• 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!

Founding Fathers Visiting Egypt

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just watching ABC News, and a very interesting report says that Egyptians are taking a serious look at the US Constitution in order to formulate their own Constitution. I have three observations to make here:

1) An Islamic state in Egypt? Forget it. The literacy rate of Egypt is greater than 50%, meaning that fundamentalists don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking control. Even many of those who are illiterate believe that earning a living has greater importance than installing an Islamic theocracy in Egypt. As much as some are attempting to scare us with the Islamic boogeyman here, the fact is that Egypt is not Iran. Not even close.

2) For those America bashers throughout the world, there is a message. Throughout history, America has mostly worked. In fact, America has worked so well that other nations that are throwing off their own yokes of oppression are looking to America as an example of what they can become. Sure, the resulting government probably won't be that close to what we have, but the fact that they are taking guidance from our Constitution is a good start. The beacon of light that America is, while a bit faded, is not broken. People still look up to us, and that makes me even prouder to be an American.

3) Finally, if Egypt wants our Constitution, who am I to deny it to them? Take it, use it, and revere it for what it is, Egyptians. We haven't been using it lately anyways.
 
Last edited:
Some aspects of American government are laudable (as far as I am concerned, our judiciary is second to none), but over long periods of time, parliaments are generally superior legislatures.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Just watching ABC News, and a very interesting report says that Egyptians are taking a serious look at the US Constitution in order to formulate their own Constitution. I have three observations to make here:

1) An Islamic state in Egypt? Forget it. The literacy rate of Egypt is greater than 50%, meaning that fundamentalists don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking control. Even many of those who are illiterate believe that earning a living has greater importance than installing an Islamic theocracy in Egypt. As much as some are attempting to scare us with the Islamic boogeyman here, the fact is that Egypt is not Iran. Not even close.

2) For those America bashers throughout the world, there is a message. Throughout history, America has mostly worked. In fact, America has worked so well that other nations that are throwing off their own yokes of oppression are looking to America as an example of what they can become. Sure, the resulting government probably won't be that close to what we have, but the fact that they are taking guidance from our Constitution is a good start. The beacon of light that America is, while a bit faded, is not broken. People still look up to us, and that makes me even prouder to be an American.

3) Finally, if Egypt wants our Constitution, who am I to deny it to them? Take it, use it, and revere it for what it is, Egyptians. We haven't been using it lately anyways.
Click to expand...

Strange that an Islamic Society would wish to reference a Constitution whose precepts were based upon Blackstone's Commentaries on Law...which in turn was completely based upon Judeo/Christian philosophy.

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir William Blackstone - Constitution, America, Law, Oxford, Bible, Witchcraft
 
Morality Games said:
Some aspects of American government are laudable (as far as I am concerned, our judicial branch is second to none), but over long periods of time, parliaments are generally superior legislatures.
Click to expand...

Right...that is why the United States has been governed in a Republican Fashion as a Constitutional Republic whose standard of calibrating governmental functions is drafted into 8 simple pages and 26/27 following amendments that has served as the Only Authority for close to 250 years, while on the other hand the supposedly superior governments of Europe and Western Civilization have under went on average "6" violent revolutions over the same time period resulting in millions of millions of unmarked graves around the globe. Sounds superior to me....if you learn nothing from history actual, which proves that people are far more efficient when they are self governed with the least amount of Government as possible being necessary.
 
Last edited:
Walter said:
Strange that an Islamic Society would wish to reference a Constitution whose precepts were based upon Blackstone's Commentaries on Law...which in turn was completely based upon Judeo/Christian philosophy.

Commentaries on the Laws of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir William Blackstone - Constitution, America, Law, Oxford, Bible, Witchcraft
Click to expand...

I don't think it's strange at all, when you examine the context on which the Constitution was written. The Constitution does not endorse any religion, or sect, but calls for religious freedom. This statement is backed by hard evidence.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
 
danarhea said:
2) For those America bashers throughout the world, there is a message. Throughout history, America has mostly worked. In fact, America has worked so well that other nations that are throwing off their own yokes of oppression are looking to America as an example of what they can become. Sure, the resulting government probably won't be that close to what we have, but the fact that they are taking guidance from our Constitution is a good start. The beacon of light that America is, while a bit faded, is not broken. People still look up to us, and that makes me even prouder to be an American.
Click to expand...

I don't see it this way. A lot of people have compared the situation in Egypt to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and if we go with that analogy, the USA is equivalent to the Soviets, and the Arabic countries are the equivalent of the Eastern Bloc. This is not Egypt embracing American values, it is Egypt throwing off the shackles of American hegemony.

Walter said:
Strange that an Islamic Society would wish to reference a Constitution whose precepts were based upon Blackstone's Commentaries on Law...which in turn was completely based upon Judeo/Christian philosophy.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem odd at all when you realize that "Judeo-Christian" philosophy is a nonsense term and the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths all belong to the same Abrahamic tradition.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I don't see it this way. A lot of people have compared the situation in Egypt to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and if we go with that analogy, the USA is equivalent to the Soviets, and the Arabic countries are the equivalent of the Eastern Bloc. This is not Egypt embracing American values, it is Egypt throwing off the shackles of American hegemony.
Click to expand...

By using our Constitution? That does not make a bit of sense.
 
Walter said:
Right...that is why the United States has been governed in a Republican Fashion as a Constitutional Republic whose standard of calibrating governmental functions is drafted into 8 simple pages and 26/27 following amendments that has served as the Only Authority for close to 250 years, while on the other hand the supposedly superior governments of Europe and Western Civilization have under went on average "6" violent revolutions over the same time period resulting in millions of millions of unmarked graves around the globe. Sounds superior to me....if you learn nothing from history actual, which proves that people are far more efficient when they are self governed with the least amount of Government as possible being necessary.
Click to expand...

Not a fair comparison. The Civil War and all the political conflict leading up to it illustrates the fragility of our legislative branch. Additional tension was subverted by technological achievements which vastly altered the landscape of the human condition across the world, in a relatively short period of time.

Anyway, if anything, the English Civil War illustrates the strength of Parliaments, since it united a geographically and culturally divided group against a hereditary monarch and won.

Parliaments have a better track record when it comes to building a consensus which represents the full spectrum of political opinions held by a nation's inhabitants while still maintaining effective policies that guard against the encroachments of time. They satisfy both the psychological and economic demands of a democratically-inclined population.

Our Congress would be great if we had learned gentry with strong civil service ethic and a culture which supported them, but a lasting rift between the average American and the Founding Fathers is that the former has very strong populist inclinations.

Populism and Republicanism don't go together. Republicanism imposes heavy demands on the thoughts and behavior of its adherents, whereas populism imposes any demand it wants upon the systems governed by it. Unfortunately, our legislature does not support those demands.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
1) An Islamic state in Egypt? Forget it. The literacy rate of Egypt is greater than 50%, meaning that fundamentalists don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking control. Even many of those who are illiterate believe that earning a living has greater importance than installing an Islamic theocracy in Egypt. As much as some are attempting to scare us with the Islamic boogeyman here, the fact is that Egypt is not Iran. Not even close.
Click to expand...


You must not realize that Iran's literacy rate is close to 20 points higher than Egypt's.
 
danarhea said:
By using our Constitution? That does not make a bit of sense.
Click to expand...

By overthrowing the strong-man that was installed by and supported by the Americans. If the Egyptians should borrow some ideas from our institutions I don't see how that alters the basic nature of this revolution as a rejection of the American-imposed order.
 
Morality Games said:
Some aspects of American government are laudable (as far as I am concerned, our judiciary is second to none), but over long periods of time, parliaments are generally superior legislatures.
Click to expand...

I completely agree; I was just going to say the same thing. Although it makes Americans feel warm and fuzzy to see nascent democrats inspired by our Constitution, I would strongly advise Egypt against adopting a presidential system. This is a very very bad idea for a country with a history of strongmen and military rule. They'd be much better off with a Parliament where power is more diffuse.

I've heard the presidential system described as America's most dangerous export...and for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
You must not realize that Iran's literacy rate is close to 20 points higher than Egypt's.
Click to expand...

...and if the only thing you read is the Koran and associated texts, literacy doesn't help avoid extremism...


... but here's hoping for the best.
 
Morality Games said:
Some aspects of American government are laudable (as far as I am concerned, our judiciary is second to none), but over long periods of time, parliaments are generally superior legislatures.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I like the Separation of Powers that exists in the American system and is largely absent in the Parliamentary system...

There isn't one "right" form of Democracy. Different cultures have different ways of expressing the will of the people, but I do have a preference for the Presidential System...
 
Morality Games said:
Not a fair comparison. The Civil War and all the political conflict leading up to it illustrates the fragility of our legislative branch. Additional tension was subverted by technological achievements which vastly altered the landscape of the human condition across the world, in a relatively short period of time.

Anyway, if anything, the English Civil War illustrates the strength of Parliaments, since it united a geographically and culturally divided group against a hereditary monarch and won.

Parliaments have a better track record when it comes to building a consensus which represents the full spectrum of political opinions held by a nation's inhabitants while still maintaining effective policies that guard against the encroachments of time. They satisfy both the psychological and economic demands of a democratically-inclined population.

Our Congress would be great if we had learned gentry with strong civil service ethic and a culture which supported them, but a lasting rift between the average American and the Founding Fathers is that the former has very strong populist inclinations.

Populism and Republicanism don't go together. Republicanism imposes heavy demands on the thoughts and behavior of its adherents, whereas populism imposes any demand it wants upon the systems governed by it. Unfortunately, our legislature does not support those demands.
Click to expand...

It works in some countries, but Italy and Japan, among others, are notably unstable and regulary change governments. Even England has a rather tricky coalition government right now that has the potential to cause problems there as the term goes on...
 
ludahai said:
It works in some countries, but Italy and Japan, among others, are notably unstable and regulary change governments. Even England has a rather tricky coalition government right now that has the potential to cause problems there as the term goes on...
Click to expand...

Japan has traditionally been very stable. Only within the last 10 years or less has it had any other government then the LDP after WW2 ( short exceptions of course)
 
ludahai said:
I disagree. I like the Separation of Powers that exists in the American system and is largely absent in the Parliamentary system...
Click to expand...

And that's fine...for the United States. It's not so good for fledgling democracies, especially if they have a history of authoritarianism.

ludahai said:
There isn't one "right" form of Democracy. Different cultures have different ways of expressing the will of the people, but I do have a preference for the Presidential System...
Click to expand...

I see no reason to believe that having a president versus having a parliament is a cultural phenomenon, or that Egypt in particular is better able to express the will of the people through one rather than the other. However, there is plenty of reason to believe that the probability of making a successful transition from autocracy to democracy is much better with a parliamentary system.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Japan has traditionally been very stable. Only within the last 10 years or less has it had any other government then the LDP after WW2 ( short exceptions of course)
Click to expand...

1. It is quite rare for a government to last even as long as 18 months. -- 50 governments since WWII is hardly stable...
2. The notion that the LDP dominated government is very misleading as there are many factions within the LDP that have been vying for power, resulting in a highly unstable system in the country.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
It works in some countries, but Italy and Japan, among others, are notably unstable and regulary change governments. Even England has a rather tricky coalition government right now that has the potential to cause problems there as the term goes on...
Click to expand...

And I think most Egyptians would be thrilled if their political system resembled that of Italy, Japan, or the UK. That would be a huge step forward. It's getting there that's the problem. It's a mostly academic debate whether a parliament or a president is better for well-established democracies...but it's a very important and practical matter for countries trying to make the transition, which have a far better chance with a Parliament. If Egypt firmly establishes democracy and it looks like Italy in 20 years...THEN maybe it would be time to consider a presidential system.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
You must not realize that Iran's literacy rate is close to 20 points higher than Egypt's.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And if they had "real" elections there, they'd vote out the theocracy in a heartbeat. But they don't have real elections, and the Iranian army WILL slaughter protesters without a moment's hesitation.

The protesters won in Egypt for one reason, and one reason only: The army refused to fire upon them.
 
Kandahar said:
And that's fine...for the United States. It's not so good for fledgling democracies, especially if they have a history of authoritarianism.



I see no reason to believe that having a president versus having a parliament is a cultural phenomenon, or that Egypt in particular is better able to express the will of the people through one rather than the other. However, there is plenty of reason to believe that the probability of making a successful transition from autocracy to democracy is much better with a parliamentary system.
Click to expand...

Differs with the country. Taiwan and South Korea both have Presidential systems and while both are flawed, they are also relatively stable considering that both are relatively young democracies. But yes, the demographics in Egypt are significantly different from those of South Korea and Taiwan...

I am not a cookie-cutter democracy kind of guy...
 
It's good if they get ideas from the US constitution, my country did, and our system is one of the best in the world (that's non-biased, I swear:mrgreen:). But they should also look at their own needs, it shouldn't just be a clone, they need to work a constitution to suit their own needs. And a parliamentary system is better. (another non-biased assessment)
 
ludahai said:
Why is that so strange when Islam has similar roots to Christianity?
Click to expand...

Of course there is no discourse whatsoever between, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Ask any Muslim if they accept Jesus as the Messiah of prophecy, nope...there is no anti-Christ doctrine propagated by Islam at all. Blackstone, the author of Blackstone commentaries on law was never quoted as such, "The belief of a future state of rewards and punishments, the entertaining just ideas of main attributes of the Supreme Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate every action of human life (all which are revealed in the doctrines of our Savior, Christ), these are the grand foundations of all judicial oaths; which call God to witness the truth of those facts which perhaps may be only known to Him and the party attesting;"

Of course what Sir William Blackstone is referencing is the traditional custom in the Judiciary of swearing an oath before God while placing a hand on the Holy Bible before testimony in the Court Room. I'm sure no Muslim will find swearing an oath on the Holy Scriptures to remain loyal to their constitution to be offensive whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Differs with the country. Taiwan and South Korea both have Presidential systems and while both are flawed, they are also relatively stable considering that both are relatively young democracies.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's just looking at the lucky few in hindsight. History is littered with far more examples of presidents than prime ministers who became dictators.

ludahai said:
But yes, the demographics in Egypt are significantly different from those of South Korea and Taiwan...
I am not a cookie-cutter democracy kind of guy...
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, there's no clear reason why presidentialism would be better suited for certain cultures/demographics than others, so I would rather see Egypt go with the odds and adopt a parliamentary system. It's true that no country should adopt a "cookie-cutter democracy" and will need to adjust the exact structure of government to its own needs...but I do think that most should go with a system that has demonstrated a high probability of success rather than one that has demonstrated a high probability of failure, absent a compelling reason to do otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Walter said:
Of course there is no discourse whatsoever between, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Ask any Muslim if they accept Jesus as the Messiah of prophecy, nope...there is no anti-Christ doctrine propagated by Islam at all.
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask a Jew what they think of Jesus, they have a less favourable view of him the Muslims, Muslims at leats accept him as a prophet, Jews just think he was a normal bloke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom