World lets Egypt down by not condemning Brotherhood crimes

[pdmlynek]

I can't agree with that point. Ok, Morsi was democratically elected, but to be honest, what choice did the voter have - he/she was between a rock and a hard place. Shafik was Mubarak's man through and through, so a vote for him would be a vote for the bad old days. Or so it was thought. After a year or so of Morsi, the voters could see their mistake - the cronyism, the appalling ineptness of his government, such that another 4 years of his reign would make Egypt a total basket case, rather than the partial one it is now.
...

The fact that there was not much of a choice at the ballot box: that is very common. Even in democracies that have existed for generations, let alone in a brand new democracy. Maybe the next time the people will get a more palatable choice.

Regarding that there was cronyism, appalling ineptness: this is to be expected in any brand new democracy. It happened (and is still happening) to some degree in the former Iron Curtain countries. It is naïve to think that a switch from an autocratic regime to a democracy will be easy, without bumps on the road.

Regarding the fact that some people thought it was a mistake to elect Morsi: many voters become disillusioned with their candidate when he/she gets into the elected office. But so what? This does not give the dissatisfied electorate a mandate to overthrow their government.

[LivinginLuxor]

"This does not give the dissatisfied electorate a mandate to overthrow their government."

I would argue that it does. My quote from the US declaration of independence sums the situation up perfectly!

[Stevepj]

"This does not give the dissatisfied electorate a mandate to overthrow their government."

I would argue that it does. My quote from the US declaration of independence sums the situation up perfectly!

Trouble is Stan it leads to chaos and Civil War. Many in the Confederacy in 1861 regarded secession as a second American revolution and it lead to the deaths of 620000 of their countrymen.

[Stevepj]

The founding fathers were overturning the rule of a Parliament and a head of state they had not elected from 3000 miles away. NOT a President they had democratically elected two years earlier. I think that is the crucial difference.

[LivinginLuxor]

Yes, they were - and were being taxed without being represented in Parliament. But that does not alter the general applicability, some may say truth, of the opening sentence.