Democracy vs Secularism

strobe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

Wasn't suggesting 'twas the case in Egypt. Was taking the poll at face value. Shouldn't have bothered with the poll andthread title and abstraction if you really just wanted people's specific opinions on the Egypt situation.

recedite

OP has a valid point on the face of it.
However there seemed to be a lot more Egyptians out on the streets protesting against Morsi, compared to those supporting him and the MB. The reason for this; people changed their minds when they saw what direction he was going in (a theocratic dictatorship) Morsi refused to stand down in the face of the unpopularity, therefore the army assisted the people in removing him.
It is perfectly normal for a western democratically elected govt. to be usurped before the end of its term. It happened here in Ireland last time when "the greens" became too embarrassed to remain, such was the unpopularity of the FF led coalition near its end. In Iceland it happened after the people laid siege to the parliament, banging pots and pans.
The difference with Morsi was that he thought he could just brazen it out.
Look what happened in Nazi Germany; the little dictator was democratically elected initially, but immediately started changing the constitution and eliminating his rivals. Brownshirts were employed to break up any protests with brute force. Soon it became too late to stop him, even if the majority had wanted to.

Karl Stein

Many parties in the EU are openly Christian Democrat (isn't FG allied to a Christian democrat bloc?). What seems to be lacking in Egypt, and most of the M. East, is 'Islamic Democrat' parties with a liberal ethos.

Brown Bomber

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Just to be clear, because it seems to be causing some confusion the Muslim Brotherhood are conservatives, not fundamentalists. The fundamentalist Islamists (Saudi-backed Salafists) are or least were part of the tighknit oppostion alliance with leftists and secularists.

In Egypt the Liberals aren't democrats and the democrats aren't liberals. The liberals aren't democrats because they lose in the democratic race and have attempted to undermine Egpytian democracy since day 1.

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

OP has a valid point on the face of it.
However there seemed to be a lot more Egyptians out on the streets protesting against Morsi, compared to those supporting him and the MB. The reason for this; people changed their minds when they saw what direction he was going in (a theocratic dictatorship) Morsi refused to stand down in the face of the unpopularity, therefore the army assisted the people in removing him.
It is perfectly normal for a western democratically elected govt. to be usurped before the end of its term. It happened here in Ireland last time when "the greens" became too embarrassed to remain, such was the unpopularity of the FF led coalition near its end. In Iceland it happened after the people laid siege to the parliament, banging pots and pans.
The difference with Morsi was that he thought he could just brazen it out.
Look what happened in Nazi Germany; the little dictator was democratically elected initially, but immediately started changing the constitution and eliminating his rivals. Brownshirts were employed to break up any protests with brute force. Soon it became too late to stop him, even if the majority had wanted to.

From speaking with friends in Egypt (liberals, MB and apolitical) the main reason people were protesting Mursi was that they were didn't feel safe on the streets, they were hungry and had no jobs.

The Mubarak-era bureacracy leftovers still held massive power within Egypt. Local police weren't doing anything about crime, there have been huge bread and petrol shortages - this changed immediately with the removal of Morsi.

Brown Bomber

strobe wrote: »

Wasn't suggesting 'twas the case in Egypt. Was taking the poll at face value. Shouldn't have bothered with the poll andthread title and abstraction if you really just wanted people's specific opinions on the Egypt situation.

My point was only to say that you have gone to an absolute extreme to demonstrate your position.

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My point was only to say that you have gone to an absolute extreme to demonstrate your position.

And you have based your poll on a general democracy Vs secularism idea?

Brown Bomber

Pherekydes wrote: »

And you have based your poll on a general democracy Vs secularism idea?

I'm not really understanding the confusion here.

This was the definition of "priority" I was using:

pri·or·i·ty

/prīˈôrətē/

Noun

• A thing that is regarded as more important than another.
• The fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important.

(THIS IS THE OP AGAIN)
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?

Everything above is factual.

Democracy isn't secularism. Secularism isn't democracy.

In cases such as Egypt where the secularist agenda is anti-democratic in practice which side of the fence are people here on? In other words "secularism vs democracy".

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not really understanding the confusion here.

This was the definition of "priority" I was using:

pri·or·i·ty

/prīˈôrətē/

Noun

• A thing that is regarded as more important than another.
• The fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important.

Everything above is factual.

But as soon as people said you could have your secular cake and democratically eat it you brought up Egypt. Is this thread about the false dichotomy you laid out, or is it about Egypt?

None of us can choose for the people of Egypt.

Sarky

Brown Bomber, are you looking to pigeonhole people with awkward language so you can condescend all over them again?

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In cases such as Egypt where the secularist agenda is anti-democratic in practice which side of the fence are people here on? In other words "secularism vs democracy".

Another way of asking the question you appear to be attempting to ask is as follows:

"Is it fair for democracy to be suspended in the shorter term in order to protect it in the longer term?"

To which the answer is "Yes, subject to conditions".

However you phrase it, the question is unrelated to secularism.

Akrasia

I'm in favour of democracy. I think there should be much more of it. if Egypt had some kind of direct democratic recall system then they could have forced a new election without the need for Military intervention or having to wait until the next election

Democracy in it's current form is basically installing mini dictatorships.

We all vote every 5 years or whatever and then the elected party get to do whatever they like until the next election.

You can do an enormous amount of damage to an economy or a society in 5 years. Ireland for example was stuck with the FF government for years after the crash (that they caused) begun during which time they managed to sign us up to legal committments that we will be paying back for generations.


Now FG/Labour are in power and are breaking every election promise that they have made, one by one.

Thats not real democracy.

The clue is in the name. The power is supposed to rest with the people. If the majority of TDs 'lose confidence' in a government, they can call an election. Well, the government has a Majority of votes so they hardly ever lose confidence in themselves, especially if they're fundamentalists
If the majority of the people lose confidence in the government, our only option is to sit tight, wait for the next election and then hope against all reasonable expectation that the next election will be different and the next government will actually do what they promised that they would do.

Brown Bomber

Pherekydes wrote: »

But as soon as people said you could have your secular cake and democratically eat it you brought up Egypt. Is this thread about the false dichotomy you laid out, or is it about Egypt?

None of us can choose for the people of Egypt.

First sentence of OP

Egypt has raised a question
for me.

nagirrac

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just to be clear, because it seems to be causing some confusion the Muslim Brotherhood are conservatives, not fundamentalists. The fundamentalist Islamists (Saudi-backed Salafists) are or least were part of the tighknit oppostion alliance with leftists and secularists.

In Egypt the Liberals aren't democrats and the democrats aren't liberals. The liberals aren't democrats because they lose in the democratic race and have attempted to undermine Egpytian democracy since day 1.

It is only a matter of degree. Anyone who believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran is a fundamentalist, just as anyone who believes the same about the Bible is a Christian fundamentalist. The litmus test is whether the group believe the Quran should be used as the source for the rule of law in the state, and the Islamic Brotherhood clearly believe this, at least to a significant degree. There may be more radical religious groups in Eqypt, but the central point is that the Islamic Brotherhood are fundamentalists by any standard definition of the term. Yes, they are also conservatives, but conservatives in the same sense as the religious right in the USA.

Democracy only works if freedom, equality and human rights are enshrined in the constitution and legal system for all the citizens of the state, majority and minorities. Democracy where the beliefs (religious or political) of the majority are enshrined in the constitution and the legal system is called tyranny of the majority. In fact a state where the beliefs of the majority are enshrined in the constitution and the legal system is undemocratic by definition, based on this I would say Egypt as of today is undemocratic. This is why secularism is inseparable from democracy, and why separation of church and state is so important. You simply cannot have a working democracy without secularism, as it may work for the majority, but that's called a tyranny.

Brown Bomber

nagirrac wrote: »

It is only a matter of degree. Anyone who believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran is a fundamentalist, just as anyone who believes the same about the Bible is a Christian fundamentalist. The litmus test is whether the group believe the Quran should be used as the source for the rule of law in the state, and the Islamic Brotherhood clearly believe this, at least to a significant degree. There may be more radical religious groups in Eqypt, but the central point is that the Islamic Brotherhood are fundamentalists by any standard definition of the term. Yes, they are also conservatives, but conservatives in the same sense as the religious right in the USA.

Democracy only works if freedom, equality and human rights are enshrined in the constitution and legal system for all the citizens of the state, majority and minorities. Democracy where the beliefs (religious or political) of the majority are enshrined in the constitution and the legal system is called tyranny of the majority. In fact a state where the beliefs of the majority are enshrined in the constitution and the legal system is undemocratic by definition, based on this I would say Egypt as of today is undemocratic. This is why secularism is inseparable from democracy, and why separation of church and state is so important. You simply cannot have a working democracy without secularism, as it may work for the majority, but that's called a tyranny.

hang on a second - when you said " Anyone who believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran is a fundamentalist" you've just described every single Muslim on the planet as a "fundamentalist".

Also, have you actually read the the constitution which was drawn up by the democratically elected government and then passed by a democratic referendum?

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just to be clear, because it seems to be causing some confusion the Muslim Brotherhood are conservatives, not fundamentalists. The fundamentalist Islamists (Saudi-backed Salafists) are or least were part of the tighknit oppostion alliance with leftists and secularists.

In Egypt the Liberals aren't democrats and the democrats aren't liberals. The liberals aren't democrats because they lose in the democratic race and have attempted to undermine Egpytian democracy since day 1.

Are you denying that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood government attempted to undermine democracy and the rule of law when they were in power?

If so you need to study up on your recent Egyptian history.

Brown Bomber

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you denying that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood government attempted to undermine democracy and the rule of law when they were in power?

If so you need to study up on your recent Egyptian history.

I don't deny it but it is far more complicated than the CNN version.

There was a power struggle between the elected government on one side and all the unelected power brokers on the other who refused to accept the will of the people and sabotaged every efforts made by the government to govern. This included the military, who cancelled the parliament, the courts, local police forces and the rest of the many arms of the powerful bureacracy left over from Mubarrak. Allied with the friends of the desposed dictator and his generals from day 1 were the media, leftists, secularists, Copts, foreign NGOs whose sole aim was the fall of the democratically elected government through the destabilisation of the state through crime, food shortages, fuel shortages, damaging the tourist trade and so on.

jank

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Many parties in the EU are openly Christian Democrat (isn't FG allied to a Christian democrat bloc?). What seems to be lacking in Egypt, and most of the M. East, is 'Islamic Democrat' parties with a liberal ethos.

Jaysus, if one was to take the commentary here on face value, FG are just about Taliban-lite in some peoples eyes. Anyone remember the Miriam Lord piece on RTE drive time, comparing Ireland to Afghanistan?

Corkfeen

I'm still trying to figure out how the Muslim Brotherhood could be considered in any way moderate. They refused to sign a bill that recognises the seriousness of marital rape and that would grant women other rights that they clearly should have the right to. How is that moderate?

endacl

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out how the Muslim Brotherhood could be considered in any way moderate. They refused to sign a bill that recognises the seriousness of marital rape and that would grant women other rights that they clearly should have the right to. How is that moderate?

Well, its a relative thing, and on a spectrum they're certainly more moderate than Attilla the Hun...

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm still trying to figure out how the Muslim Brotherhood could be considered in any way moderate. They refused to sign a bill that recognises the seriousness of marital rape and that would grant women other rights that they clearly should have the right to. How is that moderate?

Have you read the constitution?

nagirrac

Brown Bomber wrote: »

hang on a second - when you said " Anyone who believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran is a fundamentalist" you've just described every single Muslim on the planet as a "fundamentalist".

Also, have you actually read the the constitution which was drawn up by the democratically elected government and then passed by a democratic referendum?

There is a very solid argument to be made that all Muslims are fundamentalist, at least in terms of their beliefs. The question at hand is whether religious beliefs should be enshrined in a constitution or legal system. The answer to this in a democracy is no.

The 2012 constitution moved in the right direction with respect to human rights. However, not just retaining the clause that maintains Islamic law as the main source of legislation, but adding further adherence to Shariah law is clearly undemocratic. Why for example should Christians in Eqypt live under Shariah law? Keep in mind that enshrining Shariah law into the constitution allows for legislation imposing punishment for "sins" such as adultery and blasphemy. How could anyone claiming to be a democrat support this?

The fact that a majority vote for something does not make it democratic, if it impinges on the freedom and human rights of others.

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

Well, its a relative thing, and on a spectrum they're certainly more moderate than Attilla the Hun...

Hilarious.

They have rejected violence and embraced democracy. By Islamist standards in Arab lands they are certainly moderate though as I've already said more than once conservative.

Relative to the Al Nour party, who have being holding hands with the secularists they are limp-wristed liberals.

Can anyone name a single Arab state including Egypt that wouldn't return an Islamist government in free and fair elections?

Can anyone name a single Arab state whose people should not be entitled to free and fair elections?

Democracy in Arab lands = Islamist goverments. Are people prepared to accept moderate Islamist governments that are democratically elected?

Now that the anti-democracy secularists and the Fascist Islamists have allied with the dictator's military to overthrow the elected government of the relatively moderate though largely incompotent elected government Egypt is fooked.

Wait til Friday prayers.

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

hang on a second - when you said " Anyone who believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran is a fundamentalist" you've just described every single Muslim on the planet as a "fundamentalist".

Why do you think every Muslim on the planet "believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran"?

Dades

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Democracy in Arab lands = Islamist goverments. Are people prepared to accept moderate Islamist governments that are democratically elected?

That depends on what that democratically elected *moderate* Islamist government do once they get elected.

If they do undemocratic stuff, then that acceptance will be short-lived, it seems.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They have rejected violence and embraced democracy.

The MB has "rejected violence"? They seem quite happy to allow men to rape and abuse women:

Muslim Brotherhood wrote:

[The MB does not support...] "Giving wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment, obliging competent authorities to deal husbands punishments similar to those prescribed for raping or sexually harassing a stranger."

Or are you making the lesser claim that the MB has only rejected violence when used to acquire political power?

Sarky

Oh, rape and abuse of women isn't violence because something something the US are evil.

Corkfeen

So basically, they're really moderate when it comes to men(besides the gay men).... But women are second class citizens that have no right to object to press charges against their husbands if they are raped by them...

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't deny it but it is far more complicated than the CNN version.

There was a power struggle between the elected government on one side and all the unelected power brokers on the other who refused to accept the will of the people and sabotaged every efforts made by the government to govern. This included the military, who cancelled the parliament, the courts, local police forces and the rest of the many arms of the powerful bureacracy left over from Mubarrak. Allied with the friends of the desposed dictator and his generals from day 1 were the media, leftists, secularists, Copts, foreign NGOs whose sole aim was the fall of the democratically elected government through the destabilisation of the state through crime, food shortages, fuel shortages, damaging the tourist trade and so on.

Found this article. Which supports what people in Egypt have been telling me for a long time.

Sudden Improvements in Egypt Suggest a Campaign to Undermine Morsi

CAIRO — The streets seethe with protests and government ministers are on the run or in jail, but since the military ousted President Mohamed Morsi, life has somehow gotten better for many people across Egypt: Gas lines have disappeared, power cuts have stopped and the police have returned to the street.



As crime and traffic worsened under President Mohamed Morsi, the police refused to respond, hurting the quality of life and the economy. Since his ouster last week, officers have returned to patrols.


The apparently miraculous end to the crippling energy shortages, and the re-emergence of the police, seems to show that the legions of personnel left in place after former President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011 played a significant role — intentionally or not — in undermining the overall quality of life under the Islamist administration of Mr. Morsi.

Continued: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/middleeast/improvements-in-egypt-suggest-a-campaign-that-undermined-morsi.html?_r=1&

Corkfeen wrote: »

So basically, they're really moderate when it comes to men(besides the gay men).... But women are second class citizens that have no right to object to press charges against their husbands if they are raped by them...

No. As I have already said many, many times they are a moderate Islamist party relative to other Islamist groups in the region.

robindch wrote: »

The MB has "rejected violence"? They seem quite happy to allow men to rape and abuse women:Or are you making the lesser claim that the MB has only rejected violence when used to acquire political power?

Given the context I should have thought it obvious that I was referring to POLITICAL VIOLENCE.

Surely this counts for something to you?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why do you think every Muslim on the planet "believes in the literal divine origin and inerrancy of the Quran"?

Ey? That is what a Muslim believes by definition.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ey? That is what a Muslim believes by definition.

How do you know what every Muslim on the planet believes?

nagirrac wrote: »

There is a very solid argument to be made that all Muslims are fundamentalist

Is it equally as "solid" as saying all Christians are fundamentalists and therefore MLK JR and that Pastor Phelps guy are essentially one and the same?

Pherekydes wrote: »

How do you know what every Muslim on the planet believes?

As I've already said every Muslim of every stripe by definition believes that God wrote the Quran - and is therefore perfect - through his prophet Mohammed.

nagirrac

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is it equally as "solid" as saying all Christians are fundamentalists and therefore MLK JR and that Pastor Phelps guy are essentially one and the same?

No it isn't. Your own words from a few posts above "every Muslim of every stripe believes that God wrote the Quran - and is therefore perfect". This is the argument for every Muslim being fundamentalist, as it is the argument that the teachings in the Quran are inerrant, and should form the basis of a legal system.

This is not the case with Christianity. For example, in a US gallup poll in 2007, 40% of various Protestant faith members and only 20% of Catholics agreed that the Bible was the literal word of God. Another 48% of Protestants and 61% of Catholics believe that the Bible is inspired by God, quite a different concept. Interestingly enough 11% of Protestants and 16% of Catholics believe the Bible consists of legends, history and fables, essentially the A&A position.

For the record I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood, in Egypt at least, appear more moderate than most other Islamic groups in the region. Calling them democratic however is a stretch, as no democratic party would impose Shariah law on an entire population, regardless of whether that was what the majority wanted. It is a bit like saying the husband who beats his wife once a week is better than the husband who beats his wife every night.

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

As with many of the posters here I am having trouble separating my feelings on either in any meaningful way.

Secularism for me is just simply a subset of a general opinion I have. Which I normally highlight by analogy.

Imagine you are in our halls of politics and power and a group walks in holding a page of statistics. Based on these statistics they start demanding all kinds of political and social choices/laws be implemented.

I would hope that ones first reaction would be to check the origin of the page of statistics... find out where the numbers come from and what they are based on. Validate the methodologies used in compiling them and so forth.

Imagine instead that they refuse to do any such thing. They will give you no sources, no citations, nothing. They merely demand that you take for granted the statistics are all correct. Worse they even try to implement laws and protections against you questioning the truth and validity of those statistics.

GIVEN there is not a shred of even an iota of argument, evidence, data or reasoning supporting the notion there is a god to even a modicum of credibility... that is exactly how I feel in a secular sense. I am all for democracy. But I am also all for... in parallel... promotion of a society where the data we use in democratic choices is substantiated and baseless claims are no longer given the time of day or... that keyword so beloved by the faithful.... "respected".

jank

Pointing at the MB and making a point that they are violent is like pissing in the wind. Secular states in the Middle East have perpetuated plenty of violence now and in the past. Syria today, Libya, Iraq of yesterday. I wouldn't say violence is only an Islamic issue, its a Middle East issue on the whole.

robindch

keane2097 wrote: »

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

T+48. Thread viewed 1,450 times and with 14 votes, that keeps the poll rate steady at 1%.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't deny it but it is far more complicated than the CNN version.

It certainly is, which is why I was some what puzzled by your explanation of In Egypt the Liberals aren't democrats and the democrats aren't liberals.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There was a power struggle between the elected government on one side and all the unelected power brokers on the other who refused to accept the will of the people and sabotaged every efforts made by the government to govern.

Again that is a gross simplification of the situation in Egypt, Babies-first-story-book type stuff.

For a start the Morsi government in Eygpt didn't have the "will of the people" behind it. Morsi only got elected because he ended up, due to the peculiars of the Egyptian system, in a race with a Mubarrack stooge, and only then Morsi only one 51% of the vote.

One of the reasons the military coup was so successful is because it is back by a huge percentage of the population who felt utterly disenfranchised in the system that Morsi governed over.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Allied with the friends of the desposed dictator and his generals from day 1 were the media, leftists, secularists, Copts, foreign NGOs whose sole aim was the fall of the democratically elected government through the destabilisation of the state through crime, food shortages, fuel shortages, damaging the tourist trade and so on.

Oh please. :rolleyes:

Go read a few articles on the complicated political and social make up of Egypt at the moment. You seem to be filtering everything you know about the place through some ridiculous black and white conspiracy theory notion.

Next you will be telling us it is all the fault of the Zionists. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They have rejected violence and embraced democracy.

Except they haven't done that.

You aren't "embracing democracy" by issuing declarations that put you beyond judicial review.

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

Except they haven't done that.

You aren't "embracing democracy" by issuing declarations that put you beyond judicial review.

What judicial review ?

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

What judicial review ?

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/58947.aspx

We have decided the following:

Article I

Reopen the investigations and prosecutions in the cases of the murder, the attempted murder and the wounding of protesters as well as the crimes of terror committed against the revolutionaries by anyone who held a political or executive position under the former regime, according to the Law of the Protection of the Revolution and other laws.

Article II:

Previous constitutional declarations, laws, and decrees made by the president since he took office on 30 June 2012, until the constitution is approved and a new People’s Assembly [lower house of parliament] is elected, are final and binding and cannot be appealed by any way or to any entity. Nor shall they be suspended or canceled and all lawsuits related to them and brought before any judicial body against these decisions are annulled.

Article III:

The prosecutor-general is to be appointed from among the members of the judiciary by the President of the Republic for a period of four years commencing from the date of office and is subject to the general conditions of being appointed as a judge and should not be under the age of 40. This provision applies to the one currently holding the position with immediate effect.

Article IV:

The text of the article on the formation of the Constituent Assembly in the 30 March 2011 Constitutional Declaration that reads, "it shall prepare a draft of a new constitution in a period of six months from the date it was formed” is to be amended to "it shall prepare the draft of a new constitution for the country no later than eight months from the date of its formation."

Article V:

No judicial body can dissolve the Shura Council [upper house of parliament] or the Constituent Assembly.

Article VI:

The President may take the necessary actions and measures to protect the country and the goals of the revolution.

Article VII:

This Constitutional Declaration is valid from the date of its publication in the official gazette.

Brown Bomber

Zombrex wrote: »

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/58947.aspx

These powers were only temporary.

Which needs to be put into it's context of a power struggle between a democratically elected President and the unelected Mubarrak loyalists in the judiciary who were determined to destablilise the fledgling Egyptian democratic governmnet. These appointees of the dictator had dissolved again a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood majority parliament at their discretion.

It was this parliament who would have agreed upon egypt's constitution. The secularists withdrew from negotiotians on the constitution and then declared it illegitimite.

Mursi put the constitution to the people which the passed in a democratic referendum 2:1.

Brown Bomber

Zombrex wrote: »

Except they haven't done that.

You aren't "embracing democracy" by issuing declarations that put you beyond judicial review.

Forget declarations. Obama has given himself the right to choose which Americans live and die beyond any judicial review.

Not only this he has targetted and killed American citizens without any judicial review.

Brown Bomber

Zombrex wrote: »

It certainly is, which is why I was some what puzzled by your explanation of In Egypt the Liberals aren't democrats and the democrats aren't liberals.



Again that is a gross simplification of the situation in Egypt, Babies-first-story-book type stuff.

For a start the Morsi government in Eygpt didn't have the "will of the people" behind it. Morsi only got elected because he ended up, due to the peculiars of the Egyptian system, in a race with a Mubarrack stooge, and only then Morsi only one 51% of the vote.

One of the reasons the military coup was so successful is because it is back by a huge percentage of the population who felt utterly disenfranchised in the system that Morsi governed over.



Oh please. :rolleyes:

Go read a few articles on the complicated political and social make up of Egypt at the moment. You seem to be filtering everything you know about the place through some ridiculous black and white conspiracy theory notion.

Next you will be telling us it is all the fault of the Zionists. :rolleyes:

Please keep your snide comments to yourself in future. You can try again if you want.

Oh and if there weren't efforts to undermine Morsi could you please explain this article from the well known "conspiracy theory" site the New York Times?

Sudden Improvements in Egypt Suggest a Campaign to Undermine Morsi

CAIRO — The streets seethe with protests and government ministers are on the run or in jail, but since the military ousted President Mohamed Morsi, life has somehow gotten better for many people across Egypt: Gas lines have disappeared, power cuts have stopped and the police have returned to the street.



As crime and traffic worsened under President Mohamed Morsi, the police refused to respond, hurting the quality of life and the economy. Since his ouster last week, officers have returned to patrols.


The apparently miraculous end to the crippling energy shortages, and the re-emergence of the police, seems to show that the legions of personnel left in place after former President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011 played a significant role — intentionally or not — in undermining the overall quality of life under the Islamist administration of Mr. Morsi.

Continued: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/wo...rsi.html?_r=1&

Brown Bomber

jank wrote: »

Pointing at the MB and making a point that they are violent is like pissing in the wind. Secular states in the Middle East have perpetuated plenty of violence now and in the past. Syria today, Libya, Iraq of yesterday. I wouldn't say violence is only an Islamic issue, its a Middle East issue on the whole.

While I agree with you this is not about the Muslim Brotherhood but more about democracy itself. The MB are far from perfect and I wouldn't have voted for them.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please keep your snide comments to yourself in future.

That applies to everybody in this debate.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These powers were only temporary.

Which needs to be put into it's context of a power struggle between a democratically elected President and the unelected Mubarrak loyalists in the judiciary who were determined to destablilise the fledgling Egyptian democratic governmnet. These appointees of the dictator had dissolved again a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood majority parliament at their discretion.

It was this parliament who would have agreed upon egypt's constitution. The secularists withdrew from negotiotians on the constitution and then declared it illegitimite.

Mursi put the constitution to the people which the passed in a democratic referendum 2:1.

It is often very difficult to get a democracy, based on the rule of law, up and running. There may well be a case for the judiciary not having the ability to dissolve a democratically elected government, that seems to put far too much power in the hands of an unelected elite.

I understand the argument you are making here, that Mursi had to take on dictatorial powers so that he could properly implement a democratic system. A bit like arguing that sometimes a military coup can be good for democracy.

I guess the big issue from an A&A viewpoint is that anything calling itself democratic that enforces religious rules is inherently contradictory. A bit like the Cairo Interpretation of Human Rights in Islam , which basically says that Shari'ah takes precedence over everything.

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh and if there weren't efforts to undermine Morsi could you please explain this article from the well known "conspiracy theory" site the New York Times?

Who said there weren't efforts to undermine Morsi?

My issue with your posts is you are rather blantanly trying to paint Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in a more favourable light than they deserve based on their behaviour, ignoring the negative and focusing solely on attacks against the Morsi government as if those attacks make what the government did more acceptable.

You seem to have a very basic understanding of what is happening in Egypt and are attempting to fit the facts into some childlike narrative of good vs evil. It is pretty clear what side you have taken, your posts in this thread seems little more than a Muslim Brotherhood PR excercise.

[-0-]

This is like saying "Ice cream vs Ghostbusters".

Zombrex

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These powers were only temporary.

So? What?, governments can nullify rule of law so long as they do it temporarily?

Sure the coup is only temporary.... :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which needs to be put into it's context of a power struggle between a democratically elected President and the unelected Mubarrak loyalists in the judiciary who were determined to destablilise the fledgling Egyptian democratic governmnet. These appointees of the dictator had dissolved again a democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood majority parliament at their discretion.

How does that justify the government abandoning rule of law?

You were the one objecting to this coup based on the fact that it is against rule of law and against democracy. Now you are suggesting that it was ok for Morsi to abandon rule of law because of a "power struggle" against his government.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It was this parliament who would have agreed upon egypt's constitution. The secularists withdrew from negotiotians on the constitution and then declared it illegitimite.

Because the government was attempting to subvert the legal process for producing the constitution and attempting to rush through a constitution without proper legal consideration, which they did.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mursi put the constitution to the people which the passed in a democratic referendum 2:1.

Of a 32% turn out. Only something like 22% of the voting population voted for the constitution. Or to put it another way you have a constitution that 78% of the Egyptian voting population didn't vote for.

That in of itself should tell you what a rushed job it was, how little support it had, and why the Morsi government was attempting to fast track it through the processs.

recedite

swampgas wrote: »

Cairo Interpretation of Human Rights in Islam , which basically says that Shari'ah takes precedence over everything.

I hadn't heard of that one before, and what a cop-out it is too!
Here's a choice line;
Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism."
So Tarzan must have been a Muslim then, by default. Because he grew up without being exposed to any religion, and there was nobody there to convert him to atheism :pac:

Brown Bomber

Zombrex wrote: »

Who said there weren't efforts to undermine Morsi?

So are you agreeing with me that there were in fact anti-democratic efforts to undermine the democractically elected government?

Who was behind these efforts? What did they involve? And what would be the appropriate course of action for a legitimate government to take against these agents of anti-democracy?

Zombrex wrote: »

My issue with your posts is you are rather blantanly trying to paint Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood in a more favourable light than they deserve based on their behaviour, ignoring the negative and focusing solely on attacks against the Morsi government as if those attacks make what the government did more acceptable.

Not acceptable but more understandable.

Despite being the legitimate leader of the Egyptian people Morsi was under attack for every arm of the sprawling bureacratic octopus of the tyrant dictator. Who jumped into bed together with the evidently anti-democratic Islamic crazies, leftists and secularists to destabilise Egypt. This alliance is now being backed by the pillars of democracy the UAE and The House of Saad :rolleyes:

No surpises there as the greatest threat to their opulent lives is democratic Islamism.

This destabilsation involved undermining the democratic government, public servants intentionally not carrying out their duties and destroying an already weak economy. Food shortages, mass unemployment, fuel shortages etc to punish the average Egyptian.

For example, the police stood aside as the MB offices were being attacked.

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to have a very basic understanding of what is happening in Egypt and are attempting to fit the facts into some childlike narrative of good vs evil. It is pretty clear what side you have taken, your posts in this thread seems little more than a Muslim Brotherhood PR excercise.

I have taken the side of democracy and not the military putsch. How about you?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So are you (.......). How about you?

Egypt is a Republic. Republics are supposed to protect minorities from the 'tyranny of the majority'. Theres a perfectly good case for the army acting in that light.

recedite

Brown Bomber wrote: »

there were in fact anti-democratic efforts to undermine the democractically elected government?
Who was behind these efforts?

It doesnt matter who was behind them. If they were backed by the people, these efforts were democratic. Maybe unconstitutional, unlawful etc. but not undemocratic.