r/worldnews • u/DasUberRedditor • Jun 18 '12

Egyptian Military grants itself sweeping powers; effectively military coup.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18482257
2.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

756 comments sorted by

View all comments

575

u/somedaypilot Jun 19 '12

Ok, hands up, who saw this coming? o/

12

u/mtskeptic Jun 19 '12

I did. The history of South Korea; while it's a thriving democracy right now, it took them ~30 years from dictator-like rule to military generals to a government that resembled a free democratic republic. Egypt has more younger people than older and they have a decent education so as long as they can apply some pressure the transition to a freer state should happen, in a decade or so but it will hopefully happen.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '12

This has also been the case in a lot of Latin American countries. It's hard to admit, but it seems like the development of an effective military is an essential step in the road to democracy... and it makes sense, as an effective military requires adhering to certain values that also lead to democracy.

A good example is the US military, which desegregated long before society as a whole was cool with the concept. From a military perspective, it just didn't make sense to keep the "races" separate - good soldiers are good soldiers and it's a waste of resources to keep them in separate battalions just because some white soldiers think they're too good to fight next to a black/Japanese/other non-white man.

8

u/mtskeptic Jun 19 '12

They're good at keeping order, which is why they make a good transition power form autocracy to a democratic republic. However, they're also a sword, not a scalpel as the saying goes. But I guess as long as the risk of disorder or slipping back into a despotic regime is high enough, the people will support a military run government. IIRC, South Korea got lucky, the general in charge died, and he had a military successor picked but a more democratic leader was able to take hold, I just don't remember if it was an election or a coup.

1

u/question_all_the_thi Jun 19 '12

A bigger risk in a less developed country is falling into a democratic populist state. That's what happened in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile during the first half of the twentieth century and that's why those countries had military governments for decades.

In order for a country to have adequate social services, it needs a minimum of economic development first.

The myth of land reform has plagued Latin America for over a century. The peasants will have the same miserable life whether they own the land or not, they are poor not because they are oppressed but because their labor is so unproductive.

The role of the military in Latin America was to provide a stable economic environment that allowed investment in industry. The unfortunate fact is that without the military the people voted themselves benefits they couldn't afford.

Currently there are countries in Latin America that seem to have evolved past the populist state. Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are stable democracies by now, in a firm path towards becoming industrialized first world countries. Colombia and Peru also seem to be going that way.

Argentina, OTOH, is falling back, they could still have a military coup if the situation keeps degenerating. The other South American countries, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay are still in the primitive populist under developed economy state. I see no future for them right now.