David Brooks and Egyptian Democracy
This is a relatively complicated issue if you are a political scientist. I don't think that democracy can guarantee good government. On one hand, you might think that the invisible hand of "the democratic process/rule will solve the problems a country has.
Elections do have consequences. David Brooks may feel that Egyptians are mentally unprepared for democracy. This may be a Paula Deen moment for him. I'm uncomfortable about an American newspaper columnist commenting on a country's mental preparation for democracy. How many citizens would like to vote on laws in other states, districts, and towns? Lots and lots I bet. I'm sure there are more than a few people that think that a certain representative in (fill in the blank) is a dolt of the first order and should be removed from office. Such is democracy I guess.
Our country's functional democracy is based on an incredible amount of wealth and a population more or less moderate in politics, a history of religious tolerance, and a belief in civilian rule, rather than military rule.
Egypt is a large but not very wealthy country, its political traditions are not very well developed, its politics as of now are religiously based, and its leaders have until the last election have come from the military.
Experience and good fortune rather than intelligence may have a controlling impact on how well a democracy functions. A little statesmanship can't hurt.
If a member of the Islamic Brotherhood is elected with a plurality of the electorate and then goes off governing in a way that benefits his religious brothers and even those policies are not successful, that leader is going to be in trouble.
American democracy has the route of impeachment to depose of leaders whose leadership is corrupt and unlawful. My understanding is that the Egyptian constitution had no impeachment process to address leadership issues that may be criminal.
The military in Egypt has a role in society that looks towards the levers of policy in Egypt that give them a great deal of both economic and political power.
It's hard to imagine the Joint Chiefs being consulted on who would be an acceptable President or who should serve on the Supreme Court and then used military force to enforce their point of view
The Egyptians have had only five presidents since 1953. Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, Moubarak, and Morsi. Transition from one leader to another has featured coups, assassination, and death in office, and only the latest one a seemingly legitimate election. After one year a popular uprising, backed by the military eliminates Morsi.
I can hardly imagine Martin Dempsey or one of his predecessors from participating in deposing of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. Sometimes tradition has its benefits and we should realize our good fortune.
Jefferson said the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants It is its natural manure. Or rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
The democratic ideals of Jefferson are from a different time and I doubt how much support there would be for bloody revolution, generation after generation after generation. However, I sympathize with those that worry about the power that incumbents have developed beyond what the forefathers ever imagined.
Religiously, I agree with Lincoln. he felt it was more important to be on God's side rather than have God be on your side.
Elections do have consequences. David Brooks may feel that Egyptians are mentally unprepared for democracy. This may be a Paula Deen moment for him. I'm uncomfortable about an American newspaper columnist commenting on a country's mental preparation for democracy. How many citizens would like to vote on laws in other states, districts, and towns? Lots and lots I bet. I'm sure there are more than a few people that think that a certain representative in (fill in the blank) is a dolt of the first order and should be removed from office. Such is democracy I guess.
Our country's functional democracy is based on an incredible amount of wealth and a population more or less moderate in politics, a history of religious tolerance, and a belief in civilian rule, rather than military rule.
Egypt is a large but not very wealthy country, its political traditions are not very well developed, its politics as of now are religiously based, and its leaders have until the last election have come from the military.
Experience and good fortune rather than intelligence may have a controlling impact on how well a democracy functions. A little statesmanship can't hurt.
If a member of the Islamic Brotherhood is elected with a plurality of the electorate and then goes off governing in a way that benefits his religious brothers and even those policies are not successful, that leader is going to be in trouble.
American democracy has the route of impeachment to depose of leaders whose leadership is corrupt and unlawful. My understanding is that the Egyptian constitution had no impeachment process to address leadership issues that may be criminal.
The military in Egypt has a role in society that looks towards the levers of policy in Egypt that give them a great deal of both economic and political power.
It's hard to imagine the Joint Chiefs being consulted on who would be an acceptable President or who should serve on the Supreme Court and then used military force to enforce their point of view
The Egyptians have had only five presidents since 1953. Naguib, Nasser, Sadat, Moubarak, and Morsi. Transition from one leader to another has featured coups, assassination, and death in office, and only the latest one a seemingly legitimate election. After one year a popular uprising, backed by the military eliminates Morsi.
I can hardly imagine Martin Dempsey or one of his predecessors from participating in deposing of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. Sometimes tradition has its benefits and we should realize our good fortune.
Jefferson said the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants It is its natural manure. Or rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
The democratic ideals of Jefferson are from a different time and I doubt how much support there would be for bloody revolution, generation after generation after generation. However, I sympathize with those that worry about the power that incumbents have developed beyond what the forefathers ever imagined.
Religiously, I agree with Lincoln. he felt it was more important to be on God's side rather than have God be on your side.
Just because you have elections does not mean you have a democracy.
ReplyDeleteTis country has been fortunate in the hand over of power from one leader to another. Washington was one of our best because of the precedents he set, that have been more or less followed, like term limiting himself. Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDelete