Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Question 61953, for reference.

A number of problems with this answer, especially from our resident expert apparent (where's Foreman the geography major when you need him?)

First off, the statement that strengthening ties with Israel is a good thing is very myopic. This deserves paragraphs in and of itself, but suffice it to say that Israel is one of the most caustic presences in the middle East, and strengthening ties is not one of the best ideas for regional stability. Second, I'd like to point out that the tabloid rumors of theft have been stated as wildly exaggerated by a number of sources; the actual figure is probably a lot closer to $3 billion.

The Muslim Brotherhood is another association that causes question. Under Mubarak, any sort of political party was considered treasonous; so this was one of the only ones that existed as it was protected under the guise of a religious, not political organization. So to say that it was the most influential political faction is intensely misleading; it was one of the only political factions and has polled support around 10%, putting it just ahead of say, the U.S. libertarian party in terms of political influence.

For all the bad things one could say about Mubarak, I'm surprised what the writers chose. "Curtail(ing) freedom of assembly" although accurate, does not really represent what happened, which was the dissolution of political parties and usurping of democratic processes. It is very hard to have a democratic voice when there is one name on the ballot.

It also ought to be pointed out that Mubarak was a U.S. ally, hence why American support was so hard to come by for Egyptian revolutionaries. To say that the U.S. supported the revolutionaries as being pro-democracy is almost as wrong headed as to say that the U.S. supported pro democracy movements in south and central America. It wasn't quite as strong-handed in the middle east as it was down there, but certainly the support of Mubarak allowed him to stay in power far longer than otherwise would have been possible.

Lastly, although I'm sure there's more issues that I had with these answers, I'd like to point out that the changes in oil prices is in reality due to Libyan civil war, not the transfer of power in Egypt. Egypt does not export oil in any significant fashion.

I thought the change in oil prices was become some banks are hoarding it?

Whistler wrote:I thought the change in oil prices was become some banks are hoarding it?

Mmmmh, that's an intermediate reason. Libya accounts for a small percentage of world oil production, but the oil that it does produce is good quality and used for making jet fuel, hence it can scare some into thinking there will be a significant price jump in the near future. This fear causes speculation on the futures markets, and this speculation drives up current prices. But the root reason is still civil war in Libya.

Just as a side note, I had written my answer in February, before the Libya revolts were really in full swing. Dr. Smeed sat on the question for some time...

In any case, I'm interested to hear your take on the Egyptian revolt, Marduk. Do you think it will descend into another dictatorship, or do you think a "better" democracy will arise?

I am not Marduk, but since you asked, I don't think that the current leadership will be overthrown unless someone on the outside does something about it. Unlike Mubarak and company, the Libyan regime seems to have no qualms about massacring its citizens to maintain power.

For this reason, I'm skeptical that order will come of the chaos even if the current government is deposed; after so much violence, the country will be in a state of disarray no matter what.

There's a number of ways to approach this question, but lets just go with the tried-and-true pro/con list.

Pros to Egypt having a successful democracy:

1. Freedom of the press. This can't be underrated in a democracy, and Egypt has one, or at least, closer than most of the surrounding Arab and African states.
2. Capable beauracracies. This really can't be underestimated. The day to day tasks of any government are not done by elected officials, they are done by the beauracracies, and Egypt has a capable system. Everything from business licensure to customs to marriage is done by a system that is efficient and (mostly) incorrupt.
3. An informed and educated youth. Revolution and nation rebuilding is a young man's game, and the same protesters that took to the streets to oust Mubarak have good ideas about how to change things.
4. A diverse and robust economy. Wealth allows people to remain educated, and pursue politics. It is hard to discuss the merits of political issues when one's belly is empty. Egypt has one of the best economies in that area, and to boot it also is
5. Not dependent on income from oil. A big cash crop allows a ruling class to skim a lot of the top, inviting corruption and strong and oppressive rule. Egypt has (almost) no oil to speak of, which makes it less tempting. I'm not saying a dictator couldn't become corrupt by skimming money, it is just less likely. I mean, it took Mubarak 30 years to skim $3 billion. That's peanuts to a dictator in an oil-rich country.
6. A history of populous rule. It has much better history with human rights and free speech than any of the surrounding area.
7. A populace not afraid of protest. When asked about the possibility of returning to autocratic rule, or possible oppression by the emerging or interim government, many Egyptians stated, in effect, that they had overthrown one government and had no qualms about overthrowing another.

Cons to having a successful democracy:

1. A powerful and well respected military. Strong militaries are not friendly to emerging democracies; it certainly is possible that the military which has national support will continue to hold onto power.
2. Laws hostile to Christianity and women. There is a strong voice to change this, but change is hard to accomplish, and keeping down segments of the population makes democracy more difficult.
3. Ok, some oil. While not huge producers like the surrounding areas, they do export some oil, and with oil comes money, and with money comes the possibility of corruption. It is just less of an export than say, Libya.
4. Religious hostilities. When politics turn religious, nobody wins. In Egypt it is often Christians versus Muslims, and when each side believes it has moral superiority, it is hard to come to compromises. Compromise is the name of the game, and unless this hurdle is overcome, one religion will inevitably opress the other.


I'm sure there's a lot more I missed, but the signs point to an improvement over the previous government. Not sure how long it will take; it really depends on the capability of the military to give up power, and that emboldened youth to establish and maintain a system of government more capable of inclusion than the previous one. If this generation sufficiently ages before that can be accomplished, the next generation might not be so keen on these changes.

This guy explains the situation pretty well. Although he isn't talking about Egypt specifically, what he says has application there.

It is in three parts, but if you watch the first part, it should transition to the next automatically.

Prince Zeid Ra'ad interview

Marduk,

I don't know a lot about Egypt, so I can hardly predict the future there. However, NPR's Planet Money makes a good casethat Egypt's military is a key part of the possibility of reform. Why? The military is not just a fighting force—it owns lots of businesses, and the people of Egypt are its customers. Really weird situation.

I'm sorry to disappoint your hopeful attitude, but there's one strong argument to be made here against rising democracy in Egypt.

..."rising" democracy?

*doesn't get the joke, otherwise*

Oh man. I don't know if there's anything to get (if there is, I missed it). I just love seeing an angry man with bread sticks on his head and using that as an argument. I have been laughing pretty hard at this.

Edit: really, every time I scroll back to that picture I just start laughing so hard.