[MP-Ryan]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[SpardaSon21]

I wouldn't call refusing to serve as cannon fodder in a useless war self-serving.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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

[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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...

[MP-Ryan]

I'd love to watch that TED talk, but it would seem your video player is not actually linked to a video Luis.

[Luis Dias]

Ok I ****ed that up. Hope you can see it now

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[Scotty]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Beskargam]

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?

[Herra Tohtori]

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?

[Mad Bomber]

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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Beskargam]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Phantom Hoover]

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.