Egypt Military Power Grab: For the Best?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

According to NPR and the BBC, the Egyptian military has granted itself broad powers including legislative and budget powers, Constitution-writing powers, as well as lifetime appointments to the Egyptian military supreme council, as well as giving the President no power over the military.

The military-appointed Supreme Court nullified the parliamentary elections as unconstitutional.

I am not sure if all of these powers are temporary or not, but given the strong showing by the Muslim Brotherhood in the elections, is this perhaps a good thing?

I think it would be a good thing for the military to write the Constitution, given that the MB won. Let them write into a Bill of Rights, and a Republican form of government guaranteeing certain rights and making it as tough as nails to amend the Constitution. Then let the MB win in the elections. Guarantee religious minority rights and women's rights, then it should be good to go.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

It may actually not be a power grab but Egypt's military setting itself up so that there can be some kind of check against theocratic rule:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18493719

Interim Constitutional Declaration

Issued by ruling Supreme Council of Armed Forces (Scaf)
Amends Constitutional Declaration of March 2011
Grants Scaf powers to initiate legislation, control budget, appoint panel to draft new constitution
Postpones new parliamentary elections until new constitution is approved

[Cicero]

It's a difficult situation. Though, it might be best for the military to write the constitution, then quickly restore power to the people. Still, I don't like the MB as they're muslim extremists and, as noted, could implement laws that limit the rights of women and religious minorities.

It seems like the rest of the world is turning to extremists as well. Greece is voting Nazis and Communists into their parliament. (At least the Communists don't attack their opponents http://www.theblaze.com/stories/shoc...ly-on-live-tv/)

[zorro]

NO the military assuming such broad power is terrible. The people need to grow into their role and have some growing pains.
Simple as that

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

NO the military assuming such broad power is terrible. The people need to grow into their role and have some growing pains.
Simple as that

Your characterization is poor and exclusive of obviously relevant facts, like the Islamism of the ruling party, the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be a good thing to write protections into the Constitution from Islamism. Secondly, your comment is dishonest in saying that Egyptian military is "assuming such broad power", which implies if not states that power is being assumed even for a temporary basis. Merely writing a constitution is not the assumption of power.

Your characterization of it as "growing pains" is incorrect. Constitutions have great permanence by definition. To use your biological analogy, allowing Islamism to run rampant would be like getting paralyzed and trying to regain the ability to walk. It's not so easy to get it back after permanent damage is done.

It's not "simple as that", you oversimplified the situation and thus enabled your argument under false pretenses.

[zorro]

Your characterization is poor and exclusive of obviously relevant facts, like the Islamism of the ruling party, the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be a good thing to write protections into the Constitution from Islamism. Secondly, your comment is dishonest in saying that Egyptian military is "assuming such broad power", which implies if not states that power is being assumed even for a temporary basis. Merely writing a constitution is not the assumption of power.

Your characterization of it as "growing pains" is incorrect. Constitutions have great permanence by definition. To use your biological analogy, allowing Islamism to run rampant would be like getting paralyzed and trying to regain the ability to walk. It's not so easy to get it back after permanent damage is done.

It's not "simple as that", you oversimplified the situation and thus enabled your argument under false pretenses.

It is their country and not ours. Our viewpoint of Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant. It is paramount that the people be active in getting the Constitution they desire by voice.

When you are the military and the one writing the Constitution, you are assuming power.

There is a long list of Constitutions that have not shown any sign of great permanence. New governments are born and die within a few years in many parts of the world. And Constitutions have the ability to be modified-- not so permanent after all.

If Islamism is the people's will, than so be it. It real is quite simple.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

It is their country and not ours. Our viewpoint of Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant. It is paramount that the people be active in getting the Constitution they desire by voice.

Your comment is hypocritical. When you voice your opinion it's the truth, but when I voice mine then it doesn't get counted as the truth like yours, it merely becomes a "viewpoint" which is "irrelevant".

It is not paramount that the people be active in getting the Constitution they desire by voice. If that were true then it would be ok if their constitution says its legal to ethnically cleanse non-Muslims. That's ok by your logic, but it's clearly not ok.

When you are the military and the one writing the Constitution, you are assuming power.

When you are discussing a situation as complicated as Egypt post-Mubarak, it is untruthful to oversimplify the situation by leaving out obviously relevant factors, such as the fact that the country just had a revolution and the military has only recently made a transition from power and the new government is Islamist. You strip out these details and thus arrive at a false conclusion under false pretenses.

There is a long list of Constitutions that have not shown any sign of great permanence. New governments are born and die within a few years in many parts of the world. And Constitutions have the ability to be modified-- not so permanent after all.

This is misleading. What constitutions would those be, the ones setup by autocrats and are thus not constitutions at all? You say there is a long list of constitutions, and that they have the ability to be modified while listing no constitutions and none which have the ability to be modified - they are so permanent after all.

If Islamism is the people's will, than so be it. It real is quite simple.

A false conclusion arrived at under false pretenses. That's the only thing simple about what you've said.

[zorro]

Your comment is hypocritical. When you voice your opinion it's the truth, but when I voice mine then it doesn't get counted as the truth like yours, it merely becomes a "viewpoint" which is "irrelevant".

It is not paramount that the people be active in getting the Constitution they desire by voice. If that were true then it would be ok if their constitution says its legal to ethnically cleanse non-Muslims. That's ok by your logic, but it's clearly not ok.

I use the term "Our" in "Our viewpoint of Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant" . That would include both of us.

Evil people can have constitutions which violate the international rules of law. To impose a constitution upon those people would not eliminate the evil of the public's voiced belief.

[zorro]

Addition
Any government which had a constitution and has been replaced by the people has failed.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I use the term "Our" in "Our viewpoint of Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood are irrelevant" . That would include both of us.

This does not change that your comment is hypocritical. You hold that your belief in some random amount of a majority (bare, two thirds, who knows?) should determine a Constitution of seemingly any law is relevant, while my disagreement with that is irrelevant. So according to you, what you believe is relevant and people's views which oppose that are irrelevant: hypocrisy.

Evil people can have constitutions which violate the international rules of law. To impose a constitution upon those people would not eliminate the evil of the public's voiced belief.

This is where your argument runs afoul of other parts of what you said. You've smuggled your own beliefs into the equation with your word choice "impose", that means that you've already applied a value judgment (which is what you just said you oppose). Your value judgment is that it is wrong that the military did "impose" a constitution. This is what you called an "irrelevant" "viewpoint", yet it finds its way into the heart of your opinion on the matter.

In any case, you've got some mild straw man argument going on here. It's not about eliminating people's evil beliefs but more importantly eliminating people's evil behavior on each other.