The Politics Thread

[thebish]

There's actually a corollary for people like you too you know.

what does "people like you" mean in this context??

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Well excuse me if I don't quite share that view, after all when the original Arab spring revolution saw the removal of the military dictator Mubarak and his replacement by Tantawi who was in power for more than a year, absolutely not one squeak about a military coup came from you, the western press, or anybody else who is now calling this a coup.

it would be very odd to formulate a definition of "military coup" that meant a military dictatorship being overthrown by the military, wouldn't it?

i suspect what we have here is a very dangerous precedent. No - i am not praising the ousted president or his party - I AM a little worried, though (thinking of the long-term) that a pattern is very quickly established. say there is an election in 2014 (for the sake of argument) - and a year later the economic situation has worsened and people are poorer because the economy is in a state and it has been mishandled - is it then the essence of a fledgeling democracy for the people to demonstrate and the army to move in and depose the President, lock him up and take power?

FWIW I don't think democracy is born overnight - nor is it perfected in one session. I think the rip-it-up-with-tanks-and-bullets-and-start-again strategy is potentially worse than the - we've-elected-a-nightmare-but-can-oust-them-at-the-next election strategy if you really want to build democracy.

also FWIW - the reason the west is not calling this a *military coup is because the US funds their army and sends billions of dollars worth of military equipment (that Mubarak used to use to oppress his people) in return for having an "arab" nation friendly with Israel...


*the sudden deposition of a government, usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military.

Firstly: most coups are indeed against the leaders of previous coups - I cannot remember which particular South American country holds the record, but it was like 238 coups in the space of eighty years or something as ridiculous. So yes, a coup can and often does take place against a military dictatorship.
Secondly: I don't think I'm very far away from your thinking. The biggest difference is that I believe (despite the deaths that have taken place) that the path being trodden is the most peaceful long term opportunity from a huge branching probabilities quite a lot of which would lead to massive loss of life and liberty on a scale unprecedented since 1939

[thebish]

Secondly: I don't think I'm very far away from your thinking. The biggest difference is that I believe (despite the deaths that have taken place) that the path being trodden is the most peaceful long term opportunity from a huge branching probabilities quite a lot of which would lead to massive loss of life and liberty on a scale unprecedented since 1939

i hope you're right... though I suspect this action has led to such a polarisation in Egypt that such a peaceful long-term opportunity as you envisage is a pipe dream...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wasn't using the analogy to end the thread or to denigrate anyone opposing my position (I didn't even have a position). One of the corollaries is defined: "While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate." I was pointing out that democracy in countries with no tradition of it can often mean there is no next election. I think this is valid, though perhaps I could have used another example of a democratically elected leader becoming a totalitarian dictator as the new election nears. I imagine South America would provide many examples.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Secondly: I don't think I'm very far away from your thinking. The biggest difference is that I believe (despite the deaths that have taken place) that the path being trodden is the most peaceful long term opportunity from a huge branching probabilities quite a lot of which would lead to massive loss of life and liberty on a scale unprecedented since 1939

i hope you're right... though I suspect this action has led to such a polarisation in Egypt that such a peaceful long-term opportunity as you envisage is a pipe dream...

Bish! The polarisation existed prior to any of this. The Muslim Brotherhood were a banned organisation across much of the middle east -1hey don't have democratic agendas. And yes, peace is probably impossible, I have long (even for decades, when the big fear was communism) thought that a clash of cultures was both coming and inevitable.

[thebish]

Secondly: I don't think I'm very far away from your thinking. The biggest difference is that I believe (despite the deaths that have taken place) that the path being trodden is the most peaceful long term opportunity from a huge branching probabilities quite a lot of which would lead to massive loss of life and liberty on a scale unprecedented since 1939

i hope you're right... though I suspect this action has led to such a polarisation in Egypt that such a peaceful long-term opportunity as you envisage is a pipe dream...

Bish! The polarisation existed prior to any of this. The Muslim Brotherhood were a banned organisation across much of the middle east -1hey don't have democratic agendas. And yes, peace is probably impossible, I have long (even for decades, when the big fear was communism) thought that a clash of cultures was both coming and inevitable.

yes - it did - i didn't mean to imply that it didn't... what i mean is that the intensity of it leads me to be pessimistic that the democratic process can simply be rebooted by a quick military intervention and then start again with elections in 2014...

sometimes you have to reluctantly wonder if in some of these fractured societies the only way to keep the lid on the tensions is with a brutal dictator - like saddam hussein or mubarak - it's a horrible thought - and one i still resist - but I'd be lying if i said i didn't sometimes think it....

[thebish]

I wasn't using the analogy to end the thread or to denigrate anyone opposing my position (I didn't even have a position). One of the corollaries is defined: "While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate." I was pointing out that democracy in countries with no tradition of it can often mean there is no next election. I think this is valid, though perhaps I could have used another example of a democratically elected leader becoming a totalitarian dictator as the new election nears. I imagine South America would provide many examples.

a bit soon to have decided that is the case before the first year of government is up though?

[Lord Kangana]

There's actually a corollary for people like you too you know.

what does "people like you" mean in this context??

The first person to mention Godwin in a thread, touchy.

[thebish]

There's actually a corollary for people like you too you know.

what does "people like you" mean in this context??

The first person to mention Godwin in a thread, touchy.

or - a lighthearted joke?? (note the comedy cat!)

[Prufrock]

There was a democratically-elected bloke in charge, then the military took over by force. It's a fecking coup! That doesn't mean that it is or isn't for the best, but it's blatantly a bastard coup!

And as Bish says the reason it's not being talked about in such terms is it raises awkward questions regarding military aid.

[Lord Kangana]

Are you aware of what Morsi was doing Pru?

[Prufrock]

Nope, not at all. My current affairs knowledge is utterly shite at the moment.

My point is though, even if he was a cross between Hitler, Stalin and Davros, it's still a military coup. It might be the right thing to do, but it is what it is. I think it's unhelpful to hide from that; it might be justified, but it needs to be justified for what it is, not just what it's pretended to be.

[Lord Kangana]

So does the military involvement in the previous outing also make that a coup?

[Prufrock]

I don't know. Did the military actually take over? If so, yes!

[Lord Kangana]

No. the military haven't taken over in either instance, they have installed an interim administration after reacting to popular pressure. Now, under normal circumstances, I would think of "popular pressure" to be a red herring. But the Egyptian Army has, quite recently, proven its ability to go through with democratic elections. That the democratically elected leader then abused his powers is what seems to be going uncommented on. In both instances the chronology is the same. President awards himself extraordinary powers, the people protest, the army sides with people.

[Lord Kangana]

Anyway, this reminded me of an old favourite of mine...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuwAoLpbjaA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

No. the military haven't taken over in either instance, they have installed an interim administration after reacting to popular pressure. Now, under normal circumstances, I would think of "popular pressure" to be a red herring. But the Egyptian Army has, quite recently, proven its ability to go through with democratic elections. That the democratically elected leader then abused his powers is what seems to be going uncommented on. In both instances the chronology is the same. President awards himself extraordinary powers, the people protest, the army sides with people.

If they've not taken over, how have they installed an interim administration? Force of personality?

[Lord Kangana]

Well that's the whole point, they haven't taken over. If you want to give it a better epithet, a secondary popular revolution or uprising would be more apt. After all, it isn't referred to as the October Coup d'Etat.

[Prufrock]

Well, how did they give power to this administration if they hadn't taken over? They arrested and smuggled off the bloke in charge - it's a coup! I'm not saying we should be legally bound to refer to as such at all times, but that we shouldn't pretend that that isn't what it is! The military forcibly took over and removed the govt. I can't think of a better definition of a coup!

It's hardly known as the October Tea and Cakes party either is it? It might be popularly known as the October Uprising, but no-one is pretending it wasn't a revolution.

[Lord Kangana]

Again, a coup d'etat is, in general understanding, a movement from a certain section of the officer corp to affect political change, usually to their own ends. In Egypt, it is part of a wider movement for eventual reinstatement, or indeed the founding of, democracy. It did not start with the military. Moreover, you're also confusing context and chronology. This is in effect a continuation of what was popularly known as The Arab Spring. It would be very easy, for the purposes of this argument, to simply state that a democratically elected government was removed. That would be a poor interpretation of events. Monty's comparison with Hitler is a very valid one, the democratically elected government, particularly one man, over reached their democratic powers by in effect reinstating dictatorship. Call it a revolution, an uprising, even civil war, it isn't a coup d'etat in any classical sense. The military have merely taken sides, as in many other revolutionary movements over history.