at worst. Egypt is a fascinatingly place in terms of its geopolitics, and boiling this down to something as conventionally Western/imperial as "they aren't ready" is a pretty clear demonstration that your knowledge of Egyptian history in particular is basically nil. Advocating for authoritarian/secular regimes backed by the military is pretty much the primary reason Western democracies - particularly those aligning with American, British, and French foreign policy - have no credibility in the Middle East.
This terrible idea aside, Egypt is a unique place and this latest development is very interesting. It's remarkable how the military structure plays such an able and important role in the preservation of the lives of the Egyptian people, yet its political role is limited to that of arbiter (by force, if necessary). The country is entirely unique in this regard, and Morsi is now in serious trouble. Egyptians are beginning to make it clear that they will not accept the ouster of a secular tyrant in favour of religious tyranny instead.
The new Egyptian Constitution is not a fundamentally flawed document, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Brotherhood and Morsi get turfed and new elections go forward with the same basic Constitutional premise. Egypt is very much forgoing a new democratic tradition in that country, and the best thing we can do in the West is sit back and cheer on the forces in favour of democratic governance.
-
I'd say, that's some great news, but not unexpected. In fact, I was kind of waiting for that to happen. Egyptian people are not going to surrender their newly won freedom that easily. Hopefully, Morsi will go and the next guy would finally listen to his own people. And if he doesn't... Well, there's hope that the guy after him will be smarter. The only thing I'm afraid of now is a military junta (certainly possible in case of a military intervention), though hopefully, it won't come to this, especially considering that Egyptian Army has acted very reasonably so far.
It's indeed fascinating to watch democracy in Egypt develop, and that's without foreign powers telling them what to do. Egyptian people toppled the old regime, and something tells me that they're not going to stop until there's a honest democracy in place.
-
I don't know of any cases where a secular authoritarian regime oversaw a horrible nightmare period in any country's history, no sir.
Greece, Korea, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.
All seem to be doing pretty well right now.
Your interpretation of history is alarmingly poor, and statement's such as "until the people are ready for true democratic reforms" are condescending and false at best and borderline racist at worst. Egypt is a fascinatingly place in terms of its geopolitics, and boiling this down to something as conventionally Western/imperial as "they aren't ready" is a pretty clear demonstration that your knowledge of Egyptian history in particular is basically nil. Advocating for authoritarian/secular regimes backed by the military is pretty much the primary reason Western democracies - particularly those aligning with American, British, and French foreign policy - have no credibility in the Middle East.
This terrible idea aside, Egypt is a unique place and this latest development is very interesting. It's remarkable how the military structure plays such an able and important role in the preservation of the lives of the Egyptian people, yet its political role is limited to that of arbiter (by force, if necessary). The country is entirely unique in this regard, and Morsi is now in serious trouble. Egyptians are beginning to make it clear that they will not accept the ouster of a secular tyrant in favour of religious tyranny instead.
The new Egyptian Constitution is not a fundamentally flawed document, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Brotherhood and Morsi get turfed and new elections go forward with the same basic Constitutional premise. Egypt is very much forgoing a new democratic tradition in that country, and the best thing we can do in the West is sit back and cheer on the forces in favour of democratic governance.
I hope you're right, but going by the region's history with secular democracy, there isn't much hope. The last elections Egypt had weren't exactly free and fair. And even if they did happen to have free and fair elections, do you really think that Islamist parties wouldn't win again?
Either way, we should stay out of Egypt and Syria.
-
I hope you're right, but going by the region's history with secular democracy, there isn't much hope. The last elections Egypt had weren't exactly free and fair. And even if they did happen to have free and fair elections, do you really think that Islamist parties wouldn't win again?
Either way, we should stay out of Egypt and Syria.
Secular democracy in the Middle East thrived before Western countries began their campaign of eliminating them - or have you forgotten that Iran had a secualr, democratically-elected government before the US supported the Shah in a coup? To be fair to Egypt, this is the first free election they have had in their entire history, void of interference by colonial powers - I am not surprised in the slightest that it was far from perfect. Hell, the pre-eminent democracies on the planet have trouble hosting free and fair elections.
If Islamic parties win the elections fairly, that's the democratic will of the people. We don't have to like it, but we do have to respect that. Conversely, if the electoral process is subverted to gain a win then we should care. Regardless, you are correct that the West does not militarily have a place backing sides in either Syria or Egypt (albeit for different reasons in each country, but your basic assertion is not wrong).
-
I hope you're right, but going by the region's history with secular democracy, there isn't much hope. The last elections Egypt had weren't exactly free and fair. And even if they did happen to have free and fair elections, do you really think that Islamist parties wouldn't win again?
Either way, we should stay out of Egypt and Syria.
Secular democracy in the Middle East thrived before Western countries began their campaign of eliminating them - or have you forgotten that Iran had a secualr, democratically-elected government before the US supported the Shah in a coup? To be fair to Egypt, this is the first free election they have had in their entire history, void of interference by colonial powers - I am not surprised in the slightest that it was far from perfect. Hell, the pre-eminent democracies on the planet have trouble hosting free and fair elections.
If Islamic parties win the elections fairly, that's the democratic will of the people. We don't have to like it, but we do have to respect that. Conversely, if the electoral process is subverted to gain a win then we should care. Regardless, you are correct that the West does not militarily have a place backing sides in either Syria or Egypt (albeit for different reasons in each country, but your basic assertion is not wrong).
Iran had always been bullied by foreign powers, be it the Russians or the British. Arguably though, Iran has never been a stable democratic state. (http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/irn2.htm) I never said that America/Europe's intervention in Middle Eastern affairs didn't bring about anti-Western sentiments, it clearly did. In fact, I wrote an essay not too long ago arguing that the United States should have sided with Mosaddegh and Iran in the Iranian oil dispute.
Is a democracy that abuses the rights of minorities truly better than an authoritarian regime that respects the rights of all groups?
-
I don't know what that graph purports to represent as it has no data, no legend, and no explanation. At any rate, there have indeed been democracies in the region before the present day, and there is no cultural lack of ability to maintain one, as you seemed to imply earlier.
Is a democracy that abuses the rights of minorities truly better than an authoritarian regime that respects the rights of all groups?
You tell me. You live in one. So do I (and indeed the rest of HLP), and my vote is an absolute yes.
-
I don't know what that graph purports to represent as it has no data, no legend, and no explanation. At any rate, there have indeed been democracies in the region before the present day, and there is no cultural lack of ability to maintain one, as you seemed to imply earlier.
Is a democracy that abuses the rights of minorities truly better than an authoritarian regime that respects the rights of all groups?
You tell me. You live in one. So do I (and indeed the rest of HLP), and my vote is an absolute yes.
It's supposed to represent how democratic a state is over the course of ~70 years. You can learn more about it here: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
Really? How does the United States or Europe violate the rights of minority groups? There might be a few minor things here and there, like strict gun control laws or a ban on gay marriage, but that's hardly comparable to stoning women to death or massacring Jews and Christians.
-
It's more of a cultural difference. Massacring Jews and Christians would've happened under an authoritarian regime anyway, unless that regime would be led by, say, a Christian, in which case there'd be a good chance of Muslims being threated like that (if government did have a say in this at all). Such things happen in places in the Middle East where the culture is at about the level it was 2000 years ago, and it's gonna take far more than government telling them "stop doing this" to really get rid of. If anything, a democracy would ensure that such a backwards idiot doesn't have all the power.
Is a democracy that abuses the rights of minorities truly better than an authoritarian regime that respects the rights of all groups?
Well, in that case, I'd actually be inclined to go with the latter. Democracy does have it's flaws, and an authoritarian regime that would respect the rights and demands of all groups (within reason, of course) would be a better solution. Now show me one such regime. Also, show me a somewhat benevolent authoritarian regime that stayed benevolent for more than a single ruler's lifetime. The major problem with monarchies and authoritarian regimes in general is that even if you do get a just, wise and overall good king/dictator/whatever, he/she'll die at some point, and there's no guarantee the successor won't turn out much worse.
A democracy gives you a stable, if medicore government, while an authoritarian regime gives you a roulette. You either get a good ruler or a bad one, and there's no way to change that. You could improve the odds somewhat (Rome did better under emperors than under senate), but that would require setting up a new system from ground up, which is impossible in the current world. Also, a democracy is somewhat more predictable on the international stage. Overall, it's the best option we have now, despite it's flaws.
-
It's supposed to represent how democratic a state is over the course of ~70 years. You can learn more about it here: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
Wonderful. There is no indication of what that graph means, how they arrived at the numbers it plots, or any notion of where those numbers came from. It's worse than worthless as a source of anything. We talked about sourcing in your gun control thread. Your point is not advanced by posting sources that don't meet bare minimum standards of explanation of their conclusions. I see a graph with no meaning attachment, and no means of independently verifying its claims because I can't even tell what it claims. (polity may be a perfectly legit source, but a single link to a graph with no information on it is not).
Really? How does the United States or Europe violate the rights of minority groups? There might be a few minor things here and there, like strict gun control laws or a ban on gay marriage, but that's hardly comparable to stoning women to death or massacring Jews and Christians.
You asked if living in a democracy that violates the rights of its minorities is better than an authoritarian, secular government. Both of those types of governance exist on scales of relativity, as I believe you have just realized. The point is that a democracy with minimal rights violations (e.g. the US) is still a whole hell of a lot better than an authoritarian government (e.g. China) - primarily because democratic government policy changes with the will of the people.
Just because Egypt elected an Islamist government that has committed some pretty awful rights violations does not mean every government they elect will do the same, nor is it justification for authoritarianism in the place of democracy.
-
Really? How does the United States or Europe violate the rights of minority groups? There might be a few minor things here and there, like strict gun control laws or a ban on gay marriage, but that's hardly comparable to stoning women to death or massacring Jews and Christians.
I dont think that will happen on larger scales. While egyptian people seem to believe some pretty awful things (based on some survey I saw, 80% want to kill apostates or stone adulterers), if you look at how many votes the hardline silamist salafists get it is a lot less. And muslim brotherhood is probably too moderate to try something like that.
If they begin to abuse basic human rights based on some strict interpretation of shariah, then yes that should not be allowed, democracy be damned. Even international law would allow toppling such abusive regimes. Still, Id say its very unlikely that will happen. I dont think any muslim country in the world does that, even if the people may support it.
-
It's more of a cultural difference. Massacring Jews and Christians would've happened under an authoritarian regime anyway, unless that regime would be led by, say, a Christian, in which case there'd be a good chance of Muslims being threated like that (if government did have a say in this at all). Such things happen in places in the Middle East where the culture is at about the level it was 2000 years ago, and it's gonna take far more than government telling them "stop doing this" to really get rid of. If anything, a democracy would ensure that such a backwards idiot doesn't have all the power.
Is a democracy that abuses the rights of minorities truly better than an authoritarian regime that respects the rights of all groups?
Well, in that case, I'd actually be inclined to go with the latter. Democracy does have it's flaws, and an authoritarian regime that would respect the rights and demands of all groups (within reason, of course) would be a better solution. Now show me one such regime. Also, show me a somewhat benevolent authoritarian regime that stayed benevolent for more than a single ruler's lifetime. The major problem with monarchies and authoritarian regimes in general is that even if you do get a just, wise and overall good king/dictator/whatever, he/she'll die at some point, and there's no guarantee the successor won't turn out much worse.
A democracy gives you a stable, if medicore government, while an authoritarian regime gives you a roulette. You either get a good ruler or a bad one, and there's no way to change that. You could improve the odds somewhat (Rome did better under emperors than under senate), but that would require setting up a new system from ground up, which is impossible in the current world. Also, a democracy is somewhat more predictable on the international stage. Overall, it's the best option we have now, despite it's flaws.
Singapore could be considered a successful benevolent dictatorship that has survived through a number of leaders and respects the rights of nearly a dozen different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. In fact, it's one of the most economically prosperous countries in Asia.
Note: I'm not disagreeing with you and I know it was a tangent.
-
Wonderful. There is no indication of what that graph means, how they arrived at the numbers it plots, or any notion of where those numbers came from. It's worse than worthless as a source of anything. We talked about sourcing in your gun control thread. Your point is not advanced by posting sources that don't meet bare minimum standards of explanation of their conclusions. I see a graph with no meaning attachment, and no means of independently verifying its claims because I can't even tell what it claims. (polity may be a perfectly legit source, but a single link to a graph with no information on it is not).
Polity is used fairly often as a source by Wikipedia and have a page there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
You asked if living in a democracy that violates the rights of its minorities is better than an authoritarian, secular government. Both of those types of governance exist on scales of relativity, as I believe you have just realized. The point is that a democracy with minimal rights violations (e.g. the US) is still a whole hell of a lot better than an authoritarian government (e.g. China) - primarily because democratic government policy changes with the will of the people.
Just because Egypt elected an Islamist government that has committed some pretty awful rights violations does not mean every government they elect will do the same, nor is it justification for authoritarianism in the place of democracy.
An autocratic regime doesn't necessarily have to be like China. I was more referring to a situation similar to Egypt under Mubarak.
-
Just because Egypt elected an Islamist government that has committed some pretty awful rights violations does not mean every government they elect will do the same, nor is it justification for authoritarianism in the place of democracy.
Indeed. Also, those elections were somewhat fishy anyway, and they're in process of un-electing said Islamist government for committing those right violations. There's hope the next election will bring about someone more reasonable. That's one really nice thing about democracy, if everything works allright, a bad government can lose power as quickly as it got it, or faster, in some cases.
Singapore could be considered a successful benevolent dictatorship that has survived through a number of leaders and respects the rights of nearly a dozen different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups. In fact, it's one of the most economically prosperous countries in Asia.
Singapore isn't a full-on authoritarian regime though. It's a "hybrid regime", and a remarkably competently run one. Also, for some reason there's extremely little corruption. A hybrid regime can run quite well (for example, there's no roulette as with hereditary monarchy), though many of the ones classified as such also happen to be corrupt beyond belief. Early Communist Poland was also a surprisingly well run (certainly better than it's now...) hybrid regime, but that went south in it's final years, due to a number of factors.
-
Polity is used fairly often as a source by Wikipedia and have a page there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
That's fine - the point was that the graph is useless, not that Polity is necessarily a bad source. Sourcing has to tell the reader something, and your linked graph didn't.
An autocratic regime doesn't necessarily have to be like China. I was more referring to a situation similar to Egypt under Mubarak.
China was just an example. Mubarak was just as bad. Democracy is always better than authoritarianism, no matter how well-meaning or secular.
-
Even the military seems to oppose Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Don't mistake this for genuine democratic leanings or anything like that.
The Egyptian Army knows from bitter experience that they will bear the brunt of the fighting and the losses for another round of Death to Israel or any other look-ma-I'm-relevant Arabic war. They're the only country in the South Side Med region with the population and the educational system to sustain a large army.
And they're not doing it again. They will not be cannon fodder in the name of Arabic or Islamic unity. They will not back a government that they think would support that. Their motives are purely self-serving, though they arguably support the interests of the Egyptian state as well.
-
I wouldn't call refusing to serve as cannon fodder in a useless war self-serving.
-
I wouldn't call refusing to serve as cannon fodder in a useless war self-serving.
Well, it's your guess and mine it would be useless, but the Egyptian Army has come a long way since the Six Day War, and the Israelis have not demonstrated hypercompetence, so things may be different if they go another round.
I certainly don't think it would be justified, but useless probably isn't the best word.
More seriously this is the tail wagging the dog, the army is an instrument of the state and serves the goals of the state (which are not necessarily the interests of the state), while the reverse is playing out here as the state is being made to serve the goals of the army. You're supposed to give up this sort of consideration when you put on the uniform, which is why I characterize their actions as self-serving; in the context of a professional military, they are.
-
I wouldn't call refusing to serve as cannon fodder in a useless war self-serving.
that is pretty much the definition of self-serving
-
I'm pretty sure its not self-serving to want to avoid a pointless death because someone above you wanted to show off his penis size to the international community.
-
China was just an example. Mubarak was just as bad. Democracy is always better than authoritarianism, no matter how well-meaning or secular.
This is nothing but faith-based belief. Of course, I do belong to that religion myself, but I am in no illusions to the effect that perhaps I'm just blatantly wrong on that one.
This video below of TED is worrisome. Perhaps it's just propaganda, perhaps it's just a rosy picture of Chinese politics where the facts are much harsher and cruel, but I still worry about this particular problem. Notice also how the crowd likes the talk. I also found that particularly frigthening...
-
I'd love to watch that TED talk, but it would seem your video player is not actually linked to a video Luis.
-
Ok I ****ed that up. Hope you can see it now ;)
-
This video below of TED is worrisome. Perhaps it's just propaganda, perhaps it's just a rosy picture of Chinese politics where the facts are much harsher and cruel, but I still worry about this particular problem. Notice also how the crowd likes the talk. I also found that particularly frigthening...
That's actually a really good talk, and he makes a good point that metanarratives are generally bad, as is the idea of linear progression of society. His predictions aren't far off, either.
That said, he doesn't account for the unique nature of Chinese society which allows this one-party system to function. Chinese society in general is much more collectivist than Western society - and part of this is due to the way it evolved. Western societies experienced a slow progression of reforms that, as the political system opened, precipitated a change from collectivism to more individual societies. In point of fact, I'd argue that that cultural change is a result of improved economics, which China bears off - there is considerably less collectivism in China's middle and upper classes than there is in the lower classes. It relates to corruption as well - corruption tends to arise when people have more to individually gain. Chinese society is often also cited for thinking long-term, rather than focusing on the here and now.
Finally, there are some rose-coloured glasses in this talk. China still does not respect human rights, has a brutal and unfair justice system, and rigidly represses individual expression and critical thought. China's historical leaps and bounds over the last 60 years are impressive, but it faces major hurdles as we move into the future and the speaker is not giving equal treatment to the legitimate criticisms of the Chinese political system.
That said, he makes a good and genuine argument and I understand he isn't trying to do a fair and balanced analysis, but rather dispel some of the myths around the way China functions.
And at the end of the day, I will still argue that a democracy with functioning ground rules is always better than authoritarian governance.
-
I'm pretty sure its not self-serving to want to avoid a pointless death because someone above you wanted to show off his penis size to the international community.
Yeah, that's still self-serving. Just because your motives are self-serving doesn't mean they're not justified.
-
There's an important distinction to be made here, and one that is fundamentally contrary to a significant cultural point that's managed to embed itself in social consciousness:
Selfishness is not bad. Selfishness does not always harm people around you. Selfishness is not evil. Looking out for yourself is the most basic, most essential part of existing.
Being self-serving is not a bad thing, nor should it be viewed as such until or unless it conflicts in such a way to render it a bad thing.
-
There's a difference between saying selfishness isn't bad and Ayn Randiism. Just like there's a difference between saying altruism isn't bad and totalitarian communism. All those traits aren't bad if taken moderately.
-
So Morsi has been "retired" by the military and is under house arrest according to NPR. So far so good. I was afraid he would resist more and there would be a blood bath. Still concerned about his supporters though. Constitution has been suspended, and supreme court chief justice is temporary leader. Thoughts?
-
Wait and see. Egyptian military seems to have exceptionally benevolent motivations, all things considered, but we'll see what happens. Particularly, I'm interested in whether the members of Muslim Brotherhood and their supporters will be prosecuted or persecuted, and whether they will be allowed to participate in the coming elections.
On the topic of democracies and autocracies...
Is it even possible for a country to be Islamic and democratic?
I mean, on the conceptual level, let's say that the Egyptians (again) elect an Islamic party to govern their country.
They get a new constitution, and the government settles in and starts working on preparing legislation and other executive duties.
Now, if this democratically elected party decides to make a legislation that incorporates elements of Sharia law, does anyone expect that the core requirements of democracy would be fulfilled after that? Namely, that non-islamic political parties could have an equal opportunity to campaign for elections.
Let's say a secular party makes a key point in their corner that they want to abolish the elements of Islamic law from the legislation, wouldn't it be likely that this campaign premise alone would make them criminals in the eyes of that Islamic law? I am not an expert on this but it just seems like talk about an islamic state (with islamic legislation) being a democratic one (with freedom to oppose islamic legislation on a political level) sounds rather... unlikely.
On the other hand, if a country calls itself Islamic country but doesn't install Islamic legislation, then what the hell is the point of calling it Islamic in the first place?
No, wait, don't answer - it's the same point as calling America a Christian nation, isn't it?
-
No, wait, don't answer - it's the same point as calling America a Christian nation, isn't it?
There's a big difference between being culturally and demographically Christian, which the US absolutely is, and legally Christian, which we are not (as per the First Amendment).
I'm fairly certain there are a lot of people, both here and in the MidEast, who either haven't picked up on the distinction, or are deliberately ignoring it.
-
No, wait, don't answer - it's the same point as calling America a Christian nation, isn't it?
There's a big difference between being culturally and demographically Christian, which the US absolutely is, and legally Christian, which we are not (as per the First Amendment).
I'm fairly certain there are a lot of people, both here and in the MidEast, who either haven't picked up on the distinction, or are deliberately ignoring it.
Exactly.
So when a leadership of a middle-eastern country speaks of their country as "Islamic", it's remains open to interpretation whether they're just pandering to the crowd who wants to hear that, or if they're actually intending to implement their particular opinion on what it means to be an "Islamic" country in the legal sense.
Just like US politicians, then, just with a different religion.
The problem is that there is a much more sizeable and influential faction in many, if not most, Middle-Eastern countries than in the US of A that would like to see actual religious legislation. Thus when I hear a party describing themselves as "Islamic" or "Islamist", I tend to assume that they mean they actually want Islamic legislation rather than just using it as a cultural or demographic tool in their rhetorics.
-
I'm interested to see where a democratically elected Islam country goes. I wonder if it will follow a similar path to early developing Christian nations, where you had religious law as being THE law for awhile, and then over the centuries it was phased out in favor of more secular standards. I would expect it to proceed quicker than in did in western countries.
-
Note, the situation is vastly different now. The disparity between the development of the western nations and the middle east is a huge factor here. Back then, nobody was bothered by religious law (indeed, they'd be bothered by lack of it). Nowadays, western countries expect middle eastern ones to go in a few years through what took them hundreds. On the other hand, those more advanced countries can now influence the less advanced ones culturally, so certain processes may go differently. It's a very new situation, in which Egypt seems to be doing quite well.
-
No, wait, don't answer - it's the same point as calling America a Christian nation, isn't it?
The UK is very much a "Christian nation", but that doesn't have any of the political consequences you talked about.
-
Note, the situation is vastly different now. The disparity between the development of the western nations and the middle east is a huge factor here. Back then, nobody was bothered by religious law (indeed, they'd be bothered by lack of it). Nowadays, western countries expect middle eastern ones to go in a few years through what took them hundreds. On the other hand, those more advanced countries can now influence the less advanced ones culturally, so certain processes may go differently. It's a very new situation, in which Egypt seems to be doing quite well.
Indeed which makes this whole situation very interesting
-
I found the following article by the Irish Times to give a rather interesting take as to what was the final straw: Morsi (and Muslim Brotherhood) support of intervention in Syria.
Mr Morsi himself called for foreign intervention in Syria against Mr Assad, leading to a veiled rebuke from the army, which issued an apparently bland but sharp-edged statement the next day stressing that its only role was guarding Egypt’s borders.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/morsi-role-at-syria-rally-seen-as-tipping-point-for-egypt-army-1.1450612
I wonder how the US and NATO/the EU in general will respond to these recent changes in Egypt. From what I've seen, I think it might very well be a positive event against destabilization and wider war.