5 ms·

Egypt literally had a revolution a decade ago.

ComputerGuru 6y ago
Failed revolution. The military then immediately seized control in a coup d’état and threw the new and popular president in jail planning to execute him before he died of a heart attack.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Allegedly a heart attack. Send mighty convenient for him to die for those in power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  Popularity was and continues to be heavily disputed. The citizens voted for democracy and got yet another backslide to autocracy.
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    It’s hard to suggest with a straight face that the Sisi junta is more democratic or less autocratic than Morsi’s legitimately elected government had been, regardless of the latter’s shortcomings (not that he was there long enough to even really pass judgement). Or that Morsi was not strictly an improvement from a due democratic process perspective as compared to Mubarak’s monarch-like status.
    - alpha_squared 6y ago
      I'm not suggesting that either. I'll accept Sisi as more democratic when he actually steps down; until then, some problems, different face. Morsi was certainly there long enough to pass judgment. I'm not old enough to remember the Muslim Brotherhood, but older family members are and they were fairly concerned about their rapid political rise. I didn't share that concern at the beginning, but quickly realized the dangers of it with the theocratic bend of the newly-formed government.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  In multiethnic states, revolutions only have a claim to be legitimate popular revolutions if they have the support of all major ethnic groups. In Egypt, the new regime after the revolution did not have the support of the Copts at all.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    Don't know where you're getting the rules for legitimate revolutions. The revolution led to a fair democratic election. Winners of democratic elections are considered legitimate, not just if a 6% minority disagrees, but even if 49% disagree with the result.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      Again, winners of democratic elections are often only considered legitimate if they protect the rights of ethnic minorities. Otherwise they are viewed as oppressors supported by the dominant ethnicity. Mob rule != democracy. Consider how a number of nascent democracies in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries are now widely regarded as having had a democratic deficit because of their treatment of Jews or of other ethnic minorities, in spite of the governments being elected by a majority of voters. And in this case, the percentage that the Copts make up of the Egyptian population (which is infamously disputed, so giving a figure like you did is risky) is completely irrelevant, because any modern democratic state is obliged to respect various freedoms regardless of the amount of the population keen on them.
      - ngc248 6y ago
        By definition any government would be unpopular then, since there was always be some minority who does not like those in power.
        Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        Depends on the minority. The ever-present minority of people with merely different political views who can just comfortably wait until the next election, do not make an election illegitimate. But if it’s a religious or ethnic minority and its basic human rights and prosperity are threatened by the new regime, then that does suggest that the new government lacks legitimacy even if a majority of the population voted for it. And that was definitely the case with Egypt’s first post-Tahrir Square government and the Copts. A population cannot vote its universal human rights away.
- fakedang 6y ago
  You guys talk about Morsi being some beacon of democracy when he was a staunch Islamist who went so overboard that people hated him in a year. You forget that Sisi gained power because he was EXTREMELY popular right after the army removed Morsi - Morsi was that much of a cunt.

Failed revolution. The military then immediately seized control in a coup d’état and threw the new and popular president in jail planning to execute him before he died of a heart attack.

DSingularity 6y ago
Allegedly a heart attack. Send mighty convenient for him to die for those in power.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alpha_squared 6y ago
Popularity was and continues to be heavily disputed. The citizens voted for democracy and got yet another backslide to autocracy.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  It’s hard to suggest with a straight face that the Sisi junta is more democratic or less autocratic than Morsi’s legitimately elected government had been, regardless of the latter’s shortcomings (not that he was there long enough to even really pass judgement). Or that Morsi was not strictly an improvement from a due democratic process perspective as compared to Mubarak’s monarch-like status.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    I'm not suggesting that either. I'll accept Sisi as more democratic when he actually steps down; until then, some problems, different face. Morsi was certainly there long enough to pass judgment. I'm not old enough to remember the Muslim Brotherhood, but older family members are and they were fairly concerned about their rapid political rise. I didn't share that concern at the beginning, but quickly realized the dangers of it with the theocratic bend of the newly-formed government.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
In multiethnic states, revolutions only have a claim to be legitimate popular revolutions if they have the support of all major ethnic groups. In Egypt, the new regime after the revolution did not have the support of the Copts at all.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Don't know where you're getting the rules for legitimate revolutions. The revolution led to a fair democratic election. Winners of democratic elections are considered legitimate, not just if a 6% minority disagrees, but even if 49% disagree with the result.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    Again, winners of democratic elections are often only considered legitimate if they protect the rights of ethnic minorities. Otherwise they are viewed as oppressors supported by the dominant ethnicity. Mob rule != democracy. Consider how a number of nascent democracies in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries are now widely regarded as having had a democratic deficit because of their treatment of Jews or of other ethnic minorities, in spite of the governments being elected by a majority of voters. And in this case, the percentage that the Copts make up of the Egyptian population (which is infamously disputed, so giving a figure like you did is risky) is completely irrelevant, because any modern democratic state is obliged to respect various freedoms regardless of the amount of the population keen on them.
    - ngc248 6y ago
      By definition any government would be unpopular then, since there was always be some minority who does not like those in power.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        Depends on the minority. The ever-present minority of people with merely different political views who can just comfortably wait until the next election, do not make an election illegitimate. But if it’s a religious or ethnic minority and its basic human rights and prosperity are threatened by the new regime, then that does suggest that the new government lacks legitimacy even if a majority of the population voted for it. And that was definitely the case with Egypt’s first post-Tahrir Square government and the Copts. A population cannot vote its universal human rights away.
fakedang 6y ago
You guys talk about Morsi being some beacon of democracy when he was a staunch Islamist who went so overboard that people hated him in a year. You forget that Sisi gained power because he was EXTREMELY popular right after the army removed Morsi - Morsi was that much of a cunt.