-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Protests in Egypt
- Thread starter polelover44
- Start date
military council
Ugh. El-Baradei would be terrible. He was basically an enabler for Iran's nuclear program as head of the IAEA and has absolutely zero political base in Egypt. He's been compared to Alexander Kerensky in that he'll be a doormat for a group like the Muslim Brotherhood, the historical equivalent of the Bolsheviks in this scenario.
Hopefully whoever comes out on top is a relative of Sadat or otherwise a secular leader with actual political pull, notoriety, and weight. If Democratic strategist and former adviser to four Israeli Prime Mininisters Doug Schoen is right, the electoral reality of Egypt becoming an Iran on Israel's other flank is quite high.
Schoen excerpt said:
I sincerely hope Egypt does not become another Islamist harboring nation, but neither El-Baradei nor the Muslim Brotherhood are a good end result compared to the dictator who kept peace with Israel and honored the legacy of Sadat for 30 years. Brutal he may be, but the only thing Islamist fundamentalists understand is a clenched fist and a drawn sword. There are very, very few powerful "good guys" in the Middle East.
"Islamist harboring nation" being a nation like Iran, Somalia, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia who, enemy and ally alike, allow Wahabbist radical teachings to permeate and grow under their watch. Basically a place where Islamist philosophy (Shorthand: All governments should eventually be an Islamic caliphate as demanded by Allah, and all who oppose Allah and his warriors shall be killed) is either actively encouraged or given only token resistance.
Or even more condensed, what a non-secular Egypt would look like given its history and placement in the Middle East.
I use Islamist rather than Muslim since I separate Islamism (which is a philosophy of government that demands a worldwide Islamic theocracy governed by shariah law) and Islam (which is a religion whose adherents are, at least in theory, ammenable to religious pluralism within their nation but personally guided by Islamic moral principles.)
Unless you can get Muslims to address the Islamists that justify their violence with their religion you will never get anywhere, since Islamists immunize themselves from outside criticism. Unless they are ostracized from within the religion they purport to represent, they will continue to grow or at least remain at a stable number as they radicalize new members.
Agreed, exactly what Deck knight just said. We don't need a Goverment based on Islamic theocracy, we don't need religon to be next to the government in Egypt which is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood trying to pull. Just hoping overall Egypt will be sort of a Government similar to Turkey which religion for the most part has nothing to do with the government, which is exactly what we need in the middle-east to move it around other countries.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Man, my only real source on this so far has been NPR and BBC for the past few weeks, but at least according to them, the Muslim Brotherhood (a fairly Islamist political party, hereto banned in Egypt) doesn't sound like it really had that much to do with this revolution, nor does it sound like they have any real chance at "taking over Egypt). According to them, Egypt is more of a secular society than many of it's surrounding countries. It sounds to me that the military taking complete control of the country, blaming the previous chaos, is more of a threat.
The military is trained in America, and are actually quite western. They really were the peace-keepers for much of these proceedings, and the idea that there is going to be military rule for an extended period of time seems extremely far-fetched to me.
Muslim Brotherhood most likely won't take power; the military seems to be fully behind having a full and fair election, and the Muslim Brotherhood, while having decent support in Egypt, most likely does not have enough people who would vote for them for them to establish some sort of Islamic rule, not to mention that Egypt as a society is actually quite secular in comparison to most of the "Islamic world"
Muslim Brotherhood most likely won't take power; the military seems to be fully behind having a full and fair election, and the Muslim Brotherhood, while having decent support in Egypt, most likely does not have enough people who would vote for them for them to establish some sort of Islamic rule, not to mention that Egypt as a society is actually quite secular in comparison to most of the "Islamic world"
The problem you run into is that they might have a free and fair election - Once.
That's exactly what happened in Germany, Russia, and Iran after their respective revolutions (or in Germany's case after WWI). After which, the most organized, radical, and powerful political organization (National Socialist German Worker's Party, Bolsheviks, and the Ayatollahs respectively) steamrolled the opposition in a short amount of time. That's why I linked to Doug Schoen article since he provides a good look into the political views of Egyptians. Both of Mubarak's predecessors, Nassir and Sadat, had proclaimed war on Israel (and lost miserably in the actual battle of course). Sadat had a change of heart, but the fact remains is there is no reason to believe most constructs of an Egyptian nationalistic government will give the same respect to Sadat's treaty with Israel as Sadat post-defeat and Mubarak did.
As far as Egypt being more secular than the rest of the Middle East, that's kind of like saying Count Dooku is a less villainous Sith Lord than Darth Sideous. They're both Sith Lords and both want to take down The Republic, but Count Dooku has the front of representing the democratically governed Separatists, making him appear like a more reasonable figure.
The analysis I heard from commentators on Fox was that the young people were more westernized, with jeans, tatoos, etc. That may be true, and the Middle East as a population is a lot younger than European and US counterparts, but there remains a large number of older fundamentalist hardliners in a society that still teaches respect for elders and, if Doug Schoen is to be believed, would support more clerical involvement in the government process. The new openness to democratic elections may be used by the Muslim Brotherhood to circumvent their banning alluded to by mattj, and from there the Muslim Brotherhood candidate will hit all the right notes on the wonders of Islam, the glories of Allah, the support for more clerical involvement in the government process, etc. Even if they fail to capture the presidency, their candidates will still capture a significant portion of the parliament. Given Sadat was assasinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the idea a president opposed to them would be able to keep them in check is not a wise bet.
If that were to happen, what does Egypt do? Have another military coup? Keep having elected officials assasinated until someone who supports the Muslim Brotherhood wins? Either way, the Brotherhood needs to be contained sooner rather than later, since history is on their side.
I felt like I should resurface this thread, considering the huge amount of riots and protests popping up in many countries in the Middle East such as Bahrain, Iran, and Iraq. You could say that they were caused by the Egypt protests because of the good example that was set by Egyptians but it's obvious that these citizens have been waiting to revolt
Watch out for the BREAD HELMET GUY
You recognize that the Iranian revolution would never have happened if not for US and British intervention in Iran during the 60's and 70's where the Western world removed a democratically elected leader and then supported a dictator who killed thousands of his own people (both directly through excessive violence in response to protests and indirectly through poor economic management).
The people of Iran were rightly angry with the west; I would say that anger is substantially lesser in Egypt (though still there due to the Gaza blockade) - but given there's no Ayatollah Khomeini equivalent in Egypt right now (and most of the anger seems to be due to a lack of freedom/due process/constitutional rights) it seems unlikely that they'll wind up with an Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship.
there are very few countries in which a chance for "egypt syndrome" is possible. most dictators have already prepared themselves for the possibility of a rebellion in their own backyard, and most of them are currently well-prepared for any riot. frankly, egypt also hasn't done a very good job in stopping the riots from becoming something big in the first place - something dictators have taken into account and are now doing. we're seeing heavy heavy violence in iran and others. i guess lybia is the only serious case at the moment, aside from a few others that went under the radar?