Egypt's Turmoil + Questions Over Morsi's Sack
Published: 6 July 2013 By Abiodun Giwa
The Egyptian Army demonstrated a high sense of discipline by its avoidance of seizing power, installed a caretaker leader while preparing for an election. It is what some observers of events in Egypt are saying in respect of the military decision and Morsi’s sack. Some other observers are against the military decision, they regard it as a coup and they lament what they call treachery against an elected government. The debate among observers over the Egyptian turmoil is a perfect representation of the argument among Egyptians; Morsi’s supporters on one hand are against his removal, but others opposed to his rule say it serves him right.
What the military did was that they removed an elected president and replaced him with a man they hand picked on their own. The country’s constitution was suspended to allow them the decision they believed was the best they could take at that moment to protect the people and save the country. But the turmoil they wanted to avoid has refused to die. The turmoil is festering. Morsi’s supporters and those who are against him are taking on each other. And it is making people to ask whether the military should have exercised restraint in exercising its power.
At the early stage, the military arrested notable members of the Muslim Brotherhood while they allowed protesters continued their protest peacefully. But lesser mortals among Morsi’s supporters have joined the protest against anti Morsi protesters. The BBC reported that Egypt clashes after Army fire killed pro Morsi’s supporters. Four of pro Morsi's supporters were reported killed when the Army opened fire on them near the Republican Guard Headquarters where Morsi has been detained. Egypt iis n a quandary and there seems to be rethink among observers, whether there would have been a better ethical choice for the military in the handling of the Egypt crisis better than they have done.
Joe Putkowski, a security officer with MSA supports the military’s decision. “Morsi became the president. He promised the people certain things. He began to deprive the people of their rights. He was trying to change the constitution. He tried to tamper with the judiciary. The military is very strong and disciplined. Most of the military officers were trained in the United States. The same they did with Mubarak, they did with Morsi, instead of seizing power for themselves. support their decision. It is less of all evils.”
Artur Kastrati, a handy man with ABM said Morsi needed to have resigned. “When the people called on him to step down, he should have resigned for the good of the country.”
Ramos Robinson of Universal Protection Service, UPS, called Egypt’s military action dictatorial. He asked to be enlightened of what happened in Egypt. And when he was given a run down of the events in the country, he asked, “Is the Army saying Morsi did not have the interest of the people at heart and it was the one that had the interest to save the country and protect the people? What was the purpose for removing the president?” He said what the Army should have done was to get the president to resign and follow the constitution for a successor; not suspend the constitution, sack the president and hand picked a man to act the president’s role. It should have been more honorable to get the president to resign.
Three weeks before the protest, the military had told the country, after a meeting with Morsi that if the protest should go out of control, it will intervene, but without explanation of what it intended doing. A Morsi supporter had said the people should disregard the military’s announcement to intervene in the political process. Some other observers say sacking a legitimate government in the manner the Egyptian Army has done to Morsi will set a bad precedence in other countries where democracy is not well footed like Egypt. Although, they say the development is also capable of making leaders in other countries turn new leaves. Ethically, they say the Egyptian Army has created an aberration.
People say there have been protests in Turkey and Brazil in the last few weeks. Turkey and Brazil threatened to call out the military against the protesters to maintain law and order if the protests persist. It shows, observers say, the military is answerable to the president and not the president who is also the commander-in-chief to the military. They ask that If Brazil and Turkey's military maintain the status quo, what makes the Egyptian Army to be overzealous and sacking a legitimate authority and replacing it with an illegitimate authority?
What the military did was that they removed an elected president and replaced him with a man they hand picked on their own. The country’s constitution was suspended to allow them the decision they believed was the best they could take at that moment to protect the people and save the country. But the turmoil they wanted to avoid has refused to die. The turmoil is festering. Morsi’s supporters and those who are against him are taking on each other. And it is making people to ask whether the military should have exercised restraint in exercising its power.
At the early stage, the military arrested notable members of the Muslim Brotherhood while they allowed protesters continued their protest peacefully. But lesser mortals among Morsi’s supporters have joined the protest against anti Morsi protesters. The BBC reported that Egypt clashes after Army fire killed pro Morsi’s supporters. Four of pro Morsi's supporters were reported killed when the Army opened fire on them near the Republican Guard Headquarters where Morsi has been detained. Egypt iis n a quandary and there seems to be rethink among observers, whether there would have been a better ethical choice for the military in the handling of the Egypt crisis better than they have done.
Joe Putkowski, a security officer with MSA supports the military’s decision. “Morsi became the president. He promised the people certain things. He began to deprive the people of their rights. He was trying to change the constitution. He tried to tamper with the judiciary. The military is very strong and disciplined. Most of the military officers were trained in the United States. The same they did with Mubarak, they did with Morsi, instead of seizing power for themselves. support their decision. It is less of all evils.”
Artur Kastrati, a handy man with ABM said Morsi needed to have resigned. “When the people called on him to step down, he should have resigned for the good of the country.”
Ramos Robinson of Universal Protection Service, UPS, called Egypt’s military action dictatorial. He asked to be enlightened of what happened in Egypt. And when he was given a run down of the events in the country, he asked, “Is the Army saying Morsi did not have the interest of the people at heart and it was the one that had the interest to save the country and protect the people? What was the purpose for removing the president?” He said what the Army should have done was to get the president to resign and follow the constitution for a successor; not suspend the constitution, sack the president and hand picked a man to act the president’s role. It should have been more honorable to get the president to resign.
Three weeks before the protest, the military had told the country, after a meeting with Morsi that if the protest should go out of control, it will intervene, but without explanation of what it intended doing. A Morsi supporter had said the people should disregard the military’s announcement to intervene in the political process. Some other observers say sacking a legitimate government in the manner the Egyptian Army has done to Morsi will set a bad precedence in other countries where democracy is not well footed like Egypt. Although, they say the development is also capable of making leaders in other countries turn new leaves. Ethically, they say the Egyptian Army has created an aberration.
People say there have been protests in Turkey and Brazil in the last few weeks. Turkey and Brazil threatened to call out the military against the protesters to maintain law and order if the protests persist. It shows, observers say, the military is answerable to the president and not the president who is also the commander-in-chief to the military. They ask that If Brazil and Turkey's military maintain the status quo, what makes the Egyptian Army to be overzealous and sacking a legitimate authority and replacing it with an illegitimate authority?
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...
