What's new

Egypt | Army Ousts Mursi govt, violence erupts | News & Discussions

The Night of Arresting the Ikhwan - Egypt


84 Years until they got to power in Egypt and in 1 year they worked hard to control all power centers: Presidency, Parliament, Shoura Coucil (Supreme Advisory Board), Provincial Mayors, Public Prosecution..

Their president changed the constitution to consolidate all powers worse than what was there during the days of ousted Mubarak.. The army took the initiative after over 22 million Egyptians took to the streets and demanded an end to the Muslim Brotherhood rule, and that's what happened.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
30 killed, 300 injured in Egypt clashes



jammas.hussain20130705014857427.jpg



Thirty people have been killed and over 300 injured across Egypt during clashes between tens of thousands of opponents and supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi, according to Egyptian Health Ministry officials.







Pro-Morsi supporters march toward state TV building in Cairo​



mozaheb20130705173537090.jpg



Supporters of the ousted Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, have marched on to the national broadcasting center in central Cairo.







Muslim Brotherhood vows non-stop protests until Morsi returns​



khan20130705174111760.jpg



Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood vows to continue unabated string of mass protests outside the presidential palace in Cairo until the ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, returns to power.


Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Leader Mohammed Badie made the remarks on Friday while addressing crowds of pro-Morsi demonstrators in Cairo’s Nasr City, two days after the army toppled the president.

Badie added that the army and security forces must stop shooting people, noting that Morsi is the president of all Egyptians.

"Our bare chests are stronger than bullets," he told the protest rally.


He also urged supporters to stay on the streets and keep up mass rallies in Cairo and other major Egyptian cities in the coming days.

The top leader denied reports that he had been arrested by military authorities and taken to an undisclosed location.

Meanwhile, more than six people were killed in several parts of the country as supporters of the deposed president held nationwide rallies, demanding Morsi's reinstatement.

Morsi was unseated on July 3, and the chief justice of Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court, Adly Mansour, was sworn in as interim president of Egypt on July 4.

Morsi is reportedly being held “preventively” by the military. Senior army officials say he might face formal charges over accusations made by his opponents.

Several arrest warrants have been issued for members of Muslim Brotherhood.




 
.
The Night of Arresting the Ikhwan - Egypt


84 Years until they got to power in Egypt and in 1 year they worked hard to control all power centers: Presidency, Parliament, Shoura Coucil (Supreme Advisory Board), Provincial Mayors, Public Prosecution..

Their president changed the constitution to consolidate all powers worse than what was there during the days of ousted Mubarak.. The army took the initiative after over 22 million Egyptians took to the streets and demanded an end to the Muslim Brotherhood rule, and that's what happened.



They must learn democracy from great Syria where Assad 'inherited' the 'country' from his father and has won all elections/ referendums with 95%+ votes :coffee:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom :laughcry:
 
.
30 people killed already,I just hope Egypt doesn't become another Yemen.Best of luck for all Egyptians.
 
.
UAE, Saudi Arabia express support for Egyptian military’s removal of Morsi - The National
Arab leaders happy to see Morsi gone - The Washington Post

Saudi Arabia Pleased With Morsi's Fall
Saudi hostility to the Brotherhood goes beyond allegations of terrorism. It is grounded in several factors that make it impossible for the regime to coexist with the Brotherhood as a party in opposition or in power.

First, the Saudi regime fears ideological competition from a political party that upholds Islam. The regime prides itself on being the only one that rules according to Sharia. It has propagated this myth for several decades and thus distinguished itself from so-called secular Arab dictators. Its religious establishment seriously believes that its political leadership is the only one that respects Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood in power in the most populous Arab country undermines the Saudi monopoly on Islamic politics.

Second, unlike official Saudi Salafists, who still believe that democracy is a Western import that promises to bring atheists, secularists and leftists to power, the Brotherhood engaged in elections, won seats in parliaments and even came to power in Tunisia and Egypt. Surely, then, Islam and democracy are not so incompatible. This in itself threatens the foundations of Saudi rule, which is still based on absolute kingship, difficult to justify from an Islamic point of view. The Brotherhood therefore exposes Saudi claims to legitimacy and undermines their credibility as lawful Muslim rulers. The Saudi regime worries about its population being contaminated by ideas and practices of how a Muslim can be democratic while remaining within the fold of Islam. This is not to say that a socially conservative Islamist trend like the Brotherhood is a bastion of liberty and democracy, but the Brotherhood's willingness to engage with democratic institutions is enough to scare the Saudi regime.

Third, like the Saudi regime, the Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational organization with branches across the Arab and Muslim world. It has penetrated educational institutions, preaching forums and relief organizations, which the Saudi government has been eager to control and dominate for its own foreign policy and legitimacy abroad. While the Brotherhood does not have the economic resources of Saudi Arabia, it has nevertheless spread across the globe, sometimes in disguise. The Saudis worry about the impact of this global competition among Muslims worldwide, who may become galvanized against Saudi policies. The competition over the hearts and minds of Muslims in the growing global Muslim society worries Saudi Arabia, which seeks to monopolize these platforms.

Fourth, Saudi Arabia prides itself on representing Sunni Islam against its alleged enemies, mainly other sects such as the Shiites. When the Brotherhood called for Islamic unity before it came to power in Egypt, thus softening the Sunni-Shiite divide, the Saudi regime felt undermined by such slogans. When Morsi visited Iran in 2012, Saudi attacks on the rapprochement reached a high tone. He tried to redeem himself when he denounced Alawite President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, but the damage had already been done. Saudi Arabia feared that Morsi would make Egypt drift toward Iran, with whom Saudi Arabia competes for hegemony at the regional level.

Saudi Arabia definitely wanted to see in Egypt a president who would continue to warn against the Shiite crescent, like Mubarak, and unable to break away from Saudi patronage. The Muslim Brotherhood had already drifted toward Qatar rather than Iran, thus allowing this small but wealthy Gulf country to undermine Saudi designs for the region and split the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries over the desired outcome of the Arab uprisings. The Muslim Brotherhood is seen by the Saudis as an untrustworthy and ungrateful organization that is now too close to Saudi borders, which may allow it to not only spread its ideology among Saudis but also recruit them upon visits to Qatar, where a network of Muslim Brotherhood-friendly intellectual forums, media platforms and think tanks have been established.

The failure of the Muslim Brotherhood to hold on to power for a year is now celebrated in the official Saudi press. So-called liberal journalists congratulate the Egyptian people on getting rid of the so-called religious dictatorship while forgetting their own plight under a regime that was equally if not more oppressive. In contrast, Saudi Islamists spread the rumor that Saudi Arabia, together with the United Arab Emirates, was behind Morsi's fall. While there may be some truth to this, such rumors undermine the Egyptian crowds that assembled to press for his downfall. If the outcome so far pleases the Saudi regime, it should not obscure the fact that Egypt remains diverse, volatile and may not unquestionably succumb to the rule of Islamists or other governments eager to patronize them. The Egyptian crowds got rid of their Islamists and will not become clients of the Saudi regime. They have staged two revolutions so far and will continue to do so until they reach a post-revolutionary equilibrium in which all are politically represented.
Saudi Arabia had a vested interest in seeing a rival Islamist party fail, sending a strong message to the local constituency sympathetic to the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood. It may take time before the message is forgotten, but today, it is a moment of joy for the Saudi regime.

Madawi Al-Rasheed is a visiting professor at the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has written extensively about the Arabian Peninsula, Arab migration, globalization, religious trans-nationalism and gender. On Twitter: @madawiDr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
The_Volokh_Conspiracy.JPG

Restricting Democracy in Order to Protect Other Liberal Values

Ilya Somin • July 5, 2013 11:30 am

Some argue that it would be hypocritical for the United States or other Western nations to support the recent military coup against radical Islamist Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. After all, we supposedly champion democracy, and Morsi was democratically elected. Whether the US should endorse the post-coup government, oppose it, or take a wait-and-see attitude is a tough question. But it isn’t inherently hypocritical for liberal democrats to – in some cases – support the overthrow of an elected government.

That’s because democracy is not the only important liberal value, and not always the most important one. At the very least, the liberal tradition, broadly defined, also values individual freedom, equality for women, toleration of religious and ethnic minorities, economic progress, and the prevention of mass murder, slavery, and genocide. Most of the time, democracy promotes these other liberal values better than the available alternative regimes. But not always. Democracy and liberal values conflict in cases where public opinion is highly illiberal and cases where the democratic process brings to power parties that intend to shut down future political competition. Both problems are relevant to the present situation in Egypt and at least some other nations.

I. Illiberal Majority Opinion.

Democracy is a political system where the government is chosen by the majority of voters. But what if that majority favors oppressive, illiberal policies? What if they want to persecute religious minorities, force women to be second-class citizens, establish systems of forced labor, and so on? In that scenario, democracy can easily end up promoting repression.

This is far from a purely theoretical problem. Majority Egyptian opinion is in fact highly illiberal, with 84 percent supporting the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to another religion, 54 percent favoring legally mandated sex segregation in the workplace, and 58 percent saying that laws should “strictly follow the Quran” (compared to 28 percent who say it should merely “follow values and principles of Islam”). This problem is not, of course, unique to present-day Egypt. In post-World War II western Germany, the US, Britain, and France at first refused to establish an elected government, in part because surveys showed that majority German opinion was highly authoritarian well into the 1950s. When they did allow the establishment of a democratic government in 1949, they limited the range of parties who were allowed to compete, banning both the Nazis and other extreme nationalists (the West German government later banned the Communist Party for many years).

Unfortunately, cases like modern Egypt and post-World War II Germany are not rare exceptions. As I discuss in Democracy and Political Ignorance, widespread ignorance and irrational evaluation of the information voters do know are serious problems even in well-established liberal democracies such as the United States. They are likely to be even more severe in in societies where the distribution of opinion is skewed by a long history of authoritarianism and indoctrination. Public opinion in such countries is certainly not immutable. By the 1960s, German public opinion was far more liberal than it had been in 1945. But at least in the short to medium term, illiberal public opinion creates a serious conflict between democracy and other liberal values.

Given the highly oppressive agenda of parties like the Nazis, communists, and radical Islamists, restricting the democratic process in situations where they are likely to seize power is often a lesser evil compared to letting them get into office. Obviously, the available alternative rulers are often far from admirable themselves. But, as a general rule, corrupt generals or bureaucrats who seek power for reasons of narrow self-interest are less likely to commit massive atrocities than religious fanatics or totalitarian ideologues.

II. The “One Man, One Vote, One Time” Problem

Faced with cases where elections bring highly illiberal parties to power, defenders of the democratic process sometimes respond that the offending rulers can at least be voted out of office. For example, the USA Today suggests it would have been better if the Egyptian opposition and military had left Morsi in power and waited until the Muslim Brotherhood was “voted out in the next election.” That, of course, would be little consolation to the people who are murdered or oppressed in the meantime. Moreover, future elections are unlikely to help if the government’s repressive activities are actually popular with the electoral majority, which in a generally illiberal society they might be.

Even worse, this kind of argument implicitly assumes that illiberal forces who come to power by electoral means will respect the democratic process in the future. In reality, once in office many of them seek to subvert that process by persecuting their political opponents, rigging the electoral process, and other means. Morsi’s government had already begun to persecute opponents to a greater degree than even its authoritarian predecessor.

When illiberal parties come to power through the democratic process, the result is all too likely to be “one man, one vote, one time.” They climb the electoral ladder and then kick it out from under those who try to follow. Such an outcome is particularly likely in societies with little prior democratic tradition. Where this is a real problem, restricting democracy can not only help preserve other liberal values. It may also be essential to preserving democracy itself in the long term.

None of this proves either that the Egyptian coup was a positive development or that curbing the democratic process is necessarily the right course of action in other similar situations. Each such case has its own difficult tradeoffs. Even where restrictions are justified, it may be better to ban specific illiberal parties from competing (as in West Germany after 1949) than to abjure democracy entirely. My point is that liberals should not categorically reject the possibility that sometimes we may need to limit democracy in order to preserve other values.

UPDATE: Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, a leading academic expert on the Arab world, laments the coup in Egypt because “In a functioning democracy, there is an orderly constitutional process for protesting and removing a leader. When someone is elected for a term of years, he should serve them out unless he resigns or is impeached.” Perhaps so. But Feldman ignores the sorts of concerns I outline above. He also ignores the ways in which Morsi himself had undermined the democratic process by using the powers of government to persecute his political opponents. If the opposition had not acted now, there is no guarantee that Morsi and the radical Islamists would ever have allowed genuinely free elections to occur on schedule.


Solomon2 note: I am reminded of the situation behind the eighteenth-century War of Spanish Succession. Spain and its empire had been deeded by the dead Spanish king to a Bourbon prince, son of King Louis XIV. Yet to maintain the balance-of-powers in Europe required that the Empire be split up and Spain ruled by a mostly neutral king.

Louis XIV decided to fight for "legitimacy" - the dead king's will - and took steps to integrate the Spanish Empire with his own. Thus he plunged Spain and Europe into over a decade of unnecessary warfare.

This is the fate, in my opinion, that it would be best for Egypt and the world to avoid. Don't get hung up on the "legitimacy" of a leader and party that have been keen on eliminating the very democratic framework that brought them to power and would have, if they had left it intact, enabled Egyptians to get rid of Morsi and the M-B through legal means: with Parliament dissolved and future elections nowhere in sight, this was the only course left to remove a president and party bent upon imposing their own tyranny.
 
.
Thus spoke the Egyptians: Why is it not a coup?

When we celebrated the end of Mubarak’s rule on 11 February 2011, we did not expect to do it again two and a half years later. This is not one of the articles that talk about how great the Egyptian people are, and start taking you in an endless journey through historical achievements that date back thousands of years before Christ. I believe all of that is useless irrelevant rhetoric. What really matters now is a simple question that is very difficult to answer, and that is simply “what the hell happened?”

Westerners in general, Americans in specific, tend to be extremely occupied with the coup-revolution debate. It is a very confusing debate simply because there are signs that could be interpreted as a military coup. But any attempt to try and understand any of those signs would settle that debate. Mohamed Morsi and the rest of the Islamist movement in Egypt argue that according to the constitution, which people democratically chose, Morsi is the “legitimate” president and any attempt to overthrow him would be a coup d’etat.

While it would look like it makes sense on the outside, it does not make any sense in reality. Democracy is not something that you practice once every four years. Elected officials are held accountable on a daily basis and not only when elections come around. Similarly, constitutions are not merely a matter of texts eloquently phrased, procedurally accurate while being practically blind to evident truths. Democratic constitutions are made of principles that lead to justice and equality.

According to the Egyptian constitution of 2012, a president is to be deposed according to specific conditions. In article 152, the president is accused of grand treason by a petition signed by one third of parliament members and agreed on by two thirds of parliament members. As soon as this accusation is made, the president is suspended from office and put on trial before a special court that relieves the president from duty. What should be done procedurally for the vacancy in the President’s position is laid out in articles that follow. However, even in the Muslim Brotherhood’s engineered constitution, a President accused of grand treason by two thirds of the Parliament is unfit to rule. Roughly, the Egyptian Parliament is comprised of 500 members, which makes two thirds of the Parliament about 330 members. Now, the total number of those who voted in the Parliamentary elections in 2011 and 2012 is 27 million, two thirds of that figure is 18 million. The number of those who signed the “Tamarod” petition and took to the streets to clearly state Morsi’s inability to rule is a lot more than that since it is more than 20 million (as reported by Tamarod).

Jeopardizing Egyptian national security interests is an act of grand treason. Threatening the regional interests of Egypt is another act of treason, so as lying to the people, refusing to be held accountable and cracking down on the independence of the judiciary are all acts of treason. Every act Mohamed Morsi committed in which he violated the oath he took to care for Egyptian interests is indeed an act of grand treason. The deteriorating security of Sinai and the water security issue with Ethiopia are enough reasons to accuse Mohamed Morsi of threatening Egyptian national security, which in itself is a violation of the presidential oath he took. The constitutional principle is the same: presidents unfit to rule must be deposed. Why wait for 330 parliament members when the millions who would elect them decided to represent themselves? The point of constitutional procedure is to reflect the principles from which they stem. What happened in Egypt on Wednesday night is a very accurate reflection of the constitutional principle in article 152. The logical question after that would be how come these millions were not represented in the presidential election result?

The real problem with Mohamed Morsi’s legitimacy was how non-representative it was. Actually, the political process that took place over the past couple of years in Egypt is not representative of the Egyptian people as much as it is representative of Egyptian techniques of electoral manipulation. The legitimacy which Mohamed Morsi counted as cause for his validity stems from how well the Muslim Brotherhood administered the elections. The parliament elected in 2011 and 2012 that had almost 66% Islamists was not reflective of Egypt’s social and political forces, it was rather reflective of the political opportunity the Muslim Brotherhood efficiently utilized. Religious manipulation and capitalizing on poverty and ignorance were the main tools the Muslim Brotherhood used in all elections. Mohamed Morsi and the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau knew very well how their pseudo-legitimacy came about. The millions who took to the streets on 30 June challenged that legitimacy which was too weak to actually stand its ground.

It is true that what happened in Egypt remains to be far from what the January revolution envisioned. But what is important to notice is how those past two and a half years did not witness any real democratic developments. The political process that took place since February 2011 was based on non-representative pseudo-democracy. Tangible democratic change does not exist yet, which means that Egypt clearly was on the wrong track. What happened in Egypt a couple of days ago is a lot more conducive of a real process of democratic change than Morsi’s non-representative legitimacy. No one can claim that the post-Morsi phase will be free of problems or mistakes, but any objective Judgment of Morsi’s administration would prove how much of a failure it was. It is indeed very difficult to challenge Mohamed Morsi’s inefficiency.

If democracy is a matter of principle, then submitting to the will of the millions who took to the streets all across Egypt is the very basic application of that principle. In a democracy, legitimacy comes from the people and the people are entitled to claim it back. Whatever explanation looks at what happened in Egypt as a coup ignores an important dimension and that is the Egyptian people. It would have been a coup if it were strictly a matter of army-presidency confrontation. But applying the will of the people to remove an inefficient president who is incapable of fulfilling his oath is rational democratic behaviour.

Overthrowing Mohamed Morsi is not a power hungry undemocratic coup; it is simply the most practical manifestation of the people’s right to rule their own country.

Thus spoke the Egyptians: Why is it not a coup? - Daily News Egypt

-----------------------------------------

The length people will go to defend the coup :lol:

1 - Elected officials are held accountable on DAILY BASIS!

2 - The people on road are more then 2/3rd which are technically required for petition of grand treason.

3 - MB is bad because it effectively utilized a political opportunity (the horror)

The age on enlightenment finally reaches the land of Pharaohs :D
 
.
A message to the american people from Egypt

These are the people you guys are supporting, proud of yourself ?!!!!


Wake up people.... This is a revolution against fascists and terrorists. If you are not gonna stand by the people who are asking for freedom, equality, and human rights, who are you gonna stand by ?!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
A message to the american people from Egypt

These are the people you guys are supporting, proud of yourself ?!!!!


Wake up people.... This is a revolution against fascists and terrorists. If you are not gonna stand by the people who are asking for freedom, equality, and human rights, who are you gonna stand by ?!!!!

What freedom did Morsi take away ?

What specifics laws were introduced jeopardizing equality ?


What human rights were violated ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
A message to the american people from Egypt

Wake up people.... This is a revolution against fascists and terrorists. If you are not gonna stand by the people who are asking for freedom, equality, and human rights, who are you gonna stand by ?!!!!

A teary eyed plea to America? *sniff* freedom is such a wonderful thing :coffee:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Egyptian army and the Egyptian security apparatus are very well oiled and equipped to deal with any armed rebellion of the brothers. Egyptians nailed political Islam coffin for good and their action will have a big repercution on the countries were Islamist got elected due to the arab spring.! Egyptiens Un grand Bravo for your accomplishment!
Sir no country has beaten the Islamists Sir not even USA Egyptian doesn't stand a chance in case of war they will suffer the most Sir and Islam will rule egypt again Sir no body can stop it brotherhood knows how to deal with these situations Sir better than any one else
 
. .
Thus spoke the Egyptians: Why is it not a coup?

When we celebrated the end of Mubarak’s rule on 11 February 2011, we did not expect to do it again two and a half years later. This is not one of the articles that talk about how great the Egyptian people are, and start taking you in an endless journey through historical achievements that date back thousands of years before Christ. I believe all of that is useless irrelevant rhetoric. What really matters now is a simple question that is very difficult to answer, and that is simply “what the hell happened?”

Westerners in general, Americans in specific, tend to be extremely occupied with the coup-revolution debate. It is a very confusing debate simply because there are signs that could be interpreted as a military coup. But any attempt to try and understand any of those signs would settle that debate. Mohamed Morsi and the rest of the Islamist movement in Egypt argue that according to the constitution, which people democratically chose, Morsi is the “legitimate” president and any attempt to overthrow him would be a coup d’etat.

While it would look like it makes sense on the outside, it does not make any sense in reality. Democracy is not something that you practice once every four years. Elected officials are held accountable on a daily basis and not only when elections come around. Similarly, constitutions are not merely a matter of texts eloquently phrased, procedurally accurate while being practically blind to evident truths. Democratic constitutions are made of principles that lead to justice and equality.

According to the Egyptian constitution of 2012, a president is to be deposed according to specific conditions. In article 152, the president is accused of grand treason by a petition signed by one third of parliament members and agreed on by two thirds of parliament members. As soon as this accusation is made, the president is suspended from office and put on trial before a special court that relieves the president from duty. What should be done procedurally for the vacancy in the President’s position is laid out in articles that follow. However, even in the Muslim Brotherhood’s engineered constitution, a President accused of grand treason by two thirds of the Parliament is unfit to rule. Roughly, the Egyptian Parliament is comprised of 500 members, which makes two thirds of the Parliament about 330 members. Now, the total number of those who voted in the Parliamentary elections in 2011 and 2012 is 27 million, two thirds of that figure is 18 million. The number of those who signed the “Tamarod” petition and took to the streets to clearly state Morsi’s inability to rule is a lot more than that since it is more than 20 million (as reported by Tamarod).

Jeopardizing Egyptian national security interests is an act of grand treason. Threatening the regional interests of Egypt is another act of treason, so as lying to the people, refusing to be held accountable and cracking down on the independence of the judiciary are all acts of treason. Every act Mohamed Morsi committed in which he violated the oath he took to care for Egyptian interests is indeed an act of grand treason. The deteriorating security of Sinai and the water security issue with Ethiopia are enough reasons to accuse Mohamed Morsi of threatening Egyptian national security, which in itself is a violation of the presidential oath he took. The constitutional principle is the same: presidents unfit to rule must be deposed. Why wait for 330 parliament members when the millions who would elect them decided to represent themselves? The point of constitutional procedure is to reflect the principles from which they stem. What happened in Egypt on Wednesday night is a very accurate reflection of the constitutional principle in article 152. The logical question after that would be how come these millions were not represented in the presidential election result?

The real problem with Mohamed Morsi’s legitimacy was how non-representative it was. Actually, the political process that took place over the past couple of years in Egypt is not representative of the Egyptian people as much as it is representative of Egyptian techniques of electoral manipulation. The legitimacy which Mohamed Morsi counted as cause for his validity stems from how well the Muslim Brotherhood administered the elections. The parliament elected in 2011 and 2012 that had almost 66% Islamists was not reflective of Egypt’s social and political forces, it was rather reflective of the political opportunity the Muslim Brotherhood efficiently utilized. Religious manipulation and capitalizing on poverty and ignorance were the main tools the Muslim Brotherhood used in all elections. Mohamed Morsi and the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau knew very well how their pseudo-legitimacy came about. The millions who took to the streets on 30 June challenged that legitimacy which was too weak to actually stand its ground.

It is true that what happened in Egypt remains to be far from what the January revolution envisioned. But what is important to notice is how those past two and a half years did not witness any real democratic developments. The political process that took place since February 2011 was based on non-representative pseudo-democracy. Tangible democratic change does not exist yet, which means that Egypt clearly was on the wrong track. What happened in Egypt a couple of days ago is a lot more conducive of a real process of democratic change than Morsi’s non-representative legitimacy. No one can claim that the post-Morsi phase will be free of problems or mistakes, but any objective Judgment of Morsi’s administration would prove how much of a failure it was. It is indeed very difficult to challenge Mohamed Morsi’s inefficiency.

If democracy is a matter of principle, then submitting to the will of the millions who took to the streets all across Egypt is the very basic application of that principle. In a democracy, legitimacy comes from the people and the people are entitled to claim it back. Whatever explanation looks at what happened in Egypt as a coup ignores an important dimension and that is the Egyptian people. It would have been a coup if it were strictly a matter of army-presidency confrontation. But applying the will of the people to remove an inefficient president who is incapable of fulfilling his oath is rational democratic behaviour.

Overthrowing Mohamed Morsi is not a power hungry undemocratic coup; it is simply the most practical manifestation of the people’s right to rule their own country.

Thus spoke the Egyptians: Why is it not a coup? - Daily News Egypt

-----------------------------------------

The length people will go to defend the coup :lol:

1 - Elected officials are held accountable on DAILY BASIS!

2 - The people on road are more then 2/3rd which are technically required for petition of grand treason.

3 - MB is bad because it effectively utilized a political opportunity (the horror)

The age on enlightenment finally reaches the land of Pharaohs :D

I keep asking wtf did he do that requires a coup to illegally remove him from the office. I just cant seem to get an answer on that one.

I looked at the basics of constitution, I failed to see anything that is out of the ordinary. Apparently certain liberal folks are up in arms about some vague issues which makes no sense to folks who are busy putting food on the table. Oh, the election losers are also behind this.

I don't care much about Morsi in any special way, but saddened to see wonderful opportunity thrown to garbage.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom