Fox news is reporting that President Obama has ordered a review of foreign aid to Egypt as a result of the ouster of Mursi that was assisted by the Egyptian military.
Here is what the article quotes as a statement from President Obama:
I now call on the Egyptian military to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an inclusive and transparent process, and to avoid any arbitrary arrests of President Morsi and his supporters.
In addition, the article says:
In a carefully worded statement, Obama said he was “deeply concerned” by the military’s move to topple Morsi’s government and suspend Egypt’s constitution.
I wonder if perhaps Obama’s concern is more for the democratic process than it is for democracy itself. If so, it would seem fitting, as not so much as a ray of sunshine can separate Obama and Mursi in their concept of what makes a democratic leader legitimate. In fact, I doubt Obama even understands what went wrong with Egypt’s first experiment with democracy.
I happen to be entirely behind the liberal coalition that participated in the ouster of Mursi. From the moment Mursi was elected, without any constitutionally defined powers of the office, he sought to fill the power vacuum according to his own vision of the way things ought to be, heedless of being president for the entire country.
I did a post on the Egyptian constitution, the one drawn up by the constitutional convention that Mursi moved to “stack” with members of his party, last year. I would be shocked and surprised if good democrats were not entirely enraged by it because it amounted to nothing but theocracy with a democratic façade, with clerics having the ability to override the parliament. Parliament is the power of the people and should never be messed with.
Moreover, Mursi and his coalition seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the basic purpose of government; a purpose to protect basic rights of citizens regardless of affiliation. If its main purpose is to impose religious order it is impossible to protect natural rights, even if paid lip service in constitutional documents. As a result, we saw the merciless, violent ravaging of religious minorities under Mursi, without so much as even machinations toward an investigation or prosecution.
Mursi may have been democratically elected, but it seems to me that what he delivered was far from the vision of the people. And my assumption is that the ouster of Mursi is democracy in action in the absence of a legal process by which to remove leaders who believe simply winning an election once equates to legitimacy.