Egypt’s liberal political parties say the US is intervening in the country’s presidential elections and trying to sway results in favor of the ruling military council and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The accusation comes after weeks of turmoil and confusion about who actually won the first post-Mubarak presidential elections. Former Mubarak Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq is now rumored to win over the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohamed Mursi.
But many fear election results have been fiddled with by corrupt electoral authorities and the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF). The liberal parties are unhappy with both front runners.
SCAF has usurped new powers, disqualified leading presidential candidates, given itself sweeping control over the budget and drafting Egypt’s new constitution, and has moved to dissolve the newly elected parliament.
The U.S. is still sending billions of dollars in aid to Egypt and continues to arm the military rulers, even as they have brutalized peaceful protesters and inhibited a swift return to civilian rule.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the military “support the democratic transition, to recede by turning over authority.” But these words are no more meaningful than when they were uttered in previous administrations, when ‘spreading democracy’ was talked about in the midst of propping up dictators like Mubarak.
“After the disbursement of US military aid (by the administration exercising its waiver) in 2012,” writes Egyptian journalist Issandr El Amrani, “the lack of strong reaction to the Egyptian military killing over 150 protestors and imprisoning thousands more during 2011–2012, and the lack of strong reaction to the complete perversion of the transition process (especially in the last week), I don’t think you can say the Obama administration has taken a pro-democracy position on Egypt.”
Liberal Party — Cannot see, those beneath their dignity
The liberal parties have a perfect right to complain, as only represent the lower half of society, the uneducated and impoverished laboring-class that barely survive on $3 a day.
But then, Egyptian liberals like USA liberals, they knowing that my laboring-class has always been kept powerless by poverty, knowing that not so fool as waste time voting for our next set of dictators is we who labor, they say not a word about minimum wage and act like the laboring-class did not even exist.
The US interfere in another country's elections? No, that can't be true! Isn't the US a force for good around the world, and scrupulously follows the rule of law?
law of their jungle………….
"Washington still harps on about support in democracy, even as it does exactly the opposit."
Thank you Anti-war for talking truth to evil power.
Its absolutely impossible and absurd to believe that a politician from Chicago would ever do anything like try influence the vote count of an election.
Look at the Arab countries that are all allies of the US. They are the worst anti-democratic regimes in the world. Birds of a feather flock together. The US just bullshit about democracy and human rights, but does not believe in it. Look at its two-party system that in reality limits people's choicse and the fact both paries are elected by the 1% to protect their interests.
The 'US' taking a 'stand' and promoting "democracy" in other nations, solely for the sake of promoting a form of government, not only defies logic and common sense–it also flies in the face of human nature…so I'm not entirely sure why it is some sort of 'shock' or 'surprise' to some that the US would not do this–despite the BS talking points one may hear (which are also fully expected) To add onto this: BS talking points from the "lame-stream" exist in the US now, as they did the past, as they will continue in the future. BS talking points also exist in North Korea. Why is it that the "media" in North Korea speak of a "Dear Leader"…instead of a Darth-Vader like figure which will come to kill the people of North Korea if they oppose the regime if the regime solely runs on fear? It would seem like a waste of time and resources (which the NK 'regime' doesn't seem to have a whole lot of at their disposal to frivolously 'waste' relativity speaking) to do this if the propaganda of a "Dear Leader" had no utility… The servile 'lame-stream' exists with "force" or without it….
I view this absurd premise equally, if not more, absurd as Karl Marx's idea that people can get together and promote some sort of "common good"–ignoring human nature….
The so called "liberal parties" in Egypt lost because they lost… Egypt is not the nation politically that these "liberal parties" want them to be… It's that simple…. Mubarak was just as much a product of the "Egyptian people" as the successor will be.
Palestine holds "elections" and Hamas (not 'quite a bastion of individual liberty and "freedom" by any 'stretch' of the imagination) is elected…and even this doesn't dispel the absurd notion of "democracy" having some sort of inherent virtue? What more needs to happen?
Most people won't understand this…I'm sure…but there may be some who might…
Most people just don't seem understand what "democracy" really is in the first place–strangely even people who live in a so-call "democracy" hold onto this fantasy that "democracy" has some sort of inherent virtue–a 'virtue' which is consistent with their own personal normative imperative and/or will result in their desired outcomes… despite the fact it never does… That's the kicker of the absurdity…
The "empire" is just as much an 'outcome' of "democracy" as anything else is…. So???
What "democracy" is, in truth, is a replacement for "war" in some sense–at its 'best' that is… Instead of settling disputes on the battlefield, 'we' do it in the ballot booth to a certain degree. There's more to the US structure than this, but in a certain sense this is what it comes down to in the end… This theoretical "best" outcome of "democracy", meaning a replacement of war to settle 'disputes', doesn't quite 'work' all the time–and only works at a domestic–internal–level.
Ummm…. the USA's most bloody war was the civil war. The only reason we don't fight each other anymore is the federal government became so powerful the people can't fight it anymore without certain slaughter. The oligarchy in the US gained a monopoly on force. That is why there is relative peace internally. Every now and then there is a Waco or a ruby ridge to show the peons who is in charge. It has nothing to do with democracy. LMAO.
Our oligarchs send us to war overseas because they have a powerful military and want to use it to their advantage. As Kissinger said… control the food supply, control the people; control the resources, control the continent; control the money, control the world.
The USA has been to war more than any nation on earth the last century. We are war like people because our rulers have a powerful military and they know they can crush any opposition militarily. Unfortunately for our rulers they are too stupid to see that just people they can crush foreign military forces it does not translate into an easily led client state. They are really struggling with that these days.
I have no idea why you got it in your head that democracy is useful for anything. As Emma Goldman said if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.