Egypt's resolution determines future political free will

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    Tyler D,
    How do we KNOW the protesters represent the majority of the people? Has there been a vote to prove what the majority wants? Polls of partial populations are not the same thing. Polls say what the poll taker wants them to say. I'm sure the Muslim Brotherhood has done a poll that shows the majority want THEM in power.

    The protesters actually represent a very small percentage of the population. The original protests that started the whole Revolt (to oust Mubarak) was only a few hundred people. There are millions of people in Egypt. So to assume that 200 protesters represent the majority... because they oppose a Tyrant, is false logic.

    To be in the TRUE "best traditions of Democracy"... they would need to have a vote to PROVE the will of the people first (not just a vocal mob insisting THEY represent the will of the people).

    When a small number of people force their will (the protesters)... that doesn't represent the definition of "Democracy".

    It may be for the best... but it's NOT "Democracy".

    Democracy can be used for good OR evil (depends on what the people want). Hitler was Democratically elected.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 9, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    @2 bits

    You make some good points so let me try and clarify as well.

    Democracy at its core means will of the people. By all accounts (and there has been some polling done) the protesters do represent a majority of the people. You’re right about holding another election, but the institutions necessary to enforce democracy (legitimate constitution, courts, etc…) are simply not in place in Egypt at this time.

    The constitution they have was rammed through AFTER Morsi gained power and it was slammed by almost everyone except his religious cronies.

    Given these facts, the Egyptian people ARE behaving in the best tradition of democracy by exercising the only option they had available to them… their voice. The military at this point (as I said it could go bad) is simply guaranteeing that elections occur soon – again, I think elections are a mistake until after they draft a popular constitution.

    Also, given that Morsi was moving very fast to consolidate power (signing dictatorial laws, appointing crony judges, etc…) I think the people had little choice if they truly wanted to save democracy.

    Reached comment limit…

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    It's possible you are misunderstanding me. Let me try to be clearer.

    I said, "This is not an example of Democracy". You disagreed, but then you pointed out, "It is Morsi who has betrayed the democratic process". I agree Morsi has betrayed the democratic process". But a Coup is also a betrayal of the Democratic Process. Two betrayals of the Democratic Process do NOT make a perfect example of Democracy.

    You said, "the people of Egypt are behaving wonderfully and in the best tradition of democracy". I didn't agree. I think the "Best" tradition of democracy would be to hold an election (not a coup).

    I know Morsi is a bad guy. But a military coup is NEVER "in the best tradition of democracy". Democracy means ELECTIONS... Not forcing the President out with threats of violence (and there WERE threats of violence from the protesters).

    Keep in mind... Morsi was elected in a democratic election. If he got the most votes... is that not Democracy?

    What PROOF is there that the mob represents the majority?? So how is this group forcing THEIR will contrary to the vote, "in the best traditions of Democracy"?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 9, 2013 12:45 p.m.


    You made perfect sense. A Constitution needs to be established before an election, not after it. Those elected to positions of trust need to know the will of the people before they take office. Every nation on earth has the right to determine what it will become and what rules it will follow. Those elected to enforce those rules need to know what the rules are before they take office.

    That didn't happen in Egypt.

    We're seeing the result of "rushing to judgement". People have been killed. Think about that. Lives have been lost. Lives that had the potential to do great things have ended. Those "great things" will never happen. The result is hatred.

    Writing a Constitution and agreeing on the words in that Constitution would have prevented that hatred. Rushing to take power is a failing that few can overcome, but it leads to destruction; it leads to the loss of freedom.

    Start at the basics. Write a Constitution. Ratify that Constitution. Require an oath of office before seating an elected official. Fix the problem, don't just put a band-aid on the wound.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 9, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    @2 bits

    Either I’m not understanding you at all (entirely possible) or you’re completely missing my point(s).

    One man (Morsi) was elected and then DID shut down the whole democratic process. Read up on how the constitution was drafted for case in point – it was a sham.

    Not sure what you expect the people of Egypt to do given this fact. How would they “force” an early election if the government (i.e., Muslim Brotherhood) refuses to listen to the people?

    Your points about other branches of government are valid but these don’t seem to exist in any way like what we have here (legitimately able to check power).

    I think the lessons here are twofold – 1) it is folly to hold elections PRIOR to establishing the institutions of democracy and 2) religious organizations are totally incompetent at running governments.

    These are painful lessons but again, I think the people of Egypt should be applauded for standing up for their rights and not allowing themselves to be dictated to by a theocracy, even one “elected” (in quotes because they were not elected by the majority) by the people.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    That's why Democracies don't put total power into the hands of ONE MAN, or even one BRANCH of government.

    If one man can shut down the whole democratic process... you don't have a Democracy. You have a Dictatorship. I thought you said this was a perfect example of "Democracy". It's not. A Coup is NOT an example of Democracy... no matter how good it's intentions are.

    A good example of "Democracy" would be for the protesters to appeal to the democratic process and force an early election (not a Military coup complete with fatalities). Democracies use the Democratic process (NOT Military Force or Mob violence). Democracies appeal to the Legislature and the Judges to overrule an out of control President. If you've let it get so bad that all branches of Government are now corrupt... you deserve what you get... because the PEOPLE elected them.

    Any society that lets one man take control and trample their Constitution and willingly give away their liberties... deserve what they get.

    A democracy acts BEFORE it gets to the point that the only way for the people to be heard is to kill the President.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    July 9, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    re: 2 bits

    Wouldn't it be awesome if it were that way and disagreements never resulted in violence and we could all just get along peacefully?

    Unfortunately, history would tend to disagree with you.

  • kevintempless Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    "What Egyptians need is a constitution that guarantees the rights of minorities"

    ...unless they're gay. Amiright?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 9, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    The editorial is correct. Egypt needs a Constitution between the people and the government. In America, the people retain all rights except those rights delegated to the government. There is no question in America about who "owns" which rights. The "Bill of Rights" was added to the Constitution as an additional guarantee that government would not "assume" that it held all rights and that it could parcel out those rights to the people as it pleased.

    Egypt has proven that pure democracy does not work. It results in "mob rule". When the "ownership" of rights has not been clarified, there will be riots.

    If Egypt writes a Constitution spearheaded by the people, then the government will know exactly what the people will allow it to do. If the government controls the "rights" and issues a Constitution claiming that government holds all rights and that government will delegate some rights to the people, there will be bloodshed and rioting.

    Egypt is a noble county, but it has a long history of slavery, extending back 3,500 years. If the people are to be truly free, their Constitution must put them in control and the government as their servant.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 9, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @2 bits- “This is not and example of Democracy. This is an example of Mob Rule.”

    On the contrary… the Egyptian people have been remarkably restrained and their protests have been largely peaceful.

    It is Morsi who has betrayed the democratic process. Since being elected (and election he won only because all the other parties were so fractured – he certainly does not have the support of the majority) he has behaved like a tyrant. The constitution he and his religious fanatic supporters drafted was a joke.

    And how are the people supposed to “call” for an emergency election if their own government won’t do so. This is precisely what the protests were about and the military (trying to stay neutral) finally agreed to step in and do just what you suggest.

    It all may still turn out bad but as of now the people of Egypt are behaving wonderfully and in the best tradition of democracy of, by, and for the People.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    This is not and example of Democracy. This is an example of Mob Rule.

    Protesting is fine, but you don't threaten violence if you don't get your way, or threaten to KILL the democratically elected leader, or have the military under the direction of the mob remove the President because they got a big enough and violent enough mob together.

    If the elected leader is abusing his authority... you have another election, not a military coup. Democracy doesn't turn to violence if part of the country didn't like the result.

    Morsi may be a bad guy. If so... you hold an emergency election. You don't just organize a mob and threaten violence if the military doesn't do what the mob wants!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    It would be a great service to this nation and the world if the news media would actually tell the whole truth about the unrest throughout the world and even in the United States.

    It is only sometimes that words like jobs, prices, fees squeak through the filters of the business oriented media. It is my opinion that the people in revolt are protesting economic oppression and all the other miner issues like religion, politics and government are being used to hide that from the people.

    Fox News regularly talks about the billions of dollars of aid to Egypt. Only sometimes mentioning that most of that “aid” is military equipment that is used to oppress their people. The fact is that our foreign aid is driven by the profit motive and killing people is more profitable than helping people.

    In America the Occupy Wall Street group were characterized as communists, anarchists, and other never-do-wells, when the real issues are jobs and the economic oppression on working America