I don't know what's more sad, that he got 92% of the votes because he barred his opponents from running, or that he still ONLY got 92% despite barring his opponents from running...
How is it possible to get only 92% if you're the only one running?
There was one other guy who was running, but he was a former Sisi supporter who didn't really put up that much of a fight. Also in the article:
According to the Al-Ahram newspaper, in addition to 23 million who cast valid votes, 2 million spoiled their ballot papers.
An "election" where the only competitor not purged from the ballot is a weak and entirely token opponent.
If I was handed a ballot like that I can't guarantee I wouldn't piss all over it instead of marking it with a pen.
That or I just wouldn't even show up, and hope everyone else thought like me, so the election can be denied legitimacy. It doesn't matter how high your victory margin is if you can only claim an electoral mandate from like 40% of the country.
Fortunately turnout was just barely over 40% so all is well
You can't lose an election if there's no other candidates!
Might as well bring back the Mamluks for fuck sake...
Arab spring vol 2 please.
Why, so some other Egyptian general has a shot at dictatorship?
Why do you think that's the endgame I meant?
Do elaborate in a long post please.
I think the only two countries in the middle east for the past 80 or so years that experienced decent democracy is Israel and Jordan, of which Jordan has only been a constitutional monarchy for a relatively short time and that the king still has a large amount of power.
Countries that never experienced democracy, like Egypt that went from dictatorship to dictatorship, have an incredibly difficult time transitioning to one. At times, impossible.
It feels like 'what makes democracy work/not work?' is the big question of the 2010s. It started with the Arab Spring and has continued through shifts toward illiberalism across the world
I'm just wondering how democracy managed to work in America at first.
I remember hearing about the alien and sedition acts which were some tyrannical stuff.
Does a democracy just need to last long enough with few abuses to be stable? We don't need to restrict voting to landowners right?
Democracy grew in the US because it had a long history of democratic processes during its colonial years. The king would appoint governors, but because of the massive distance in communication, Parliament could not pass every single law for the colonies, so they developed their own colonial assemblies. It was sort of like a constitutional monarchy, with the royally appointed governor working with the elected assembly. Because of that, it was easy to transition to a full democracy.
Arab states do not have this process going on. Some tried to go straight from king to democracy, but with coups and presidents-for-life coming to power, the people with no historic memory of democracy, went back to the status quo autocracy.
You see the same thing happening in Russia, as well.
You're hilarious.
Dud, what
yeah i am really peeved. every time i look in a dictionary less than 300 years old and the entry for ideals is blank
Oh boy, look who congratulates him
Trump congratulates Egypt’s Sissi after what critics call a sham..
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.