An
article from the Washington Post this time:
 |
| Protesters in Tahir Square |
Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi recently made a declaration which essentially gave him unlimited powers. It didn't take long for Egyptians, including some of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's supporters, to rise in protest. Even though Morsi won 52% of the presidential vote, protesters are calling him an even more autocratic dictator than Mubarak, who (as most of you know) was overthrown earlier this year. Morsi claims that his new powers were enacted to protect the constitutional committee, which is in the process of creating a new constitution for the recently revolutionized country, from the court (which has hinted it may disband the committee). Morsi claims that his extension of power is necessary only to ensure the establishment of a new constitution. Once a new constitution has been ratified, he claims he will relinquish his somewhat dictatorial powers.
 |
| The lovely Morsi |
Whether or not Morsi does indeed relinquish his powers, by attempting to override Egypt's court he has already set a precedent for abusing the system of checks and balances that most experts agree is necessary for a successful democracy.
Many people think Morsi has far overstepped the boundaries of his position as president of a supposedly democratic country. Do you agree? Furthermore, people around the world saw Mubarak's defeat in Egypt's revolution as a sign of future democracy for the country. Yet it seems that Egypt is headed for yet another autocracy. What do you guys think - can Egypt attain democracy?
4 comments:
This is very interesting. I do believe that it is easier to set up a democracy with one man leading it. As we see in the United States, the system of checks and balances and the quota of votes we have to reach makes the process of change too slow. I find his actions logical and hope he truly wants to better his country.
It's certainly not the first time that a leader has made a claim to hold great power "temporarily." History has shown us that, more often than not, these leaders are crossing their fingers behind their backs when they make such promises. In the 1970s, Pinochet decided to rule for around a decade until democracy was restored in Chile. After riots broke out against his militaristic regime, he generously agreed to only remain head of armed forces (granting the presidency to someone else) "until at least 1998, after which he would become "'senator for life.'" Perhaps Morsi's claims are genuine, but I for one am skeptical.
I feel that the Egyptian people aren't standing up for themselves well enough. If they truly want a democracy then they should take their rightful place as the dominating power. they can't let another leader come in and overpower them. As democratic citizens they should reserve the right to overthrow anyone who tries to grab power as Morsi has tries. It is up to them whether or not the transition succeeds.
In democratic societies, I believe that leaders are allowed to exercise unbalanced powers/privileges under times of extreme circumstances, but I'm not sure if this necessarily constitutes itself as one of those moments... Egypt certainly needs to gain a more stable and structured government, but as to whether Morsi's "abuse of power" is really only temporary or necessary, we'll just have to wait and find out.
Additionally, I do think Egypt can attain democracy, but it will require more of a mutual trust between the citizens and the government. As things are right now, there's still a lot of resentment on both ends and the likelihood of a democratic community emerging soon seems unlikely. If only people could get along...
Post a Comment