Democracy vs Secularism

Brown Bomber

Egypt has raised a question for me. The democratically elected and relatively moderate and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government has been overthrown in a military coup with the backing of the "West", secularists and leftists.

Islamist parties represented 75% of Egyptians.

Which is the priority from the "anti-thiest" perspective generally and your's personally?

Doctor Strange

This poll is odd to say the least. One would think secularism would be more tied to democracy than religion, which has a tendency to create theocracies.

Also, the Egyptian government was overthrown because the democratically elected president was on the road to dictatorship.

"[T]he "West", secularists and leftists" indeed.

Brown Bomber

Was a simple question really.

strobe

For me personally (im not sure about anti-theistically), whichever is more likely to uphold human rights.

The nazis (yeah yeah,godwin, whatever) were democratically elected, after all.

Democracy is great, but if a party ran here on the mandate of murdering and/or imprisoning 50% of the population and were elected, for example, I wouldnt feel compelled to respect the democratic process.

swiftblade

What sort of "secularism" is this that you are refering too? One in which everyone is forced to reject God and eat babies? Seriously though, I would have a thought a secular society would be more democratic (In theory) than a religiously led society.

By principle, secularism is the idea of treating everyone equal, a level playing field if you will.

Strange poll is strange...

strobe

I'd prefer a minarchist society, so do whatever you like as long as you're not impinging on other people's freedoms

strobe wrote: »

For me personally (im not sure about anti-theistically), whichever is more likely to uphold human rights.

The nazis (yeah yeah,godwin, whatever) were democratically elected, after all.

Democracy is great, but if a party ran here on the mandate of murdering and/or imprisoning 50% of the population and were elected, for example, I wouldnt feel compelled to respect the democratic process.

Yeah, it's a better system than most, but mob rule still always isn't best rule

seamus

Secularism when done right effectively requires democracy because any other form of government is, "I'm in power because I say so", which would be in conflict with the core idea of secularism where government is separated from belief.

That's not to say you can't have a secular dictatorship, but it's logically inconsistent to have a person who's in power for no reason other than they believe they should be, while at the same time upholds a secular society.

I'm 100% sure you're wrong that the coup in Egypt was supported by liberal secular leftists. Typically when a middle-eastern democratic government is overthrown, it's with the support of conservative right-wing interests who want a dictatorship that they can manipulate for profit. That's been the pattern for the last 60 years.

I do support the right of a country to overthrow their own government though. Democracy often does go wrong, especially when it's very new to a country and voters are inexperienced at separating the bluster and lies from the relaity.

swiftblade

I think the issue here is that people often lump Secularism in with Marxism/Communism. That is probably what BB means by the "left" supporting the uprising.

I can't think of any "left" groups or countries that would support it. In theory, establishing a democratic led government has no gains for outsiders.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Egypt has raised a question for me. The democratically elected and relatively moderate and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government has been overthrown in a military coup with the backing of the "West", secularists and leftists.

I'm not aware of anything especially "moderate" about the "Muslim Brotherhood" - even the name itself has quite unpleasant overtones.

Your poll sets up a false dichotomy since representative democracy can coexist quite happily with secularism. Your comment has about "the "West", secularists and leftists" is without noticeable merit.

Instead of the poll as posed, if you're asking "Are people happy that group of religious supremacists were turfed out of power before they could reinstate the dictatorship that other people tore down", well, I'd imagine most people here would prefer that it had happened via the ballot box backed by an informed, engaged electorate working with honest, non-supremacist political parties, instead of via a military coup.

That said, the army has promised early elections, and, given the dreadful history of religiously-inspired polities and Abrahamic/islamic ones in particular, a military coup -- unpleasant and illegal though it is -- is amongst the less awful outcomes.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Was a simple question really.

That's a matter of opinion!

The poll suggests democracy and secularism cannot co-exist so I have no alternative but to abstain.

I don't really know enough about the Egypt situation to offer much. Certainly I'd have a bias against any form of government who primary identity is a religious one, and I'd also take issue with the idea that because the majority voted for something that the minority are then subject to he whims of that majority in every matter. Whether this was the case in Egypt, I don't know.

That said, it's clearly not democratic for the military to remove an elected government from power.

But I don't think the Egypt situation can be used as a yardstick for the pros/cons of secularism given the populations indecision as to what they actually want.

jank

seamus wrote: »

I'm 100% sure you're wrong that the coup in Egypt was supported by liberal secular leftists. Typically when a middle-eastern democratic government is overthrown, it's with the support of conservative right-wing interests who want a dictatorship that they can manipulate for profit. That's been the pattern for the last 60 years.

.

Iran?

Most of those western backed coups have created states that were/are friendly to the west but also kinda secular for example Murbark's Egypts' and Saddam's Iraq. The more fanatical working class type of revolution for example Iran 79 Eygpt 2011 have put Islam as they keystone of their moral and political mandate. There is no silver bullet to create a working liberal secular democracy as we have in Ireland. Also, don't forget that a massive amount of women voted for the Muslim brotherhood, they want to live under a type of sharia law but sure we know better... right?

In my opinion countries in the middle east should form a government and run their affairs as they see fit. The constant interferring by western governments has created more instablity in the long run than anything. That might be hard for people to stomach but the alternative is impossing western values on a people who either don't want them or are not ready for them.

jank

I think BB's point about Egypt is which one would you prefer? A democractic government with a strong religious overtone or an 'imposed' military secularism say as in China?
However, one can have both or neither working together as well. So the question is quite black and white.

However, I raised a few eyebrows when there was lots of cheering and whooping in general on the net during the last military coup in Egypt. I imagine if the involvement of those were from different sides then the response from the talking class would be a hell of a lot different. IMO

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

I'm not aware of anything especially "moderate" about the "Muslim Brotherhood"

Fair enough, but I am. I've lived in Cairo and stay in touch with friends there.

robindch wrote: »

- even the name itself has quite unpleasant overtones.

"Muslim" + "Brotherhood" = "unpleasant"??? Can you explain?

robindch wrote: »

Your poll sets up a false dichotomy since representative democracy can coexist quite happily with secularism.

Agreed. But I am curious as to the "priority" and whether it be secularism before democracy or vice-versa,

robindch wrote: »

- Your comment has about "the "West", secularists and leftists" is without noticeable merit.

I can only assume that you don't know about the Egyptian military being a de-facto proxy for the Pentagon for decades.

Otherwise,

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's leading left-wing politician endorsed military
intervention to oust elected Islamist President Mohamed Mursi and said he
expected a short transition to a new democratic president and parliament.


Hamdeen Sabahi, leader of the Popular Current movement, who came third in
last year's presidential election, said the army had implemented the will of the
people and was not seeking power for itself.

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-left-leader-backs-military-role-sees-short-213911548.html

robindch wrote: »

Instead of the poll as posed, if you're asking "Are people happy that group of religious supremacists were turfed out of power before they could reinstate the dictatorship that other people tore down", well, I'd imagine most people here would prefer that it had happened via the ballot box backed by an informed, engaged electorate working with honest, non-supremacist political parties, instead of via a military coup.

That said, the army has promised early elections, and, given the dreadful history of religiously-inspired polities and Abrahamic/islamic ones in particular, a military coup -- unpleasant and illegal though it is -- is amongst the less awful outcomes.

What I am interested in is whether especially staunch atheists are against military coups supported by liberals and secularists against democratically elected governments if that government isn't secular.

robindch

jank wrote: »

I think BB's point about Egypt is which one would you prefer? A democractic government with a strong religious overtone or an 'imposed' military secularism say as in China?

As above, Egypt was heading towards the kind of dictatorship they'd just just turfed out.

jank wrote: »

[...] the response from the talking class would be a hell of a lot different.

Odd to see a complaint about the "talking class" on a discussion board.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"Muslim" + "Brotherhood" = "unpleasant"??? Can you explain?

"Muslim" implies religious supremacy in a sense that's generally missing from European parties that have "christian" in their title. "Brotherhood" suggests that the sisterhood are not a major concern.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But I am curious as to the "priority" and whether it be secularism before democracy or vice-versa,

As above, a military coup with promises of elections is better than the islamic dictatorship that Morsi was in the process of building.

Pretty bad that things for women are even worse over there now
the MB are not reacting well to losing and are taking a lot of it out on protesting women

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

For me personally (im not sure about anti-theistically), whichever is more likely to uphold human rights.

The nazis (yeah yeah,godwin, whatever) were democratically elected, after all.

Democracy is great, but if a party ran here on the mandate of murdering and/or imprisoning 50% of the population and were elected, for example, I wouldnt feel compelled to respect the democratic process.

Quite extreme, and hardly the case in Egypt where Morsi was given just a year to transform a society following decades of western-backed dictatorships.

Brown Bomber

Dades wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion!

The poll suggests democracy and secularism cannot co-exist so I have no alternative but to abstain.

Sorry if I didn't explain myself so well. It is not to say that democracy and secularism cannot co-exist but in the situations where do not what is the primary concern?

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am interested in is whether especially staunch atheists are against military coups supported by liberals and secularists against democratically elected governments if that government isn't secular.

To that I would say in theory, no, military coups against democratically elected governments are a bad thing. I'll caveat that by saying if an elected government is attempting to turn the state into something it was not mandated to do then they might be acting undemocratically themselves.

Liamario

The OP doesn't reflect the poll. Do you know what secularism is?

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

"Muslim" implies religious supremacy in a sense that's generally missing from European parties that have "christian" in their title

It does...?

robindch wrote: »

""Brotherhood" suggests that the sisterhood are not a major concern.

That will be news to the scores of women Muslim Brotherhood candidates in the parliamentary elections.

Perhaps you would prefer "The Freedom and Justice Party"? Though I don't see what difference it makes.

robindch wrote: »

"As above, a military coup with promises of elections is better than the islamic dictatorship that Morsi was in the process of building.

So to be clear, and this is what I am trying to get at - you would prefer to see a democratically elected religous government removed from power - violently if needs be - by secularists?

Penn

Secularism

While I disagree with the wording of the poll (Democracy vs Secularism), given BB's further clarifications, I'd value a democratically elected government over an imposed secular one. Though of course, those notions are still hugely variable (as others pointed out, a democratically elected government may be acting undemocratically and against the will of the majority of the people, and an imposed secular government may just be a placeholder to provide a semblance of order and control until a democratically elected government can be voted in).

Democracy and Secularism themselves should pretty much go hand-in-hand. That all citizens are equal, and have an equal voice, and that they shouldn't be favoured over one another or discriminated against due to religion. All religion and no religion should be equal, and a person's stance on religion shouldn't mean their opinion is any lesser or greater.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Egypt has raised a question for me. The democratically elected and relatively moderate and Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government has been overthrown in a military coup with the backing of the "West", secularists and leftists.

Islamist parties represented 75% of Egyptians.

Which is the priority from the "anti-thiest" perspective generally and your's personally?

Option 3 - Rule of Law

There is a strong case to be made that the American lead fixation on democracy in middle eastern countries is missing the point some what, that rather than democracy rule of law and respect for rule of law is a far more valuable quality to in still in a nation that is emerging from dictatorship.

Egypt is a perfect example of this, they had democracy and one of the first things the democratically elected officials did was to attempt to place themselves above the rule of law. While it would be nice to think that the military coup removed them out of respect for law, the reality is it was more because such a move threatened the influence of the military.

But this can be extended to a whole host of countries, from Egypt to Russia, where superficial democracy is greatly weakened by a brazen disregard for the rule of law and legal frameworks.

The neo-conservative movement in America seemed to believe that respect for rule of law will simply magically emerge in countries in the middle east that have moved to democracy. That has clearly not been the case. Western powers should spend a great deal more time pushing the merits of rule of law, and democracy will follow, rather than the other way around.

Penn

Secularism

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So to be clear, and this is what I am trying to get at - you would prefer to see a democratically elected religous government removed from power - violently if needs be - by secularists?

That wouldn't be my reading of what he said. My reading would be that if a democratically elected religious government started imposing unfair and unjust laws on people and abusing their power, then depending on the severity of human rights abuses, they may need to be overthrown and removed from power and a new government voted democratically into power (a government which may also be religious).

If any democratically elected government begins to become a dictatorship which the people don't want, they should fight to prevent that as that's contrary to what they voted in. Religion isn't a factor.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That will be news to the scores of women Muslim Brotherhood candidates in the parliamentary elections.

The Muslim Brotherhood rejected a draft UN declaration calling for an end to multiple forms of discrimination and violence against women:

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731

Have a read of it -- it's a shocking document which says rather more about the MB and their policies than perhaps they'd like.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] you would prefer to see a democratically elected religous government removed from power - violently if needs be - by secularists?

Morsi was creating a society, largely indistinguishable so far as I can see from a dictatorship, legitimized by the supremacy of islam -- see the above document, for example. So the army, with widespread support, deposed him peacefully and announced new elections, this time hopefully without the [url=, not to mention allegations of fraud that marred previous elections. The situation is comparable in some ways to the 1993 army coup in Algeria, where the army stepped in to prevent islamists from suspending the constitution and cancelling future elections.

That deposition by the army is distasteful, but it's less distasteful than the alternative. It has nothing to do with elevating secularism over democracy or vice versa. It has everything to do with protecting the process of democracy itself.

Rev Hellfire

How do I vote for a secular democracy ?
The poll seems a bit *cough* how shall I say this, simplistic.

jank

robindch wrote: »

As above, Egypt was heading towards the kind of dictatorship they'd just just turfed out..

Is it right to depose an elected democratic government though? You talk about that government imposing laws against its mandate. If entirely true does that justify a military coup that has no democratic mandate?

keane2097

I don't see what the issue is with democracy not being at the top of the pile of priorities someone could have, just because it's the best form of government that's been made to work in most cases so far doesn't mean it's some sort of ideal we should all hold as sacred in perpetuity.

Zombrex

jank wrote: »

Is it right to depose an elected democratic government though? You talk about that government imposing laws against its mandate. If entirely true does that justify a military coup that has no democratic mandate?

Yes if the government is attempting to subvert the rule of law. A government does not have carte blanche to do what it likes just because it has been elected. It must adhere to the rule of law just like everyone else. Morsi attempted to subvert the constitution and simply put in place people in the judiciary who would allow him to.

Not that I think anyone is under any illusions that the military are doing this out of respect for the rule of law. It just so happens that the military's interests and the rule of law align in this instance.

Brown Bomber

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes if the government is attempting to subvert the rule of law.

Torture. Wire-Tapping. Extra-judicial assasination. Mass surveilance etc etc. So when is the next American revolution?

Zombrex wrote: »

A government does not have carte blanche to do what it likes just because it has been elected. It must adhere to the rule of law just like everyone else. Morsi attempted to subvert the constitution and simply put in place people in the judiciary who would allow him to.

Morsi had to fight tooth and nail to get the Constitution installed in the first place. A constitution which passed in a free and fair referendum.

It is the military junta and their Mubarak era deep-state allies who have overthrown a democratically elected leader, killed and wounded hundreds of political opponents, imprisoned hundreds more and shutdown all Muslim Brotherhood newspapers, TV Channels and so on.

So who is going to overthrow the military?

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

The Muslim Brotherhood rejected a draft UN declaration calling for an end to multiple forms of discrimination and violence against women:

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731 .

This is their right, is it not? They were elected on the basis of their Islamic moral principles.

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of it -- it's a shocking document which says rather more about the MB and their policies than perhaps they'd like.Morsi was creating a society, largely indistinguishable so far as I can see from a dictatorship, legitimized by the supremacy of islam -- see the above document, for example. So the army, with widespread support, deposed him peacefully and announced new elections, this time hopefully without the allegations of fraud that marred previous elections. The situation is comparable in some ways to the 1993 army coup in Algeria, where the army stepped in to prevent islamists from suspending the constitution and cancelling future elections.

While it is comparable to Algeria you are completely wrong as to the reasons.

There were riots in Algeria. >>> The secular, Algerian dictatorship promised elections >>> The Islamists in Algeria won by a super majority in the first round of parliamentary elections. >>>> The secularists carried out a military coup, and cancelled the elections and brutally cracked down on the Islamists >>> This led to a decade-long and extremely violent civil war. >>> The same dictator is still in power in Algeria.

That was the first free elections in the Arab world.

The second was the election of Hamas in Gaza which lead to the US arming Fatah and instigating a bloody civil war. When that failed they've resorting to placing the entire population under siege.

Egypt and it's military coup after just a year of democracy was the third.

robindch wrote: »

That deposition by the army is distasteful, but it's less distasteful than the alternative. It has nothing to do with elevating secularism over democracy or vice versa. It has everything to do with protecting the process of democracy itself.

And you "protect" democracy by overthrowing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with unelected officials?

What happens if the Muslim Brotherhood win again?

More likely it's members will realise that democracy is rigged and it's moderate leaders will be pushed to the sidelines by the more radical elements who have been saying as such all along.

Brown Bomber

Just to add the Algerian military at the behest of French Intelligence carried out various massacres, terrorist attacks, and atrocities posing as Islamists.

Worth considering next time people start foaming at the mouth over Islam...

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Morsi had to fight tooth and nail to get the Constitution installed in the first place. A constitution which passed in a free and fair referendum.

As above, allegations were made that the referendum vote was rigged, and it's highly questionable that the vote was free and fair and whether the citizens were adequately informed.

And all so that Morsi could pursue the MB's policy of reverting to the social conditioning of seventh-century Arabia? Recall that the MB objects to:

• Giving wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment [...]
• Full equality in marriage legislation such as: allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and abolition of [...] dowry, men taking charge of family spending, etc.
• Cancelling the need for a husband’s consent in matters like: travel, work, or use of contraception.

Not exactly a list of honorable aims, eh?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Torture. Wire-Tapping. Extra-judicial assasination. Mass surveilance etc etc. So when is the next American revolution?

What?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Morsi had to fight tooth and nail to get the Constitution installed in the first place. A constitution which passed in a free and fair referendum.

That isn't the issue. The issue is what Morsi did to subvert the constitution. He put in place a judiciary who was not going to challenge him and then set about dismantling over sight and giving himself and his government more power than they rightfully should have.

It would be like putting your brother in charge of the local Gardai station and then robbing a post office, claiming that you can't be doing anything wrong if you were the local Gardai station would be trying to stop you. The laws Morsi were attempting to change were unconstitutional, but because he put in place lackeys in the judiciary he wasn't challenged on this.

He should hardly be surprised that this proved to be deeply unpopular in Egypt.

Sarky

The nice thing about reality is it's almost never as black and white as people like to make out for their own goals. I can have both. Democularism ftw.

Rev Hellfire

Sarky wrote: »

Democularism

Snappy title, do you have a manifesto ?

tricky D

Penn wrote: »

Democracy and Secularism themselves should pretty much go hand-in-hand. .

Ideally, yes. However, some forms of democracy can descend into 'tyranny of the majority' which is counter to the notion of secularism. Case in point was Northern Ireland until tyranny was prevented due the d'Hondt system.

nagirrac

Democracy and secularism are inseparable, as a system of government based on both principles is the only one that protects equality before the law regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. There is no reason why religion cannot coexist with democracy and secularism, as in reality the core values of Christianity, and Islam for that matter, embrace the same concepts of freedom, equality and human rights. The issue is with militant fundamentalism which is anti-democratic in nature. Religion should have no special place in any system of government as it is entirely a private matter.

The problem with emerging democracies in the Middle East is that they are ripe for picking by religious fundamentalists. There is a long history of states emerging from colonial or more recently single party rule embracing religious fundamentalism. Irish people more than anyone should understand this as the fledgling Irish Republic was undermined and abused by Catholic fundamentalists. The model for Eqypt and other emerging democracies in the Middle East should be Turkey, which has got most things right as a secular Republic.

The correct answer to the question is democracy + secularism, which by definition excludes fundamentalism.

SmilingLurker

I was born in a secular democracy. I live in Ireland, a non secular democracy.

If I had to choose one, it would be democracy so long as it remains a democracy you could convince others. Poor choice though...

The two choices are not exclusive, and there have been dreadful democracies and secular states. I know of no bad secular democracies, if people remove either it destroys the state. Any dodgy secular democracies out there?

Egypt I am not certain it was remaining a democracy... I am troubled by a military coup... So I cannot judge.

Nodin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Snappy title, do you have a manifesto ?

He's from Cork. Of course he has a manifesto.

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you "protect" democracy by overthrowing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with unelected officials?

That's the question isn't it. I agree it's a dramatic move - particularly when what happens next is anyone's guess.

But do you entertain any of the suggestions that Morsi was engaged in an undemocratic quest to give his party carte blanche? That something needed to be done before the power base was solidified?

Sarky

I'm from Galway, I've only been living in Cork for 4 years. You can tell because I don't end sentences with 'like', unless I am clearly being ironic.

keane2097

540 thread views, six poll votes. False dichotomy fail IMO.

legspin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

How do I vote for a secular democracy ?
The poll seems a bit *cough* how shall I say this, simplistic.

Given the track record of the OP, simplistic is being kind.

Doctor DooM

robindch wrote: »

The Muslim Brotherhood rejected a draft UN declaration calling for an end to multiple forms of discrimination and violence against women:

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731

Have a read of it -- it's a shocking document which says rather more about the MB and their policies than perhaps they'd like.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is their right, is it not? They were elected on the basis of their Islamic moral principles.

Wow.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

The model for Eqypt and other emerging democracies in the Middle East should be Turkey, which has got most things right as a secular Republic.

Of the countries in which islam is the dominant religion, Turkey is (or was) certainly amongst the most liberal.

However, as in Algeria and Egypt, where the army stepped in to block the exercise or the acquisition of power by islamic fundamentalists, so also in Turkey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_military_memorandum_(Turkey)

Wikipedia wrote:

At the National Security Council meeting on 28 February 1997, military generals submitted their views on issues regarding secularism and political Islam on Turkey to the government. The NSC made several decisions during this meeting, and Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, of the Welfare Party, was forced to sign them, each one intended to protect secularist ideology in Turkey. Following the military memorandum, Erbakan resigned

It's unfortunate in the extreme that the only thing standing in the way of islamic fundamentalism seems to be men with guns, or the plausible threat of them.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

It's unfortunate in the extreme that the only thing standing in the way of islamic fundamentalism seems to be men with guns, or the plausible threat of them.

True, but perhaps that is the true value of a military, to protect secular democratic government from attack whether from outside or within. While some of the "rules" imposed by the military on the Turkish government in 1997 seem heavy handed, they were targeted at fundamentalist religion rather than orthodox / liberal religion, and given the experiences in the countries they are surrounded by, perhaps unsurprising.

Brian Shanahan

strobe wrote: »

The nazis (yeah yeah,godwin, whatever) were democratically elected, after all.

Yes they were democratically elected, as the largest minority party within a coalition government. They then used a combination of luck, rules-lawering, beating up and killing opponents and outright ignoring the laws pertaining to the legislature to illegally erect their dictatorship.

Remember, just like with any other minority party in government, they didn't win a mandate in 1933. In fact by the time Titler achieved chancellorship their popularity (and share of the vote) were beginning to nose dive (don't mind the March '33 results, that was after they achieved power and started constructing their dictatorship).

Brian Shanahan

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd prefer a minarchist society, so do whatever you like as long as you're not impinging on other people's freedoms



Yeah, it's a better system than most, but mob rule still always isn't best rule

Be careful what you wish for, it may just come true (re: minarchism).

robindch wrote: »

That said, the army has promised early elections, and, given the dreadful history of religiously-inspired polities and Abrahamic/islamic ones in particular, a military coup -- unpleasant and illegal though it is -- is amongst the less awful outcomes.

I don't know about that. Given the histories of the Egyptian army (for example they were the ones performing the "virginity tests" and forced public strip searches) and the Muslim Brotherhood (who have long renounced violence as a means to gain power, and have stuck to it despite massive provocation), I would much prefer to live under the Brotherhood's rule, repressive as it would have turned out to be. At least I wouldn't be killed for my beliefs.

Don't take the lies of the US and the UK at face value. They both have a long ignominous history of supporting brutal dictatorship, which continues today.

endacl

What's a staunch atheist then? Am I one?!?

Poll is, as pointed out, a bit silly. Reminds me of the current 'would you rather' thread on AH.

Thinking of extreme examples, Stalin/Pol Pot et al, a secular state ain't necessarily a good thing by definition. On the other hand, as democracy seems to be the only system that allows rationality and some measure of fair play to naturally develop.... I'd have to plump for.....

..... not voting. Silly poll is silly. If I only have a choice of two, and neither is the option for me, I'll abstain. Might as well be in 'Murica.

Democracy? Absolutely. Secular? Likewise. I'm not choosing.

Brian Shanahan

Zombrex wrote: »

Option 3 - Rule of Law

There is a strong case to be made that the American lead fixation on democracy in middle eastern countries is missing the point some what, that rather than democracy rule of law and respect for rule of law is a far more valuable quality to in still in a nation that is emerging from dictatorship.

The US doesn't give two ****s about democracy in the Middle East. Examples:

1) Iraq; when Jay Garner was trying to set up a democratic constitutional convention after the US invasion, he was sacked, and his replacement drafted up an anti-democratic constitution, which was ratified by the US's hand picked "local" leaders.

2) Afghanistan; when the Taliban were ousted they were replaced by a venal kleptocracy in Kabul, and a series of warlords whose only difference from the Taliban was that (in 2003) they were still willing to take the US dollar. In fact in most parts of the country rule under warlords was more brutal and oppressive than under the Taliban.

3) Bahrain; both the US and the UK continued to export munitions, equipment and supplies such as tear gas during the pro-democracy protests two years ago. This despite knowing full well that protesters were being killed indiscriminatly by the Bahraini military.

4) Libya; after the overthrow of Gaddafi, the country has gotten more oppressive, and the rule of law (yes there were actually some laws and protections under the old dictatorship) has disappeared completely. Much of the country is in the hands of groups closely related and linked to Al-Qaeda (whom the US openly supported).

5) Syria; the "rebel forces" largely consist of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, of whom neither the pro-Assad or anti-Assad people want. The US is now openly arming them in their fight against the government. Previously local US proxies (i.e. Israel and Saudi Arabia) were funding them with US money.

I could go on. But my point here, is that when faced with a choice between democracy and dictatorship in any country outside western Europe (and sometimes even in Western Europe, see Greece and Italy), the US has, since WWII, uniformly and exclusively chosen to support dictatorship, even when the democratic choice was strongly pro-US.