Egypt: My political views?
I just wanted to say my opinion on politics. Even though I may sound weird, wrong I would actually be in support of a dictator ruling Egypt. Allow me to explain.
A dictator in it's essence just means. Person with complete power. The reason why many people now see that dictatorship is bad is because many dictators throughout history abused their powers.
But if a dictator doesn't abuse his powers then what's wrong with that?
Furthermore, in my opinion Radical change needs radical people. Mubarak has melted dignity, honor, behaviors of people in Egypt. and on top of that the country got ruined, stolen from, dirtied while he chills in Sharm. Hence we need some leader to reverse all that.
I'm not saying ghat a dictator must rule Egypt. All I'm saying is that it would necessarily be bad if it works as I said.
some people think thatMubarak will be president next term because he put his name on the list.
I disagree with this view. Gamal Mubarak also put his name on the list.. I doubt if his father wanted to be president hebwould have allowed him to do so. I think that Mubarak might have put his name for two reasons:
1- he would show the country that he finally lost. Therefore all the previous elections he won fairly.
2-he would use himself to take some vote percentagesfrom the other people that are also running
@3alaa: 1.it was on the news last week that gamal is on the list.
2.I said "righteous dictator" for a reason.
...1-he wouldn't need someone looking after him since he righteous
...2-go back to the essence of the word dictator. He just has all the power. People could still voice their opinions and advise him.
As a matter of fact there were many successful dictators in history that uplifted their countries from dirt to the sky
@3alaa: 1.I don't know man. I'm telling you what I read on the news
2.nothing is impossible. You are telling me that a man who for example understands his deen in it's correct form will be evil. I disagree. He will know that Allah is looking after him.
@esd: the American system is a good one. However, it's not the only one. You need to put in consideration the people in the country and how they are and which system will best work with them.
@Esd: once again I'll say that it isn't the only one. I myself prefer this way a lot.
But let's look at Egypt. Even though they don't have the US's version of seperation of power, they are supposed to have a sort of separation of power. That of course as we all know is BS since the president overrides anything. So what's on paper doesn't always work in real life. For example, let's look at Tsarist Russia. Catherine the great and the leaders after her they wanted to adopt Europea political system (and everything), however while that system worked for many of Europes countries, it didn't work for Russia. No real advancement came for Russia till the Conmunist revolution. This is an example of different types of government working, not just one.
@Esd: I wasn't trying to say democracy works or not (which it does btw). I'm giving you an example of more than one system working
@El Alex: I already explained this. It all goes back to the person really. If the guy knows Allsh he won't get corrupted. And I would place my support for a righteous dictator rather than a corrupt checks and balances system anyway. Dictator isn't a bad word is what I'm trying to say. It goes back to the person.
- AlLv 510 years agoFavorite Answer
first of all, Mubarak Jr is NOT "on the list'!!There were speculations that he would run for the National party instead of his father coz if Mubarak Sr's medical issues. But that got shot and buried to the ground when the National party announced Mubarak Sr as their nominee- which means Jr isn't running this time around-.
As for the "dictator" thing, I strongly disagree, you only perform well when you know you're being watched and monitored and that your performance will be reviewed by someone with power over you, and can hence get booted out if you underperform. When you're a dictator, this all flies out the window. Noone can open their mouths and call out 'foul play'.
EDIT: DUDE!!Noo!!A party can't have 2 nominees for the same election, and they already chose Mubarak Sr and that's that.
2) There's no such thing as a "righteous dictator"..absolute power breeds corruption, no matter how righteous this person started out to be. The human soul needs chaperoning, it needs to be afraid of the consequences. When you're a dictator, noone's opinion can overthrow yours, so you won't ever listen to it.
- El AlexLv 410 years ago
Dictator meen bas yabny, howa e7na na2seen
If you get a humble common man, and place him as dictator of any country, give it a couple of years and he will be a power hungry monarch, that's not the person's fault, its just human instinct.
When Mubarak was elected president do you think he was a bad man? No he was actually a kind and fair man and even said himself that he does not want to rule for more than 8 years, now look at him. He became power hungry and that's what happens when you're given ultimate power, you will do whatever it takes to maintain position on the thrown.
And second of all, Dictators are people who govern almost EVERY aspect of their country based on their decision and their decision only, there is no legislation or parliament because there decision is not taken into account, final decision is the Dictators, so my question is...are you willing to let EVERY aspect of your country, from economics, to finance, to health, to education, to youth, EVERYTHING be governed and based on the decisions of ONE MAN?
Think about that...
- 10 years ago
Someone, I forgot who it was I think he was British or American said, "You Arabs create dictators. You support a new leader, and then you start cheering for him and praising him till he himself believes that he is powerful and unbeatable"
Personally I support the American system of government, and by that I mean separation of powers into executive (tanfeezi), legislative (tashree3y), and judicial (qada2i), with each branch having checks and balances over the other. And nobody be like 'yanhar eswad da by2oul america, ya 3ameel ya 5ayeen'. Cuz the American system of government has been in place since the 1700s (ya3ni mn abl israel w mn abl ma yeb2ou nas msh kwayesa) so it works.Source(s): and no one ever say anything like, oh these people need a dictator to control them (like some have said that only Saddam could rule Iraq) because people anywhere are entitled to freedom. They aren't cattle that need to be whipped into their barns. EDIT: the system I'm talking about can work in any place, I'm not talking about the actual laws and whether, for example, they are secular or religious, but how the government is carried out. The executive carries out the laws The legislative creates the laws The judicial interprets the laws All this w/ democratic free elections, it can work in any country. I think this is perfect and for example say a country can say we are democratic, and we have an Islamic identity, that doesn't contradict the seperation of powers. @ Ahmed: what do you mean the European system of government? There wasn't any real democracy in the American sense in Europe in the 18th century. Tsarist Russia was never a democracy, it was always an autocratic monarchy, so in my humble opinion the analogy doesn't exactly work
- 3 years ago
certainly - all those factors have been a element of the Ottoman empire. those have been all areas and there became right into a region called Palestine for this reason Palestinians do exist. BTW, there had no longer been an Israel the two because six hundred BC until eventually 1948 what supplies the Israelis greater precise to exist than the peoples of Palestine a region contained in the Ottoman Empire until eventually 1924?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous10 years ago
@not holier than u
did u even read what he wrote?lmao
- Anonymous10 years ago
- 10 years ago