The dispute between Egypt's new President, Mohammed Mursi, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and the Supreme Constitutional Court over the dissolution of parliament has raised questions about where power lies in the country.So who really has the power in Egypt? Think about what power is, and where it comes from, before you answer that question. Also, is there anything the US could do to steer Egypt towards a more democratic course?
It seems that the true power is directed towards the Scaf; essentially, the guy with the guns. The other forms of government, such as the parliament, courts, and president, do have "power" in the sense that they have a say in public policy, but they do not have the -final- say, which is the property of the Scaf. The US could offer some sort of economic incentive in order to steer Egypt towards a more democratic course; however, the US is under no obligation to get directly involved, especially within the context of military action, and should, for the most part, let Egypt take care of Egypt.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Council of Armed Forces are the ones who hold the most power. Although legislative power belongs to both the government and the People's Assembly, the military council issued a constitutional declaration giving itself legislative and judicial power to give themselves the ability to decide what the law is. President Mursi does intend to challenge for power, the military council are the ones who make the laws and have the power to enforce them. - Jeremy McMillan
ReplyDeleteThe military holds the majority of the power after all they control a massive portion of the Egyptian Government. It is likely that the elite of the military are enjoying such power and may not want to give it up so easily. In my opinion the US should simply stay out of Egyptian affairs at for the time being.- David Kramer
ReplyDeleteI believe that the military holds the majority of the power. The military has all of the guns and the soliders. A government can not perform without the cooperation of the military. When the military turns on a leader, than the leader normally does not remin in power. For example, when Qaddafi was abandoned by the Libyan military, he had no other weapons. The military protects the government and without a military, the government is exposed and brutally vulnerable. -Ashlyn Coleman
ReplyDeleteI believe that the military has the power because power the the ablility to affect and prevent outcome and,as Machiavelli said, it is better to be feared than loved. The military and their weapons inpsire fear in the population and therefore also imspire obedience. However most people support the president and given the recent revolution we cannot underesitmate the power of the people. However only when the military turned again President Mubarak did the revolution begin winning, so I believe the power lies in the military.
ReplyDelete-Feddi
Good use of Machiavelli.
DeleteWithout a doubt, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces holds the power in Egypt as of now. Why? Because they are the ones that have the weapons and may be very dangerous. However, a large group of people is in favor of the President, and the Lower House of Parliament, which is also in their favor. I would like to quote Machiavelli, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must", (hopefully nobody will suffer), but I would say that the SCAF has the power. It is complicated because they both have two totally different perspectives.-Ces Escobedo
ReplyDeleteAlso good use of Machiavelli.
DeleteI think I'm going to go with the crowd here and give the power to the SCAF. Now, typically I'd say that military tribunals in power are typically a bad thing, in Egypt's case, it may be just what they need. If I recall correctly, many of the armed forces were trained and supplied by the United States, and the military leaders appear to be significantly more moderate than many others in power, even if Mursi claims to be moderate (although I don't know how true this is after some of his statements, although maybe that's just shows how reactionary the Muslim Brotherhood may be).
ReplyDeleteGood point about the US training.
DeleteI am in agreement with the general consensus. The military, as of recent, holds all of the power in Egypt. In my opinion, Egypt right now is masquerading as a democracy. Sure, they elected a President, but he is not daring to go against the daunting military counsel. The counsel dissolved parliament, conveniently announced that they have legislative power, and is keeping the President on a very short leash. As to U.S. involvement, I agree with John. We should not get involved.
ReplyDelete-Sasha Galbreath
DeleteI think this again is another example of how the United States and its allies believe that democracy is simply an injection that can be given to any country regardless of its past and it will function flawlessly. Time and again, this is wrong (Iraq, Vietnam etc.) These countries are not ready for democracy yet because the military obviously does not want to give up control. From the start, the Allies should have dissolved the military and then made democratic elections under NATO military supervision.
ReplyDelete-Ben Shemony
Although there have been times in which the US was very successful in imposing democracy: Japan, Germany, Panama, Grenada, etc… Just something to think about.
DeleteOf course, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces holds the most power as they can influence the other entities the most through force. There is nothing stopping them from threatening to kill Mursi or the Constitutional Court. However, as long as they don't actually exert their power against them, Mursi probably has more power than the Constitutional Court as he has the support of the majority of the people. The US should also stay out of Egypt as long as they can - currently the government isn't completely unstable. Only if and when the government completely dissolves should the US even consider any action.
ReplyDeleteI, too, see the Scaf as the ultimate ruling body in Egypt right now. Power is derived from many places, and it seems the Scaf wields power from all of them. They have control over the resources (because of their ability to use force), the ability to instill fear in the population, and the ability to affect change in the population through brute force. No matter how the legislative bodies or Mursi decide to go about establishing a democratic order, the Scaf will always be able to override the decisions, both legally (because of the veto power in the constitutional writing process) and through force until the Scaf declares loyalty to the president and the legislature. As for US influence or involvement, it seems unlikely that anything a foreign sovereign power could do now would help the situation. Aside from public urgings in the democratic direction and faith in a liberal theory, the rest of the world will probably have to sit back and wait as Egypt develops its own form of government.
ReplyDeleteThe SCAF does hold all of the authority with which to allow a constitution to be formed, and for Egypt to become a true republic, But it is unlikely that they will endeavour to totally retain all of this power. The Egyptian people have shown a willingness to rise up against a totalitarian power before, and with neighbouring countries such as Libya who have successfully overthrown their governments. And would therefore likely be favourable to the Egyptian people (as Tunisia did for the Libyans). This gives the Egyptian people a substantial amount of power in this situation. Power the SCAF would be silly to ignore.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Simon. Obviously Egypt is in a transitional state right now, to use the the word tumultuous wouldn't be overreaching. What happens when a faction of the Egyptian people disagree with the constitution SCAF writes? Will there be another rebellion? My guess is that loyalty in Egypt lies with President Mursi and his cabinet, not with SCAF (though it seems they hold most power at the moment). In this way, the people hold the most power in the long run, but for the short term who knows?
ReplyDeleteGood point. I'm sure that people thought Mubarak would stay in power because of army's power, but obviously history proved them wrong. The collective power of the population may be strong enough to keep the SCAF in check.
DeleteI'm with Simon and Ali. To say that the miltary/SCAF is in power now does not necessarily mean that it will be some ways away from now. The people in Egypt have indeed proved that they are capable of an uprising-they are capable of getting together and fighting for what they want and against what they do not want. Like Ali said, if a constitution is written by SCAF, just because they have claimed that power now does not mean they will hold it. In fact, they haven't even acted on their power yet, which may or may not show hesitance. Either way, there were riots when there was supposed corruption in the ballots and it was a possibility that one of Mubarak's associates would come to power. There will be struggles for rights by the Egyptians who want it, and we can only hope it won't get violent. Overall, Egypt IS in a transition period- things are rough and unclear and there is a lot to be worked out, but I believe Mursi will come out with the power (we can't be certain of what that will mean for Egypt's future). The United States should not do anything right now in terms of pushing democracy- they need to let Egypt's affairs take their course without intervention for now.
ReplyDeleteDespite attempts to equalize power in Egypt, I believe that most of the power belongs to SCAF. This is evident through their influence of levels of the Egyptian government. SCAF influences the president as most of President Mursi's power will come from SCAF, including the choosing of the Defense Minister and Legislative authority. The influence of SCAF in Parliament is seen as SCAF dissolved the People's Assembly. To remedy this situation the U.S. could intervene and oversee the government of Egypt, but would we want another Iraq on our hands?
ReplyDelete