Birth of a dictator

It has been widely reported that Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected president of Egypt and a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, has claimed new and extensive powers, doing so, it has been stated, in response to impasse of Egypt’s Second Constituent Assembly and to persistent street violence. An English language version of Morsi’s Constitutional Declaration can be found here. His subsequent explanation for his deed: “He told… [his followers] he was leading Egypt on a path to ‘freedom and democracy’ and was the guardian of stability.” We should interpret his actions while remembering that coups affirm neither democracy nor stability. They do, however, affirm the coercive power of the state.

Morsi’s auto-golpe will replace the rule of law with rule by decree and, to be sure, Egypt’s transition to democratic governance with a putatively limited dictatorship. Obviously, secularists and those groups who wish for or need social and political pluralism fear the instauration of a constituent dictatorship serving the interests of Egypt’s Islamists or the sectarian interests of the Freedom and Justice Party. Some have already taken their opposition to Morsi’s recent coup to the street. We should recall here that Egypt’s revolution originated in a divided society and that Morsi gained the Presidency with a thin victory margin in a runoff election. He has, at best, only weak popular support, although we might suspect that the recently purged Egyptian Armed Forces affirmed the November 22 coup. So far, the United States has only faintly criticized the coup.

Situations like this can end badly, as recent history has so often demonstrated.

Another case of reactionary hypocrisy

Andrew Levine wrote:

The hypocrisy is staggering. There was hardly a peep of complaint in proto-Tea Party quarters about executive orders — or, worse, signing statements — when George W. Bush abused those practices at historically unprecedented levels. The right’s newfound aversion plainly has more to do with hating Barack Obama (for all the wrong reasons!) than political principles.

Executive Orders and executive Signing Statements are bad. They are attempts by the executive to rule by decree. The problem Levin identified is the reactionary effort to deny this kind of power to a Democratic President while reserving that power for the Republicans.