(no subject)

[randomness]

Last week's military action in Egypt makes it clear that the following rule is in effect there:

If there are mass protests, then the military gets to decide what happens next.

There are many countries in which that rule applies now or did in the past. For example, Thailand: In 2008, one political faction put thousands of protesters into the streets and occupied the main international airport in the country. When ordered to remove them, the military refused. After some maneuvering, the government fell. Two years later, a different political faction put thousands of protesters into the streets and occupied the central business district in the capital. When ordered to remove them, the military declared a live fire zone and assaulted the encampment with armored vehicles. The government stayed in power until the next election.

In my opinion, this is not a great rule for a country's politics to have.

Comments

[cos]

I don't think your stated rule is accurate, and I think if you think about it some more you'll see it as even a little dishonest, for the sake of making a point. There have been mass protests a few other times in Egypt in the past few years when the military did not take over; some of those actually went the other way: they were protests that happened while the military was in charge that got them to cede some power. So when you say "if there are mass protests" you're making a glib yet misleading claim, IMO. While what happened is troubling, if your claim were true that would be significantly more troubling.

What spooked the military this time, I think, is when it became obvious that either the Morsi government was going to turn into an Islamist dictatorship (he was moving that way as rapidly as he could), or there would be large scale civil war (the more likely possibility). Whether what they've done will prevent both of those things from happening is an open question, but that's a different matter. What prompted the military to take authority (decide what happens next) was not "there are mass protests" in and of itself, but the inevitability of one of those two possibilities if they didn't do so.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

You misinterpret what I say, and your words prove my point:

"There have been mass protests a few other times in Egypt in the past few years when the military did not take over; some of those actually went the other way: they were protests that happened while the military was in charge that got them to cede some power."

I said:

"the military gets to decide what happens next."

In 2008 in Thailand, the military refused to act. This is also a decision: one not to intervene. As you say, there were other times when the Egyptian military did not intervene. The Thai military has also ceded some power at various points in recent history. The point (and the rule I state) is that they get to decide whether or not to participate as a political actor, and that mass protests are a useful indicator.

I distinguish Egyptian and Thai politics on the one hand, where the military arrogates to itself the right to intervene in politics, and on the other various societies where civilian control over the military is clear. This is what I mean by "the military gets to decide what happens next". If it was heretofore unclear that the Egyptian military claimed this right--and I will admit that to many people this was quite evident--they removed all doubt after their intervention.

I object, btw, to your claim of my being dishonest. You're welcome to take your comments elsewhere if you think so.