Can Military Governments be a good thing (for a while)?

[Firn]

I was going to write the same thing. They seem to have decided to keep a relative low profile - if it can be called that way - and avoided the usual arrests.

We will see.

I was completely right, they only took a great deal of key members into costudy. Morsi is still a free man, so far.

Egypt's new military rulers have arrested the Muslim Brotherhood's supreme leader, security sources say, and issued warrants for up to 300 other members hours after ousting the elected president, Mohamed Morsi, and taking him and his aides into military custody.

The day after a momentous night in Cairo has revealed the full extent of the military overthrow, with key support bases of the Muslim Brotherhood, including television stations, closed down or raided.

Security officials told the Associated Press and Reuters that the Brotherhood's supreme leader, Mohammed Badie, was arrested in a coastal city near the Libyan border on Wednesday and flown to Cairo in a military helicopter.

The Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad said he could not confirm the reports because the group had lost their lines of communication to Badie.

@jmm99: Cui bono indeed?

Morsi certainly was elected in a quite democratic fashion but selected to ignore a good deal of that democracy as a sort of fading fashion. Shame on him. Religion alone does in any case not sort out the economy of a country. It is of course impossible to tell how much the last years in government have weakened the brotherhood and how much strenght they can win from this coup.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Being a military man, I would like to think that the military that understands its role as a servant of the country (however you define THAT term), can step in when the alternative is a decent into civil war. There has to be other options.

I wonder if things had been different in Syria had the military not sided with Assad. I realize that is fantasy, but it begs the question of when the military has a duty to protect the population, even from its own government.

I take an oath to the Constitution, and then to the President and the Officers appointed over me. I prefer to think that, in other parts of the world, military men think the same way. I realize this has shades of "Starship Troopers", but reality can be stranger than fiction.

[Firn]

Looking at my sig there have been indeed some cases, where a quicker execution of what the intellect dictated would have saved first the one of democracy and later the very own.

... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935

Thankfully Europe today is a different continent despite the big crisis. Mr Bunga bunga and a mad Magyar.

[Fuchs]

The question shouldn't be if something is "good", but whether it's the least evil option which is available and realistic.

One can hardly think of Stauffenberg et al and not think that there are at least exceptions when a coup by or with the military is better than the status quo.


In most potential military coup scenarios it's better to keep the military in the barracks - especially if a civil war is a possibility. There isn't going to be much of a civil war if the military stays in its barracks. The threshold for the launch of a civil war by dissenters is typically so high that the government couldn't stem it with police forces alone.
Countries with lots of tribal institutions, paramilitary forces, access to foreign forces or domestic warlords are obviously exceptions to this. Soon, countries with a very much hardware-supported police state may be added to this list of exceptions.

[jmm99]

Pro re militari.

Regards

Mike

[ganulv]

Morsi certainly was elected in a quite democratic fashion but selected to ignore a good deal of that democracy as a sort of fading fashion.

Even so, does that justify removing him from office in an illegal manner? I feel like one of corollaries of adopting a democratic system is accepting that voters are going to make the wrong decision at times.

Religion alone does in any case not sort out the economy of a country.

As painful as it would have been for the people of Egypt to let the Morsi stagnation continue, I have to believe that with enough time many of his supporters would have come to accept exactly what you are saying. (Not all of them would have, admittedly. I’m an American. I know that ideology can blind people to facts. )

Al-Qaeda has been saying for years that democracy will never give an Islamist party the opportunity to succeed. Whatever favors the Egyptian military may have just done for their country’s economy may have been matched by the favors done for Al-Qaeda.

It is of course impossible to tell how much the last years in government have weakened the brotherhood and how much strength they can win from this coup.

I did a short post on my blog [LINK] questioning whether ‘coup’ is the best word for what happened in Egypt. I’m not saying that I know the right word, just that I suspect that coup might not be it.

[davidbfpo]

This thread posed a general question before recent events in Egypt and a separate thread is about to be started on the developing situation in Egypt. The title is 'Egypt: has the Spring ended?'

A number of the posts here on Egypt will be moved to the new thread.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Dave, how is Cromwell's "coup" remembered in British civil and military history?

[davidbfpo]

Dave, how is Cromwell's "coup" remembered in British civil and military history?

Most history of this period is called 'The English Civil War' and Cromwell's later coup against an elected, Puritan parliament although recorded was not widely known today. It certainly featured in the 1970 film 'Cromwell':http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065593/

This changed when the story of 'The Levellers' became part of a new interpretation of populism and revolutionary aspects of English history, allied with part of the fringe around the 'left':https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

Amidst that difficult time it is important to note and taken from a review of a play in 2012:

It tells the story of the 55-day military coup in the mid-1600s when Cromwell's army took control of Parliament and moved to put King Charles I on trial for treason.

Link:http://www.theweek.co.uk/theatre/497...-military-coup

Context can provide a better answer sometimes; I cite a review of a new 2012 book on Cromwell:

The main theoretical premise of his book, The Noble Revolt, is to put forward a view of the Civil War as basically a coup d’état by a group of nobles or aristocrats who no longer supported the King. According to Diane Purkiss these nobles were ‘driven by their code of honour, they acted to protect themselves and the nation. Names such as Saye, Bedford, Essex and Warwick move from the side-lines to occupy centre stage, as do their counterparts among Scottish peers. It was they and not the rude masses who plucked a king from his throne. Oliver Cromwell, for Adamson, was merely one of their lesser lackeys’.

Link:http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1254

An article in an Egyptian e-paper actually refers to Cromwell's coup!http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/0...-coup-de-quoi/

Incidentally I doubt that the syllabus at RMA Sandhurst or any other military training place includes this period. We have had other coups too, such as 'The Glorious Revolution':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

[TheCurmudgeon]

Us young colonists lack the context of your history. Most of what I know from that time is from a series of books by Quentin Skinner "The Foundations of Modern Political Thought". In that book i remember some quotes from other military men finding the acts of the King to be against the rights and honor of an Englishman. There is quite a bit about the Levellers and other similar groups in Europe, particularly the Dutch republics. It makes interesting reading for those who think that the idea of individual human rights have always existed but were simply repressed by the European monarchs since time immemorial. The Romans have no history of human rights.

So when I look at places like Egypt today it is easy for me to see shades of Europe circa 1650. That is a simplistic view, but I think there are lessons that can be learned from the machinations that Europe went through before stabilizing politically in the 1950s.

[Bill Moore]

This is a very complex topic and the answer on whether or not military governments can be a good thing is very much situational dependent, which in my opinion means the West more often than not should sit back and count to 10 very slowly before they start issuing demands for the military to transition to civilian rule, which is our general default response based on our principles, but to demand a rapid transition without understanding the overall context invites serious and enduring problems.

Externally sponsored military coups are almost always, if not always, a bad option. Military coups sponsored/supported by an external power (usually a state) have been perceived as amoral (rightfully so) and have generally resulted in ineffective and eventually failed governments. In the case of the U.S. sponsored coups, those efforts more often than not resulted in longer term harm to our interests than any short term benefits gained. Hopefully the era of coup making by via external support or intervention is coming an end as a desirable option, but if you believe that the press reports represent reality then it seems this is just wishful thinking.

When we look at Egypt it appears to be an internally motivated military coup with no outside support to the military visible, but of course that doesn't mean they weren't encouraged and supported in various ways by any number of state actors. However, for purposes of debate lets assume it was internal with no external support (intelligence, promises of support, encouragement, financial deals, etc.).

We don't know as much as we think we do. What do most of us really know to be fact? Just because the media excessively covers demonstrations and calls them the will of the people doesn't mean that this media created reality is reality. A camera looks at the world through a soda straw, and media reports can intentionally and unintentionally be very deceptive. We really have no idea if the political activists in the streets represented the majority of the Egyptian people. The media attempted to create the illusion that the 99% movement in the U.S. was supported by the majority, but Americans for the most part were able to see past that attempt to create a media based reality because they had venues other than main stream media to analyze and inform their opinion.

Is the coup legal or illegal? If the sitting government was violating the constitution, could a military intervention actually be legal and desirable? Despite all the negative effects of the military leaving its barracks and getting involved, are there times when a military coup is the lesser of two evils? If the military leaders took an oath to defend the constitution do they have an obligation to intervene if the government is threatening the constitution? There are no easy answers, but as Fuchs wrote this may be simply the lesser of two evils.

Should we push military governments to transition to civilian rule rapidly?

In my opinion it depends, which means we shouldn't have a policy where we automatically disengage because we don't like the smell of the military lead government.

- Does a viable constitution exist which would provide the basis for a civilian government to "rapidly" assume control within an accepted legal structure? If it doesn't, simply holding a flash election will result in little more than mob rule under the guise of a democratically elected government (Iraq for example, and maybe the MB in Egypt?).

- If we're dealing with a nation whose borders were created by European colonists that resulted in an irrational state with a population deeply divided among ethnic lines is it possible to develop a truly functioning democracy (instead of a façade) to begin with?

- Why did I default to democracy when discussing civilian led governments? Is it really the best system in all states? Do we confuse our view of legitimacy with what the citizens of another nation perceive as legitimate? Do we too often exceed our level of understanding of a nation-state and incorrectly push inappropriate solutions based on the U.S. (and West's in general) view of the world? More importantly is our foreign policy making us more or less popular in the world? Seems to me we already lost considerable influence throughout much of Latin America by attempting to push our agenda. In a multipolar world nations realize they have other options than partnering with the U.S., but I'm not sure our foreign policy community has grasped that fact yet.

I took the long route to the bottom line, but in some rare cases I suspect a military led government "could" be better than some other options. Even if it isn't better, once one exists, we need to slow our roll before we demand a rapid transition to civilian rule. In many cases returning a legitimately elected government that was illegally ousted by the military is absolutely the right thing to do, but not all cases are that simple.

Assuming Bashir's government eventually falls in Syria, do we really think the ethnic killing will stop while an interim civilian government develops a new constitution and prepares for elections? Perhaps it is more reasonable to think that a military coup and interim military government will be necessary to stop the projected continued mass blood letting, and only after the massive ethnic killing stops and some degree of order is imposed, should an interim civilian government form?

I don't have any idea what the right answer is, but I do know our simplistic approach based on our desire to rapidly install a civilian government too often fails.

[carl]

Even so, does that justify removing him from office in an illegal manner? I feel like one of corollaries of adopting a democratic system is accepting that voters are going to make the wrong decision at times.

That corollary works in a country where the voters can reverse their mistake when the next election comes around. If they elect a 'one man, one vote, one time' outfit that opportunity will never come. That is when certain armies step in, as in Algeria and Turkey. The world would have been a lot better off if the Heer had stepped in in 1933.

Al-Qaeda has been saying for years that democracy will never give an Islamist party the opportunity to succeed. Whatever favors the Egyptian military may have just done for their country’s economy may have been matched by the favors done for Al-Qaeda.

I don't think doing things so that AQ can't say 'gotcha' is a winning game. No matter what happens or happened they would always say it is somebody else's fault and they should run things. After all Allah is on their side. Just ask 'em.

[slapout9]

I posted this article on another thread but it pertains to this as well. Saudi King says to support the Egyptian Army! Excellent article.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/saudi-king-...151611137.html

[TheCurmudgeon]

On the BBC News yesterday, Professor Rosemary Hollis was interviewed and remarked that 33% of the Egyptian economy is owned by the military.

This offers another interesting perspective. If the major problems in the company are economic and if the military has experience in business, does this not provide another argument for the military?

[davidbfpo]

Two contrasting, but similar commentaries. The first is by a Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan and has some telling passages, like this:

There is no such thing as a good coup, only bad coups and worse coups. All military regimes, in time, become tawdry and self-serving. Whatever intentions the army officers begin with, they end up as petty tyrants. An elected ruler is kept in check by the knowledge that he can be fired. Take that knowledge away and, however pure his motives, he will end up arranging the affairs of state around his personal convenience.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ntentions.html

A BBC Newsnight commentary, four minutes or so, which gives a very quick overview of 'Egypt crisis: Does political Islam have a future?':http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23736446

[davidbfpo]

This offers another interesting perspective. If the major problems in the company are economic and if the military has experience in business, does this not provide another argument for the military?

Somehow I have m' doubts that a serving or retired Egyptian soldier has excellent commercial acumen, more likely via the state apparatus he'd have an "insider's track" on investments, such as a property development. In a wide-ranging critique from the 'left' Nick Cohen commented:

To add robbery to murder, it has built a military-industrial complex that keeps Egyptians poor by preventing new businesses competing with the elite monopolies it controls.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-west-response

[TheCurmudgeon]

Somehow I have m' doubts that a serving or retired Egyptian soldier has excellent commercial acumen, more likely via the state apparatus he'd have an "insider's track" on investments, such as a property development.

Perhaps, but there is something out there called the Dictatorial or Autocratic Advantage. It basically states that a central government that is actively involved in creating wealth for the nation through nationalistic policies does a better job of raising the economic standings of all citizens then do democratic governments. It is common now to attack this idea and you will find dozens of papers that claim that no such advantage exists or that it is vastly over-stated, but none-the-less Nazi Germany and China both gained prosperity over a limited periods of time with a combination of private enterprise and state participation.

In addition there are many countries where the military funds itself through private endeavors (I believe the Philippines is one). That means that they have an understanding of business and profits, something most democratic governments do not ... and failing economics is oft cited as a reason for rebellion.

So I would still argue that, under the right conditions, a properly motivated military may be better able to right a failing economic ship then a fledgling democracy.

[jmm99]

Starting with the Egyptian Army and its "grip" on the economy, the title says it all, Egypt military fights for macaroni, as well as security - Estimates of the Egyptian military's share of the country's economy range from 5% to 40% and its hands reach into many industries, including mining, real estate, farming and the production of household appliances (USA Today, 17 Aug 2013).

5% would make it a significant, material factor in the economy; 40% would make it an oligopolist, heading toward effective monopoly control. Which is the more factual case ? I don't know.

Then we have Gen. al-Sisi; for whom, we have two original source documents - the first, this year; the other in 2006: Excerpts from Washington Post interview with Egyptian Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi; and Democracy in the Middle East (US Army War College, 2006).

Based on these (and other sources), we have two opinions that Gen. al-Sisi is an "Islamist":

Sisi's Islamist Agenda for Egypt - The General's Radical Political Vision (Foreign Affairs, Robert Springborg, July 28, 2013).

Why Egyptian Putschist General Al-Sisi’s Anti-Secular U.S. Army War College Thesis Matters (Andrew Bostrom, 10 Aug 2013).

Portrait of the General as a Not-So-Young Grad Student: Egypt's army chief isn't an Islamist -- in fact, his work at the U.S. Army War College suggests he may be a Mubarak clone (Foreign Policy, Eric Trager, 7 Aug 2013).

and these are just a sampling of divergent pundits.

Attached are pp.14-15 of al-Sisi's War College thesis (only 17 pages total). Based on his 2006 comments, I'd tag him as a moderate Muslim - though not a secularist. I see more than a little bit of Nassar in al-Sisi (the "masses", a Middle East "EU"; focus on Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen).

Regards

Mike

[ganulv]

That corollary works in a country where the voters can reverse their mistake when the next election comes around. If they elect a 'one man, one vote, one time' outfit that opportunity will never come. That is when certain armies step in, as in Algeria and Turkey. The world would have been a lot better off if the Heer had stepped in in 1933.

It’s often an apples-to-apples comparison, since military governments tend to leave at their own leisure, as well.

In retrospect, the Heer unseating Hitler would probably have made the world a better place. But the Allies’ reparations scheme and U.S. foreign policy toward Hitler’s government might also have been effective.

I don't think doing things so that AQ can't say 'gotcha' is a winning game. No matter what happens or happened they would always say it is somebody else's fault and they should run things. After all Allah is on their side. Just ask 'em.

I’m not saying AQ aren’t the bad guys. But just because they say something doesn’t make it wrong, either.