Why Egypt action is not a military coup

  • Article
  • Updated: July 7, 2013 - 9:59 PM

The Egyptian military was essentially helping the people impeach a president in the absence of a means to do so.

  • 9
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 9 of 9
pumiceJul. 7, 1310:36 PM

From the article: "[T]he military was an extension of the will of nearly 33 million Egyptians who have explicitly indicated they have lost confidence in their leader but lacked any mechanism to act on that sentiment." What constitutes "lacking any mechanism to remove their leader"? According to the BBC, "[T]he draft constitution [which was rushed through by a constituent assembly dominated by Islamists and boycotted by liberal and left-wing members], fail[ed] to protect the freedoms and human rights that [the Egyptians] sought in the uprising that ended [Hosni] Mubarak's rule last year.... [President Morsi] push[ed] through a text that favours Islamists and does not sufficiently protect the rights of women or Christians... Sharia remains the main source of legislation."

Moreover, in November Morsi issued a decree granting himself sweeping new powers and stripping the judiciary of powers to question his decisions. Seven of Morsi's 17 top advisers have resigned since then. As the article explains, the military did not stage a coup--that is, the military did not "assume power," but has "defer[ed] to the rule of law, installing the chief justice to serve as an interim president until new elections are held."

8
3
jdlellis1Jul. 8, 13 7:56 AM

Surely this is in jest! The military announces a suspension of the Constitution and elections will be held soo and a temporary (puppet) President is installed! I'm perplexed by the mere concept that this was not a military coup. Who ousted the President, the Girl Scouts!

4
7
tandem2002Jul. 8, 1311:10 AM

Of course it's a military coup! When the military overthrows a democratically elected government and installs a head of state of their choice, it is definitionally a coup d'etat by the military. It matters not at all to this if they install a a military person as the head of state, but only that they control who is installed. . It also doesn't matter if Morsi was Satan incarnate. ALL coups are justified on the basis of the failure of their target to properly govern. One does not have to defend Morsi to defend popular sovereignty, nor to recognize that the assumption of power by military force is not a democratic mechansim for change of regime. . This silly nonsense is little more than an effort to put lipstick on a pig.

2
5
jgmanciniJul. 8, 13 1:38 PM

Morsi certainly isn't be the first elected leader to turn himself into a dictator, and he, unfortunately, will not be the last. The signs were clear that he was headed in that direction. For how long were the Egyptian people supposed to wait to stop him? Until he started rigging elections so he kept winning? Until he had outlawed elections outright? Or until he had just become a copy of Mubarek? It doesn't really matter what you call it, the military and the Egyptian people did the right thing.

3
2
bik4u62Jul. 8, 13 3:48 PM

I can't decide: a) only a sweeping power-grab like Morsi's could wrestle control away from the generals, and only a military coup could stop him. b) Morsi was simply committed to putting the Muslim Brotherhood in control.

2
1
tonyrozyckiJul. 8, 13 5:27 PM

Of course it's a coup. Obama just wants to reduce the economic gap between the US and his brothers in Muslim Africa.

0
5
tonyrozyckiJul. 8, 13 7:39 PM

It sure sounds like a coup, but the bigger issue is why did American taxpayers have to support the coup that overthrew Mubarak in the first place. Obama and his supporters have been sneaky and/or naïve. Some are sneaky and many are naïve. Also what gives the US the right to arbitrarily overthrow relatively law abiding governments in the first place. Especially when anyone with some common sense and knowledge of the international scene should know the alternative would likely be worse than what we paid to overthrow.

0
3
luzhishenJul. 8, 13 7:47 PM

Stay off the streets after nightfall...no groups larger than three allowed...stop for inspection...and remember, this is the will of the people.

0
0
tonyrozyckiJul. 8, 13 9:40 PM

There are two definitions of a coup. One is a brilliant stroke. The other means the same as coup d'état which means a violent overthrow of a government. Impeachment has a different meaning, typically without violence. The current situation in Egypt involves violence and lots of deaths. Hardly impeachment all you Obama fans.

1
3
  • 1 - 9 of 9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT