Egypt's conundrum: An uncertain transition
The critical conundrum facing Egypt cannot be understated.
Barely one year after Egypt democratically elected its first president, the military, supposedly at the behest of “the people,” deposed Mohamed Morsy. It didn't quite rise to replacing the ballot with the bullet but the implied threat therein was close enough to hoist giant red flags over Egypt's future.
Indeed, Mr. Morsy had become a train wreck. His piquant flavor of politics was all Muslim Brotherhood. Despite initial promises of “inclusion,” Egypt rapidly was being turned into an Islamofascist state. Religious law trumped the fundamentals of natural law and trampled secular groups. And the Egyptian economy tanked further.
Yes, the military has installed an interim, nonmilitary leader, Judge Adly Mansour, the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court (though for all of 48 hours), pending new elections, yet to be set. Whether Mr. Mansour is a marionette for the military remains to be seen. As does the question of whether the Brotherhood will revert to the terroristic ways it renounced to gain popular support.
But the bigger question for Egypt is the future of electoral legitimacy. What's to prevent the military from simply deposing the next democratically elected president should “the people” — or it — deem the successor unworthy?
A positive sign was that the day after Morsy's Wednesday deposing, the Egyptian people, while not celebrating, appeared to go about their business as normal.
But normalcy cannot long endure governmental and electoral instability.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- James Foley, 1973-2014: Fighting on
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Islamic State threat: Lessons from 9/11