OMG! Mubarak wins in election shocker!

[Kuciwalker]

Is this really any different than the US interfering in elections in Asia and South America to prevent Communist leaders from winning? Suddenly it doesn't seem so bad.

[VetLegion]

That's what happened in Algeria in 1992. For the first time, the elections were free and fair. The Islamists won a clear victory, and they were barred from rising to power. This is actually why the Algerian Islamists completely stopped believing in peaceful rpocess, and this is why the Algerian civil war was triggered.

In what state is the conflict now? There aren't any news from Algeria lately. A lull?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VetLegion
In what state is the conflict now? There aren't any news from Algeria lately. A lull?

The civil war has ended as the Islamists lost considerable support for their barbaric practices, and as pres Buteflika offered them an exit door IIRC.

BTW, pres Buteflika is extremely popular thanks to the end of the civil war. He was also the first Algerian presidential candidate who won without the army's endorsement

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Democracy is good unless bad people get elected

Democracy is good unless the country is so unprepared that it descends into chaos and bloodbath as soon as an unexpected result occurs

[Kuciwalker]

Aren't you supporting this because you expect a particular result? Specifically, the rise of Islamist groups to power? I agree, that's an important thing to prevent, but it sure puts the US actions during the Cold War into perspective, doesn't it? I mean, one might start thinking that the only real reason you guys complain about the US messing with democracy in the Third World is because we were gunning down Communists.

























































HYPOCRITE

[Spiffor]

Kuci, once again, you jump to conclusions.

Actually, it's not the Islamist rise to power that scares me. If experience is anything to go by, the Turks currently have "Islamists" leading their country, and they're very mellow compared to the archetypal ones (the Taleban).

I fear more the reaction of the military, should their unfavoured candidate win. In many North African countries, including Egypt, the military can easily stage a coup if it feels that the stability of the country is threatened. That's because the military often has no trust whatsoever in democracy.

When the military steps in, stages a coup, and kills the democratization process, great problems happen. It nearly happened in Ukraine last year. It is a very tangible threat in North African countries.

[Kuciwalker]

Kills what democratization process? I don't see any democracy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Kills what democratization process? I don't see any democracy.

We'll use western examples for you to understand what a democratization process is like.

A country that had a democratization process in the 19th century is Britain. And Britain has avoided most of the political turmoil that occured in Europe during that century (especially in 1848). Britain's internal struggles were mostly economic in nature, or were about minorities. The slow progression towards democracy: the slow erosion of the power of the king, the slow progression of suffrage, from being only in the hands of the nobles and the rich at the beginning, to being in the hands of everybody at the end... Well, that was a democratization process, and a remarkably quiet one.

Comapre this with France. Revolutionary France is typically a country completely unprepared for democracy, which had democratic reforms brutally shoved down their throats. As a result, the elected leaders still intrigued like in the old regime, the winners believed they could do everything they wanted, because, hey, they won. The King made no compromise at all. And the opponents to the new regime started a civil war. As you know, revolutionary France wasn't exactly a wonderful democracy to look at. And the political organization it created died 10 years after anyway, when Napoleon took power*.

Maybe, with these examples, you can understand that democracy is not an "on/off" button. You don't switch easily.



*The reason why France has grown into a modern democracy at the end of the 19th century is because of a transitional regime: the 3rd Republic was intended as a transitional regime before the king could reign again over France, after Napoleon III's defeat. In the end, the possible king alienated even his supporters, which is why he didn't came to power - the 3rd Republic had to progressively build a democratic order. Incidentally, the main attempt to make it quick, the Paris Commune, was drowned in blood.

[Kuciwalker]

A country that had a democratization process in the 19th century is Britain. And Britain has avoided most of the political turmoil that occured in Europe during that century (especially in 1848). Britain's internal struggles were mostly economic in nature, or were about minorities. The slow progression towards democracy: the slow erosion of the power of the king, the slow progression of suffrage, from being only in the hands of the nobles and the rich at the beginning, to being in the hands of everybody at the end... Well, that was a democratization process, and a remarkably quiet one.

19th-century Britain was infinitely more democratic than this farce is. This is democratic at all, it's just rigged elections.

Maybe, with these examples, you can understand that democracy is not an "on/off" button. You don't switch easily.

I never suggested that it was.

[Kuciwalker]

For that matter, Iran is more democratic than this.

[GePap]

I don;t buy the excuse that we should accept authoritarian regimes taking miniscule acts of playing dmeocracy because if they tried more worthwhile steps the military might come in and stage a coup.

Moving fast towards democracy was not the problem in Algeria. The military stagging a coup that lead to a civil war that killed at least 100,000 people, THAT weas the problem.
You don;t give democracy a rain check because some Colonels Junta might not like it-that is basically allowing the military to successfuly stiffle democracy simply with a threat.

[Drake Tungsten]

a tiny step forward.

Yep.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
19th-century Britain was infinitely more democratic than this farce is. This is democratic at all, it's just rigged elections.

You have absolutely no idea what progress these contested elections brought.

For the first time in Egypt, there were several candidates. It introduces the idea that competing platforms can exist. Elections are not about saying yes to the current leader: they're about picking the best leader available: that's quite a difference.
For the first time in Egypt, a contradictory presidential campaign occured in the newspapers. Information about the different platforms was available. Criticism of the one or other was available. This is another key component of a successful democracy: politicians take heat, and they learn to take the heat. Neither the politicians nor a mob of supporters destroy the newspaper that dared criticize them.

As to the rigged part, I'm not sure the election was any more rigged than in any other nascent democracy. Keep in mind that the major opposition parties boycotted the election (hence the 27% participation only). And in my experience, I've seen often enough 80%+ scores in a democratic system whose population was still completely unused of democracy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Moving fast towards democracy was not the problem in Algeria. The military stagging a coup that lead to a civil war that killed at least 100,000 people, THAT weas the problem.

Yes. As you might notice, the two are related. I personally dislike the idea of pushing back democracy and killing thousands for the sake of ideology.

As an aside, during the last presidential elections in Algeria, the military refused to officially support someone for the first time (the unofficial support went to Buteflika's opponent). In Turkey, we see an increasing role of the civilian authorities as the democratization process, very timid at the beginning, shows that it is working.

Egypt has changed its internal policies quite recently. IIRC, Egypt has stopped being in state of emergency this year (Hint: state of emergency, among other things, generally makes the leader above all criticism, because the leader has to be tough to fight the enemy, and cannot be weakened from within).

A few months after this news, we have a contested election where demonstrations were allowed, including regular demonstrations hostile to Mubarak. We have a contested election where people, be the politicians, boycotters or voters, speak their mind and now hope in reform, even though everbody knew that that particular election wouldn't change the leader.

That's a serious progress. In only a few months, we went from an age-long political stagnation to a revival of politics. If the evolution of political mentalities continues at this pace in Egypt, the country might well be mature for democracy in two terms (10 years).

[Spiffor]

Interesting article from the BBC