Stirring the pot ...
I often feel that political scientists and the military rely on history a bit too much which causes us to have convictions in the way we think that are undeserved. As we watch events unfold in Egypt I would like to reopen the conversation on whether military coups are ever a good thing. I will start with two thoughts:
Madhu points out that, as a civilian, the idea of the military talking about military coups potentially being a good thing is scary. His apprehension is not without merit. Without referring to history I will say that the military is hampered in its ability to deal with a population. Our natural inclination is to use coercion first – up to and including deadly violence.
To Madhu’s point I offer Fuchs and Bill’s counter-point: was a military coup the lesser of two evils. If no one stepped in would Egypt have descended into a civil war with the kind of unrestricted violence seen in Syria? Is it better to have a Leviathan keeping a lid on sectarian hatred until new social norms can be established? If the military backs down now (or is forced to back down by internal or external forces), will unrestricted violence be the inevitable result?
Let’s be clear, I am not talking about external intervention – this is strictly between the Egyptians. But the question and the answers should not be limited to this one situation. Egypt provides a backdrop. At the risk of sounding crass it is an ongoing social experiment. There are other strings that deal specifically with this situation.
Now, while events unfold, without the benefit of hindsight, what are your thoughts?
Bookmarks