[An4ximandros]

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.

[Nakura]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[swashmebuckle]

I don't know of any cases where a secular authoritarian regime oversaw a horrible nightmare period in any country's history, no sir.

[Nakura]

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.

[swashmebuckle]

Wow, I had no idea! They're doing better now? That's an excellent reason to wish for further oppression of the Egyptian people.

[Nakura]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Nakura]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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).

[Nakura]

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. 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?

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Nakura]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[666maslo666]

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.

[Nakura]

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.

[Nakura]

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.

[Dragon]

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.