Army ousts Egyptian president

Postby Chris12 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:06 pm

After the presidents rejection of the military ultimatum to compromise or be removed the head of Egypt's army has given a TV address, announcing that President Mohammed Morsi is no longer in office. Oh, they also seized the state television building.

Gen Abdul Fattah al-Sisi said the constitution had been suspended and the chief justice of the constitutional court would take on Mr Morsi's powers.

Flanked by religious and opposition leaders, Gen Sisi said Mr Morsi had "failed to meet the demands of the Egyptian people".

Where Morsi is right now Is still unknown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23173794

While i'm happy a firmly religious president will be replaced by one that's most likely secular I don't find the first democratic president of a nation falling by the hands of the military a very comforting view for Egypt's future.

Re: Army ousts Egyptian president

Postby Mister Mistoffelees » Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:28 pm

It's a complicated deal, Chris. The Egyptian electorate clearly was having a bad case of buyer's remorse, and with no constitutional channels to either moderate Morsi's agenda or get rid of him, they turned to the military, which did their work for them. Morsi had run on a platform of freedom and prosperity, then governed with the goal of installing Islamist sharia law in the nation (not unlike certain American politicians tutored by Ralph Reed in the run-on-taxes-legislate-on-abortion tradition), and the military was the only option the opposition had.

Egypt was pretty clearly not ready for the kind of election they had, as much because there was no functioning constitution before the election to limit the power of the new government as because the only truly organized political party at the time was in fact the Muslim Brotherhood. Seeing things like this make the establishment of the US in 1776 all the more remarkable, because the transition to elected representative government is not in any way an easy one. Of course, one must remember that the Americans of 1776 were much more politically mature than the Egyptians of 2013, with functioning governments in all thirteen colonies which could run each state's affairs and send experienced, reasonable people to the Continental Congresses. All of which Egypt lacks...

Egypt needs to start with a secular constitution describing the powers of the government, ensuring basic civil liberties for its citizens, and eschewing any kind of sectarian religious-based government. Time will tell us what they actually get.

I'm not too worried about the military transitioning out of power, if only because they've already done it once and shown they are willing to do so...
Welcome to Snowden! Enter at your own risk...

Re: Army ousts Egyptian president

Postby Kyle » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:29 pm

So does this mean they're just going to rise up against everyone they don't like? They'll never have a stable government.

It's NEVER good when the military takes over. It might work out in the end but it is never an ideal situation.

Re: Army ousts Egyptian president

Postby mikeybound » Thu Jul 04, 2013 8:27 am

I don't really follow what's going on there, but I'd like to point out that the United States was founded after a revolution, and it's first president a military leader. We could be doing worse.

Re: Army ousts Egyptian president

Postby Chris12 » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:01 am

mikeybound wrote:I don't really follow what's going on there, but I'd like to point out that the United States was founded after a revolution, and it's first president a military leader. We could be doing worse.


True but this scenario is more akin to a situation where the American army would have fired Washington for not being satisfied with the result of the revolution.

Re: Army ousts Egyptian president

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri Jul 05, 2013 5:50 am

Chris12 wrote:
mikeybound wrote:I don't really follow what's going on there, but I'd like to point out that the United States was founded after a revolution, and it's first president a military leader. We could be doing worse.


True but this scenario is more akin to a situation where the American army would have fired Washington for not being satisfied with the result of the revolution.

Which they almost did at one point actually if I recall correctly, as he wasn't very successful at his job at first.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...