Egypt under Mubarak

[Alceste]

I am seeing many Westerners make the argument that Mubarak's dictatorship is preferable to an election because his regime is "stable". But was it? What was life like for Egyptians before the uprising?



To me, that looks anything but stable. Could it be that in Western papers, "stable" is simply a euphemism for "not a threat to the bank accounts of foreign investors" or "not a threat to Israel"?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Alceste

I am seeing many Westerners make the argument that Mubarak's dictatorship is preferable to an election because his regime is "stable". But was it? What was life like for Egyptians before the uprising?



To me, that looks anything but stable. Could it be that in Western papers, "stable" is simply a euphemism for "not a threat to the bank accounts of foreign investors" or "not a threat to Israel"?

I think many westerners think Mubaraks dictatorship is preferable to an Islamist regime not preferable to an election.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by kai

I think many westerners think Mubaraks dictatorship is preferable to an Islamist regime not preferable to an election.

Please define "Islamist" and describe the policies an "Islamist" leader who would be likely to win an open election could implement that would be worse than a life long military dictatorship that provides no public services and completely represses political dissent on pain of torture and death?

It will help if you can provide the democracy-related views of this hypothetical Islamist contender in their own words.

[sandandfoam]

I think there is an insidious view in the West that Arabs are incapable of ruling themselves.
Perhaps it flows from the colonial past? - I know the same view was (and is) held by some regarding my own country.

Being all for freedom is empty when it does not extend to those you fear.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by stephenw

I think there is an insidious view in the West that Arabs are incapable of ruling themselves.
Perhaps it flows from the colonial past? - I know the same view was (and is) held by some regarding my own country.

Being all for freedom is empty when it does not extend to those you fear.

Amen to that. As much as I hate to say it, the arguments against Egyptian Democracy don't seem to amount to much more than "because they're Arabs" or "because they're Muslims". In my primate heart I'm just as much of a xenophobe as the next gal, but nevertheless I am not at all sucked in by that type of argument. I couldn't claim any rights or privileges for myself that I wouldn't extend to everyone.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Alceste

Please define "Islamist" and describe the policies an "Islamist" leader who would be likely to win an open election could implement that would be worse than a life long military dictatorship that provides no public services and completely represses political dissent on pain of torture and death?

It will help if you can provide the democracy-related views of this hypothetical Islamist contender in their own words.

Sorry just changing the fear from "Election" to "Islamist" and by Islamist i know its controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary but i mean a party that would just be a similarly repressive regime under a different name based on Sharia which is probably the only policy needed to win an open election in an a Muslim predominant state in flux.

I fear the Islamist contender would only manifest its "dictatorship" after its politically correct face has won power.

[kai]

Originally Posted by stephenw

I think there is an insidious view in the West that Arabs are incapable of ruling themselves.
Perhaps it flows from the colonial past? - I know the same view was (and is) held by some regarding my own country.

Being all for freedom is empty when it does not extend to those you fear.

Arabs are quite capable of ruling themselves its just how they do it that's controversial

[sandandfoam]

Originally Posted by kai

Arabs are quite capable of ruling themselves its just how they do it that's controversial

Western backed dictators are the most controversial to my mind

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by kai

Sorry just changing the fear from "Election" to "Islamist" and by Islamist i know its controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary but i mean a party that would just be a similarly repressive regime under a different name based on Sharia which is probably the only policy needed to win an open election in an a Muslim predominant state in flux.

I fear the Islamist contender would only manifest its "dictatorship" after its politically correct face has won power.

Fair concerns, but honestly, could Egyptians do much worse than Mubarak? He does all the same awful stuff we were supposed to hate Saddam for, and many of us nodded approvingly while the US and the UK slaughtered tens of thousands of non-combatants to bring him to justice.

(Those countries are in a tight political spot now, I imagine. How can they continue to support Mubarak when the whole sales pitch for Iraq and Afghanistan was "spreading democracy" to the ME? Will their soldiers get confused?)

[Terrywoodenpic]

I doubt Egypt has ever had what would be recognised as a democracy in the west. In my life time the rulers have been...
Fouad 1 Ruled 14 years
Farouk 1 ruled 16 years
Fouad 2 Infant/regency 11 months
Presidents ( All ex military...)
Naguib 1 year
Nassar 8 years
Sadat 11 year
Taleb ( acting President) 8 days
Mubarak 30 years.
Mubarac has had a good innings even for an ex Army dictator.

Where ever they go from here is very much an experiment, if they chose some form of free election.

Egypt in its past and present form, has always been ruled by absolute Kings or more recently Dictator Presidents. True, there have been elections but never free or unproscribed ones.

be that may, they have always managed to keep up with world developments, and their scientists and scholars match any to be found anywhere.