• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has been released from prison

donsutherland1 said:
That’s not correct.

In Message #16 in this thread, you objected with Hosni Mubarak’s becoming President on grounds that the Parliament speaker should have become acting President and that an election should have been held within 60 days after the vacancy in the office of President occurred.

In Message #18, I provided excerpts from news stories indicating that the constitutional requirements were fulfilled:

• The Speaker of Parliament (Sufi Abu Taleb) assumed temporary responsibilities as President on October 6, 1981 (the day President Sadat was assassinated).
• Hosni Mubarak was elected President on October 13, just 7 days later (well within the 60-day requirement).

Article 84 of the 1971 Constitution, which was in place at the time states:

In case vacancy of the Presidential office or the permanent disability of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the People’s Assembly shall temporarily assume the Presidency; and, if at that time, the People’s Assembly is already dissolved, the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall take over the Presidency, provided, however, that neither shall nominate himself for the Presidency, subject to abidance by the ban stipulated in paragraph 2 of Article 82.

The People’s Assembly shall then proclaim the vacancy of the office of President. The President of the Republic shall be chosen within a maximum period of sixty days from the day the Presidential office becomes vacant.

State Information Services Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 1971

Let’s take a closer look:

In case vacancy of the Presidential office or the permanent disability of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the People’s Assembly shall temporarily assume the Presidency…

Fulfilled. Speaker Sufi Abu Taleb temporarily assumed the Presidency on October 6.

and, if at that time, the People’s Assembly is already dissolved, the President of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall take over the Presidency…

Not applicable. Parliament had not been dissolved at the time the vacancy occurred.

… neither shall nominate himself for the Presidency…

Fulfilled. Speaker Sufi Abu Taleb did not seek the Presidency. Notice also the language about nominating authority. That authority is limited only as it relates to the Speaker’s seeking the Presidency. Nothing in that Article or elsewhere states that Parliament is barred from nominating the President.

The People’s Assembly shall then proclaim the vacancy of the office of President…

Fulfilled. The vacancy was declared on October 6 when the Speaker temporarily assumed the responsibilities.

The President of the Republic shall be chosen within a maximum period of sixty days from the day the Presidential office becomes vacant.

Fulfilled. The election was held on October 13, seven days after the vacancy had occurred.

Nothing in Article 84 or elsewhere in the constitution prohibits Parliament’s nomination of a President. The Constitution does prohibit certain things and does so expressly (prohibition on the Speaker’s seeking the Presidency). Indeed, Article 84 solely restricts the Speaker’s being nominated, meaning that Parliament has nominating authority that is limited only with regard to the Speaker. Given Mubarak’s role of Vice President and his increasing role as emissary for President Sadat in that capacity, he was the logical choice. His becoming President fully met the constitutional requirements set forth in Article 84.
Click to expand...

You are missing the key point where the Parliament appointed Mubarak as President prior to the election which was unconstitutional at the time.

You can keep claiming it was legal but it simply wasn't the election was held as an informal process due to the appointment of a President already that we put in power and turned into another dictator who suspended the constitution as one of his first acts in office.
 
When will we finally admit that that culture, that religion, that part of the world, is not capable of democracy?

A peaceful dictator is about all we can hope for.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
You are missing the key point where the Parliament appointed Mubarak as President prior to the election which was unconstitutional at the time.
Click to expand...

Nynaeve,

I'm not missing the point. Whatever one thinks of President Mubarak (and I believe his legacy is a mixed one), he assumed office in a fully constitutional manner.

The news articles from that time make unequivocally clear that Parliament nominated Mubarak for the Presidency. It did not appoint him as acting or interim President. Instead, the Speaker assumed responsibility as acting President between the time of President Sadat's assassination and Mubarak's being sworn into office after having won the election.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Nynaeve,

I'm not missing the point. Whatever one thinks of President Mubarak (and I believe his legacy is a mixed one), he assumed office in a fully constitutional manner.

The news articles from that time make unequivocally clear that Parliament nominated Mubarak for the Presidency. It did not appoint him as acting or interim President. Instead, the Speaker assumed responsibility as acting President between the time of President Sadat's assassination and Mubarak's being sworn into office after having won the election.
Click to expand...

They had no right to nominate/appoint him as President at all.

Erod said:
When will we finally admit that that culture, that religion, that part of the world, is not capable of democracy?


A peaceful dictator is about all we can hope for.
Click to expand...
If we'd keep our noses out of the area for more than 50 years I'm sure it could easily happen but that 1950s of the US MCarthyism has pretty much ruined that for us.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
They had no right to nominate/appoint him as President at all.
Click to expand...

Nothing in Article 84 prohibits Parliament from doing so. The only prohibition is limited to the nomination of the Speaker, who assumes acting President responsibilities, for the Presidency. That's fact.

If we'd keep our noses out of the area for more than 50 years I'm sure it could easily happen but that 1950s of the US MCarthyism has pretty much ruined that for us.
Click to expand...

I disagree. In my opinion, setting aside U.S. (not to mention, Soviet) activities in the area during the Cold War, one can't automatically make that assumption. Structural factors (historical experience, demographics/sectarian rivalries, culture, institutional setting, among many other internal variables) shape the environment. The environment has not been hospitable to democracy (liberal Western-style representative governance). The kinds of governments that have arisen or evolved are no accident. Even without a U.S. or Soviet role in the region during the Cold War, one probably would not have seen sustained democratic governance.

The Bush Administration embraced a naïve assumption that authoritarian leaders were the reason democratic governance did not exist. Hence, it assumed that regime change in Iraq would lead to democracy and its post-war planning reflected that assumption. That didn't happen. The Iraqi government is evolving steadily in the direction of an illiberal one albeit with elections. Iran has a similar kind of government, highly illiberal with elections. Afghanistan, has a different structural framework. There, governance has traditionally been centered at the tribal level. There, the central government continues to have enormous difficulty exerting jurisdiction outside of Kabul and areas where the Pashtun tribe is the predominant group (President Karzai's tribe).

The Obama Administration made a similar error. It correctly concluded that regime change would not automatically bring democratic rule. Where it erred was in assuming that populist uprisings against authoritarian regimes are democratic in nature. In many cases, be it Bahrain (put down by the Gulf Cooperation Council), Syria, etc., what one has witnessed is suppressed ethnic majorities seeking to topple minority-led authoritarian governments. A shift to majority rule does not automatically assure democratic governance. More than likely, one would witness new illiberal governments where the majority rules and minority influence is eroded. Deposed President Morsi had embarked on a course of accumulating ever more power and, had he remained in office, would very likely have evolved into an authoritarian-style ruler under which Egypt's non-Islamists (we're talking about political Islam, not non-Muslims) and religious minorities (namely the Coptic Christians) would have been largely shut out of a meaningful political role.
 
Erod said:
When will we finally admit that that culture, that religion, that part of the world, is not capable of democracy?

A peaceful dictator is about all we can hope for.
Click to expand...

I don't know that you are 100% correct. But I'm pretty sure of it.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Nothing in Article 84 prohibits Parliament from doing so. The only prohibition is limited to the nomination of the Speaker, who assumes acting President responsibilities, for the Presidency. That's fact.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree, there is nothing that grants the power of appointing a Presidential Nominee via the Congress, it wasn't agreed on by the political parties at the time other than who was in their Parliament. I'd be no different than if Rand Paul was appointed President by the Congress and then an election was held to "confirm" his appointment without any one else stepping forward (IE not fair representation of the political parties). It doesn't matter how many of the people "voted" for someone if he is the only one running due to how fast people appointed a President.


donsutherland1 said:
I disagree. In my opinion, setting aside U.S. (not to mention, Soviet) activities in the area during the Cold War, one can't automatically make that assumption. Structural factors (historical experience, demographics/sectarian rivalries, culture, institutional setting, among many other internal variables) shape the environment. The environment has not been hospitable to democracy (liberal Western-style representative governance). The kinds of governments that have arisen or evolved are no accident. Even without a U.S. or Soviet role in the region during the Cold War, one probably would not have seen sustained democratic governance.
Click to expand...
We have never left that region alone in the past 100+ years. There hasn't been a time period where we did not interfere with their daily if not weekly operations. If you can name a time frame I'd be happy to take a look at that period of history(Specifically of Egypt anyway).

The one time they were left to their own devices they had a republic type government; IE Roman/Greek rule

Funny how has been over 2000 yrs and the western world still somehow thinks they need to control the rest of the "developing" countries for their "own good".
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
I completely disagree, there is nothing that grants the power of appointing a Presidential Nominee via the Congress, it wasn't agreed on by the political parties at the time other than who was in their Parliament. I'd be no different than if Rand Paul was appointed President by the Congress and then an election was held to "confirm" his appointment without any one else stepping forward (IE not fair representation of the political parties). It doesn't matter how many of the people "voted" for someone if he is the only one running due to how fast people appointed a President.
Click to expand...

Nynaeve,

I looked into the matter in even greater detail. Technically, Mubarak was nominated by the National Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP was established in 1976 (National Democratic Party – Egypt's Transition). Parliament approved that nomination unanimously. No news accounts speak of any other nominations. The unanimity of support for the Mubarak nomination also indicates that all of Egypt's political parties rallied around then Vice President Mubarak.

Here's what Article 76 of the Constitution states:

The President shall be elected by direct, public, secret ballot. For an applicant to be accepted as a candidate to presidency, he shall be supported by at least 250 elected members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level, provided that those shall include at least 65 members of the People’s Assembly, 25 of the Shura Council and ten of every local council in at least 14 governorates.

The number of members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level supporting candidature shall be raised in pro rata to any increase in the number of any of these councils. In all cases, support may not be given to more than one candidate.

Procedures related to this process shall be regulated by the law.

Political parties, founded at least five consecutive years before the starting date of candidature and have been operating uninterruptedly for this period, and whose members have obtained at least 3% of the elected members of both the People’s Assembly and the Shura Council in the latest election or an equivalent percentage of such total in one of the two assemblies, may each nominate for presidency a member of their respective higher board, according to their own by-laws, provided he has been a member of such board for at least one consecutive year.

The October 7, 1981 edition of The Washington Post reported, "Mubarak was... immediately nominated by the ruling National Democratic Party as its presidential candidate." (David B. Ottaway, "Sadat Assassinated at Military Show," The Washington Post, October 7, 1981.

Parliament unanimously approved that nomination. That gave Mubarak support far in excess of the Article 76 floor.

We have never left that region alone in the past 100+ years. There hasn't been a time period where we did not interfere with their daily if not weekly operations. If you can name a time frame I'd be happy to take a look at that period of history(Specifically of Egypt anyway).
Click to expand...

I referenced the Cold War era simply because you referenced the 1950s. My point about structural factors does not change.

The one time they were left to their own devices they had a republic type government; IE Roman/Greek rule
Click to expand...

Even that form of government did not resemble today's western-style democracies. Moreover, that example is so far back in the historic experience that it has little impact on the structural dynamics that today shape Egypt and the region as a whole.

Funny how has been over 2000 yrs and the western world still somehow thinks they need to control the rest of the "developing" countries for their "own good".
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification. Yes, the British cited a "civilizing mission," among other arguments during the colonial era. However, one was dealing with many other factors, i.e., the balance of power, mercantilism, etc.

All nations act to protect their interests. Where major interests are involved and where they have sufficient power (individually or through alliances), they will intervene to safeguard those interests. The Mideast, on account of its oil, is an area where many outside nations have a major interest as it relates to the free passage of oil through the Persian Gulf. Hence, if a hostile actor, let's say Iran in a hypothetical scenario, tried to block shipments of oil through the Persian Gulf, the U.S., among other great powers, would almost certainly use military force to smash the blockade. Failure to do so would allow Iran, in this hypothetical situation, to inflict enormous harm on a global basis. No rational nation in a capacity to act would willingly subject itself to such harm.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
Nynaeve,

I looked into the matter in even greater detail. Technically, Mubarak was nominated by the National Democratic Party (NDP). The NDP was established in 1976 (National Democratic Party – Egypt's Transition). Parliament approved that nomination unanimously. No news accounts speak of any other nominations. The unanimity of support for the Mubarak nomination also indicates that all of Egypt's political parties rallied around then Vice President Mubarak.

Here's what Article 76 of the Constitution states:

The President shall be elected by direct, public, secret ballot. For an applicant to be accepted as a candidate to presidency, he shall be supported by at least 250 elected members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level, provided that those shall include at least 65 members of the People’s Assembly, 25 of the Shura Council and ten of every local council in at least 14 governorates.

The number of members of the People’s Assembly, the Shura Council and local popular councils on governorate level supporting candidature shall be raised in pro rata to any increase in the number of any of these councils. In all cases, support may not be given to more than one candidate.

Procedures related to this process shall be regulated by the law.

Political parties, founded at least five consecutive years before the starting date of candidature and have been operating uninterruptedly for this period, and whose members have obtained at least 3% of the elected members of both the People’s Assembly and the Shura Council in the latest election or an equivalent percentage of such total in one of the two assemblies, may each nominate for presidency a member of their respective higher board, according to their own by-laws, provided he has been a member of such board for at least one consecutive year.

The October 7, 1981 edition of The Washington Post reported, "Mubarak was... immediately nominated by the ruling National Democratic Party as its presidential candidate." (David B. Ottaway, "Sadat Assassinated at Military Show," The Washington Post, October 7, 1981.

Parliament unanimously approved that nomination. That gave Mubarak support far in excess of the Article 76 floor.
Click to expand...
Of course they did, they were bribed to do so with the 200B+ in aid. That is what I'm opposing to, we have no idea who else may have stepped forward had we not bribed their government with "military aid". The entire election of Mubarak was a joke and rigged from the beginning.

donsutherland1 said:
I referenced the Cold War era simply because you referenced the 1950s. My point about structural factors does not change.
Click to expand...
Cold War era not withstanding it doesn't excuse us from playing "civilization" in the Middle East, using people as our "experiment" to see if a dictator works. Clearly as history has shown us over and over, I'd think we'd know better. Apparently freedom only means freedom for those who meet our approval. Imagine if Great Britain had decided to influence our elections during the 1800s instead of letting us choose for ourselves?

donsutherland1 said:
Even that form of government did not resemble today's western-style democracies. Moreover, that example is so far back in the historic experience that it has little impact on the structural dynamics that today shape Egypt and the region as a whole.
Click to expand...
No it didn't, but it was still closer to a republic than what we have today. Regression is not in the best idea of a nation.

donsutherland1 said:
That's an oversimplification. Yes, the British cited a "civilizing mission," among other arguments during the colonial era. However, one was dealing with many other factors, i.e., the balance of power, mercantilism, etc.

All nations act to protect their interests. Where major interests are involved and where they have sufficient power (individually or through alliances), they will intervene to safeguard those interests. The Mideast, on account of its oil, is an area where many outside nations have a major interest as it relates to the free passage of oil through the Persian Gulf. Hence, if a hostile actor, let's say Iran in a hypothetical scenario, tried to block shipments of oil through the Persian Gulf, the U.S., among other great powers, would almost certainly use military force to smash the blockade. Failure to do so would allow Iran, in this hypothetical situation, to inflict enormous harm on a global basis. No rational nation in a capacity to act would willingly subject itself to such harm.
Click to expand...
So basically, screw the other countries and lets do what we want, where we want, when we want? Never mind the fact we were left alone to develop or fail on our own for nearly 150+ yrs, we don't get to do the same for other countries now?
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
Of course they did, they were bribed to do so with the 200B+ in aid. That is what I'm opposing to, we have no idea who else may have stepped forward had we not bribed their government with "military aid". The entire election of Mubarak was a joke and rigged from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Mubarak was Vice Chairman of the NDP and Vice President. President Sadat was the NDP's Chairman at the time of his assassination. Mubarak was the logical NDP nominee, both in terms of his position within the NDP and his position in office.

Apparently freedom only means freedom for those who meet our approval. Imagine if Great Britain had decided to influence our elections during the 1800s instead of letting us choose for ourselves?
Click to expand...

The structural factors are not solely external. The region's political evolution is the result of internal and external factors and arguably the former are stronger. If not, the political outcome in Iraq, for example, would have become what the U.S. hoped it would (a liberal democracy).

No it didn't, but it was still closer to a republic than what we have today. Regression is not in the best idea of a nation.
Click to expand...
Suffrage and political participation were greatly limited.

So basically, screw the other countries and lets do what we want, where we want, when we want? Never mind the fact we were left alone to develop or fail on our own for nearly 150+ yrs, we don't get to do the same for other countries now?
Click to expand...

I'm making no such argument. I am stating that nations act to safeguard their interests. In a hypothetical case, let's say there are two countries. One of the countries lies upstream and decides do dam or divert a river for its own purposes (agriculture, energy, etc.). The downstream country relies on the river for most or all of its fresh water. The diversion or damming of the river would create extreme hardship in the downstream country. The "non-interference" principle and respect for sovereignty would suggest that the downstream country should accept the situation, even if the upstream one refuses to accommodate it. It is difficult to suggest that this is an ethical response.

Realism would suggest that given the magnitude of the national interest involved, if the downstream country had sufficient power or could assemble an alliance with sufficient power, it would use that power to prevent the damming or diversion of the river, even if that meant war. That's the way things work. Moreover, although that outcome would violate the sovereignty of the upstream country, at least in my opinion, it would be the far more ethical choice.

If the actions of the other country were limited to those with a minor adverse impact, the impacted country would not resort to the use of force. Notice, I focused on major interests. Peripheral interests do not rise to that level. Hence, I am not suggesting that unlimited interference takes place, much less arguing in any fashion for unlimited interference.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Mubarak was Vice Chairman of the NDP and Vice President. President Sadat was the NDP's Chairman at the time of his assassination. Mubarak was the logical NDP nominee, both in terms of his position within the NDP and his position in office.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change a thing since it was bribed to begin with. I don't see why you are so casual about us pulling the strings on another nation that has nothing to do with our "oil" supplies. We don't even get most of our oil from the Middle East.
donsutherland1 said:
The structural factors are not solely external. The region's political evolution is the result of internal and external factors and arguably the former are stronger. If not, the political outcome in Iraq, for example, would have become what the U.S. hoped it would (a liberal democracy).
Click to expand...
Mostly external thanks to our interference throughout that region in the past 100 years.
donsutherland1 said:
Suffrage and political participation were greatly limited.
Click to expand...
More so than it is today, which is saying something. You know its bad when slaves in Egypt back in 3500BCE had more rights than current citizens do. At the whim of any country you have us supporting dictatorships and military coups.
donsutherland1 said:
I'm making no such argument. I am stating that nations act to safeguard their interests. In a hypothetical case, let's say there are two countries. One of the countries lies upstream and decides do dam or divert a river for its own purposes (agriculture, energy, etc.). The downstream country relies on the river for most or all of its fresh water. The diversion or damming of the river would create extreme hardship in the downstream country. The "non-interference" principle and respect for sovereignty would suggest that the downstream country should accept the situation, even if the upstream one refuses to accommodate it. It is difficult to suggest that this is an ethical response.

Realism would suggest that given the magnitude of the national interest involved, if the downstream country had sufficient power or could assemble an alliance with sufficient power, it would use that power to prevent the damming or diversion of the river, even if that meant war. That's the way things work. Moreover, although that outcome would violate the sovereignty of the upstream country, at least in my opinion, it would be the far more ethical choice.

If the actions of the other country were limited to those with a minor adverse impact, the impacted country would not resort to the use of force. Notice, I focused on major interests. Peripheral interests do not rise to that level. Hence, I am not suggesting that unlimited interference takes place, much less arguing in any fashion for unlimited interference.
Click to expand...
You are right, lets bomb the crap out of the upstream country till it can't build the dam instead. That's a smart choice.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
We(the US) bribed their government(Egypt) when Sadat died with military "aid" to the tune of 200+B/yr to appoint him as President.

He was not supposed to be President when Sadat was assassinated.
Click to expand...

Military aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion, not $200 billion. Egypt's Islamic Jihad was apparently responsible for Sadat's assassination, and Mubarek, who was also wounded, was Vice President at the time. Who did Islamic Jihad plan to put into the presidency if not the vice president, and how, exactly, is the fact that the Vice President ascended to the presidency after the assassination "proof" that the USA put him there? Isn't the point of a vice president under Egyptian law to take the office of President in case of the president's death?


Edit: Never mind, donsutherland is providing all the answers I was seeking. You're still wrong about the annual foreign aid to Egypt, though. :)
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Military aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion, not $200 billion.
Click to expand...


You are correct. Egypt has not received $200 billion in U.S. aid. The Congressional Research Service published a report that includes aid figures. Those figures appear on p.9 (p.12 of the .pdf).

Total aid between 1948-2011: $71.6 billion
Annual military aid 1987-present: $1.3 billion per year

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
You are right, lets bomb the crap out of the upstream country till it can't build the dam instead. That's a smart choice.
Click to expand...

If you're the leader of the country whose people face their destruction, you do what it takes to survive. Leadership is not a mutual suicide pact. There's no nation that, if confronted with the hypothetical extreme situation I provided, would simply choose to submit and perish. No nation would put another's sovereignty and the principle of non-interference ahead of its own survival. None. The idealism that requires such a choice does not exist in any human society. If it did, aggressor nations would exploit it to its limits and the world would be a vastly worse place.
 
donsutherland1 said:
If you're the leader of the country whose people face their destruction, you do what it takes to survive. Leadership is not a mutual suicide pact. There's no nation that, if confronted with the hypothetical extreme situation I provided, would simply choose to submit and perish. No nation would put another's sovereignty and the principle of non-interference ahead of its own survival. None. The idealism that requires such a choice does not exist in any human society. If it did, aggressor nations would exploit it to its limits and the world would be a vastly worse place.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with your scenario as its more like the US is 3rd party and the upstream and downstream countries already agree on a solution but the US doesn't like it and bombs the crap out of the upstream anyway, because that dam would affect us in a strictly non-tangible way.
 
DiAnna said:
Military aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion, not $200 billion. Egypt's Islamic Jihad was apparently responsible for Sadat's assassination, and Mubarek, who was also wounded, was Vice President at the time. Who did Islamic Jihad plan to put into the presidency if not the vice president, and how, exactly, is the fact that the Vice President ascended to the presidency after the assassination "proof" that the USA put him there? Isn't the point of a vice president under Egyptian law to take the office of President in case of the president's death?


Edit: Never mind, donsutherland is providing all the answers I was seeking. You're still wrong about the annual foreign aid to Egypt, though. :)
Click to expand...
I was wrong about the amount, we still bribed them.
 
He is hardly "free". He is very ill and under house arrest. He aint saving no one in Egypt.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
The problem I have with your scenario as its more like the US is 3rd party and the upstream and downstream countries already agree on a solution but the US doesn't like it and bombs the crap out of the upstream anyway, because that dam would affect us in a strictly non-tangible way.
Click to expand...

My scenario was a hypothetical one for illustrative purposes. I wanted to point out that there are limits to how far one can go with respect to principles of non-interference and sovereignty when it comes to practical considerations. Of course, to the extent possible (when a country's critical interests are not threatened), those principles should be respected. That was my point.
 
donsutherland1 said:
My scenario was a hypothetical one for illustrative purposes. I wanted to point out that there are limits to how far one can go with respect to principles of non-interference and sovereignty when it comes to practical considerations. Of course, to the extent possible (when a country's critical interests are not threatened), those principles should be respected. That was my point.
Click to expand...
We have yet to do that with the Middle East, that was my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom