Peak Power Switch

[RevdTess]

Hummm ? We have 21 percent of the Middle East’s population change government by coupe with rioting in the streets and crude oil kicks up past $100 per barrel so we discuss the deep inner meaning of the sites logo? Perhaps we should rearrange the deck chairs on the starboard side before the fog rolls in.

Discussing anything else causes stressful arguments! Actually the logo might do that too.

[emordnilap]

Hummm ? We have 21 percent of the Middle East’s population change government by coupe with rioting in the streets and crude oil kicks up past $100 per barrel so we discuss the deep inner meaning of the sites logo? Perhaps we should rearrange the deck chairs on the starboard side before the fog rolls in.

I find it's possible to think about a number of different things, important and not so, over the course of a day/week/life.

[JohnB]

We need a bit of a break from the relentless doom!

[RenewableCandy]

How much difference does the coup, by itself, actually make, though?

[Little John]

For the Egyptian people, I think this coup means possibly two things.

Either it means that the election of the Muslim brotherhood was initially fair. But, the Muslim brotherhood reneged on the promises they made at the election to such a severe extent that the people were legitimately entitled to force them from office before their term was up. Thus, they are prepared, in this instance, to have the army implement the above on their behalf.

Or, it means that the Egyptian people would rather have security before freedom and know the army is the only body that can provide that security.

For the Egyptian army generals, it means only one thing, they have the perfect excuse to return Egypt to BAU.

[clv101]

I don't think it makes much difference. The challenges Egypt faces are deep rooted, primary, physical - it's about primary production of energy, food, water, it's about population and demographics, it's about expectations being well outside the physical reality they find themselves in.

Changing the leaders, the political structures etc. can't significantly change things for the better. However, there is a significant risk on the negative side - a civil war is not inevitable but is a risk.

[UndercoverElephant]

For the Egyptian army generals, it means only one thing, they have the perfect excuse to return Egypt to BAU.

IMO...that's not what they want. They want something other than Islamic rule for Egypt, rather than wanting political control themselves. And in that sense, this is a "democratic coup". It's "democratic" because the Brotherhood only won the election because the secular opposition had not had several decades of existence to provide the structure required to get elected in the first democratic election; it was split in a way that it would not have been in a mature, or even non-infant, democracy.

I may be completely wrong about this, but it looks to me like the Egyptian military are actually on the side of the revolution. At least I have no reason to believe otherwise at this point.

ETA: By "revolution", I mean a move towards mature secular democracy. The army was always secular, it just wasn't democratic. Which looks pretty depressing from the POV of an Egyptian Islamist, which is why key figures in the Brotherhood have been rounded up or had travel restrictions put on them.

[Little John]

For the Egyptian army generals, it means only one thing, they have the perfect excuse to return Egypt to BAU.

IMO...that's not what they want. They want something other than Islamic rule for Egypt, rather than wanting political control themselves. And in that sense, this is a "democratic coup". It's "democratic" because the Brotherhood only won the election because the secular opposition had not had several decades of existence to provide the structure required to get elected in the first democratic election; it was split in a way that it would not have been in a mature, or even non-infant, democracy.

I may be completely wrong about this, but it looks to me like the Egyptian military are actually on the side of the revolution. At least I have no reason to believe otherwise at this point.

ETA: By "revolution", I mean a move towards mature secular democracy.

You may be right UE. We'll get to know within a year or so I guess. However, as we all know, there are several layers to this unfolding global crisis. There is the economic, then the political/cultural. Finally, underneath it all there is physical. As, I think, CLV mentioned up thread, Egypt's problems are primarily physical. Too many people and not enough primary resources. To that extent, a democracy is unlikely to hold things together there and it is inevitable that a strongman full of promises to look after the people will be welcomed with open arms at some point.

I'm not even marking Egypt out as being particularly politically/culturally inferior by way of explanation of the above either. Though radical Islamism certainly doesn't help. Rather, I think that for those physical reasons I mentioned, Egypt is just a little further down a road that a lot of countries will be travelling at some point.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

I may be completely wrong about this, but it looks to me like the Egyptian military are actually on the side of the revolution. At least I have no reason to believe otherwise at this point.

I think you are spot on.

It's also worth noting that the Egyptian military aren't just a military. They also have their own business interests.

I don't think the likes of Cameron & Obama could ever be seen to welcome such intervention by the military......people forcing their politicians to actually do what they promised to do...whatever next

[Lord Beria3]

I think Spengler has the best take on the Egyptian crisis... as he has said before, the only 'good' guys in this complex power struggle are the Coptic Christians (and other persecuted minorities) and the secular young people who just want to live in a liberal secular democracy like the West.

The Army has its own agenda and business interests at stake and the Brotherhood also have significant financial and political interests as well as their Islamist agenda. Both side mistrust the other and it is difficult to see how they will ever get along.

Of course, it is not as simple as that. The Army appear to be in a alliance with the hard-line Islamists (which got a third of the vote by the people) and even the head of the Army appears to be some kind of Islamist (although not a Brotherhood kind). Traditionally the Army have been the guardians of a secular Egypt but how much is that true these days? I wonder. Still as a national institution, the Army are certainly more likely to protect the Coptic Christians than the religious hardliners in the Brotherhood.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_Eas ... 80713.html

The head of Egypt's armed forces, Field Marshal Abdel-Fatah al-Sisi, is not a democrat, but a dedicated Islamist whose wife is said to wear the full niqab body covering, according to Naval Postgraduate School professor Robert Springborg. "Islamic ideology penetrates Sisi's thinking about political and security matters," Springborg observes. [5]

The question is not whether Islamism, but whose. Some Saudi commentators claim al-Sisi as their Islamist, for example Asharq al-Awsat columnist Hussein Shobokshi, who wrote July 7, "God has endowed al-Sisi with the Egyptians' love. In fact, al-Sisi brought a true legitimacy to Egypt, which will open the door to hope after a period of pointlessness, immaturity and distress. Al-Sisi will go down in history and has gained the love of people." [6] The Saudi-funded Salafist (ultra-Islamist) Nour Party in Egypt backed the military coup, probably because it is Saudi-funded, while other Salafists took to the streets with the Muslim Brotherhood to oppose it. Again, none of this matters. The will of a people that cannot feed itself has little weight. Egypt is a banana republic without the bananas.

Whether Egypt slides into chaos or regains temporary stability under the military depends on what happens in the royal palace at Riyadh, not in Tahrir Square. It appears that the Saudis have embraced the military-backed government, whoever it turns out to include.

I note in the Times today that the Saudi's/UAE have just agreed to loan 5 billion to the new military government which should keep the bread and fuel going to the end of the year. This would appear to back up Spengler’s analysis.

Contrary to what one or two have said here, I do worry about Egypt’s future. Having visited the country a year ago and becoming a friend of a lovely Egyptian girl (a secular, educated woman) who is and was involved in the uprisings against Mubarak and the Brotherhood I have a personal connection to its on-going troubles.

However, as others have mentioned, the physical realities for Egypt are really rather grim and it is difficult to see how any government can overcome these problems. The only thing for certain is that a military government, however unpleasant it might be, has appeared to secure sufficient fund from the Gulf States to keep the food and fuel supplying to the masses for the rest of this year. It was unlikely the Brotherhood would have secured that critical money and this would have led to total economic collapse. For that reason alone, forgetting all these arguments about democracy, it is Egypt’s best interests for this coup revolution.