The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Morsi Should Not Have Been Removed From Power by the Military

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,474 times Debate No: 36051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt who was recently deposed by the military at the request of the "people" should not have been removed.

First round is for acceptance.
No semantics.

Good luck.
imabench

Con

I'm going to do the last thing anyone would expect me to do on here.....

I'm going to debate..... Seriously

O_O

I accept, state your case
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Glad to see that Bench is going to debate me seriously. This should be a great debate then!

I. Respect for Institutions and the Law

Whether the people of Egypt liked it or not Morsi was elected legitimately by an election from the people. The very foundation of all strong democracies is the trust and legitimacy of elections and the electoral process. Whether or not Morsi tried to seize power, the Egyptian people and courts should have solved this via the law instead of military force. If he violated the Constitution of the country he should have been impeached instead of overthrown.

If the military can overthrow a democratically elected government at the whim of the people the democracy is not founded on law or principle but rather the foundation lies on the approval of the military which is not democratic in the slightest. To create strong democratic institutions and to garner a healthy respect for the law, a process must be followed or else the system is voided.

The Egyptian people expressed a want and desire for democracy which is why they overthrew Mubarek. To keep this democracy alive and well Morsi should not have been deposed by the military, that action undermined the entire democratic system they were trying to construct. Instead he should have been dealt with via channels through the government and the courts and the law.

II. Turmoil Once More

The military overthrow of Morsi has thrown the country back into turmoil. Muslim Brotherhood supporters are being attacked and killed in a military crack down to disperse the protesters. [1] It was actions very similar (if not identical) to these which sparked the uprisings that originally put this hesitant democracy into power. With the military's intervention (and no legitimate force left to stop them) they have degraded their democratic system and made the country unsafe for people of certain views and beliefs and therefore unfree. We have a similar situation in which a large oppressive group, backed by mob rule, is killing the unpopular minority because it was driven out of power by force. The relative peace and steps towards a stable future have been shattered because of this military uprising.

III. The Alternative

Now let's look at the alternative to the military deposition of Morsi. If he had been allowed to stay in office, he might have tried to grab some powers sure, but he was being thwarted by the courts, as is supposed to happen in a democratic system. Protests might have gone on but the bloodshed and military occupation of Cairo would have been severely diminished or nonexistent. The crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood would not have happened. The roots and respect for the democratic system would have remained in place instead of being uprooted. The government system established after Mubarek would have remained in place, ripe for reform and amendment instead of outright replacement. It would have arguably led to a stronger, more unified and consolidated Democratic Egypt.

Conclusion

The military overthrow of Morsi has destroyed the Egyptian democratic government and there is no guarantee another will be established. Egypt has thrown its governance to mob rule backed by the military who now holds all the real power in Egypt. This could have been prevented if the military had not removed Morsi from power. Instead of throwing a fit the Egyptian people should have respected the establishments they created and worked within its bounds. Bloodshed and turmoil could have been avoided and stability would have reigned longer. Morsi should not have been deposed as he was a democratically elected president. The military coup destroyed the credibility and stability of Egypt. Morsi should have been dealt with by the courts and allowed to finish out his term to be impeached or replaced by an elected official instead of a military interim government.

Thank you.


[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
imabench

Con

I. Respect for Institutions and the Law

" The very foundation of all strong democracies is the trust and legitimacy of elections and the electoral process"

Not true. The foundation of strong democracies depends entirely on the checks and balances enforced on all branches of the national government.... Those checks and balances on the Egyptian presidency didnt exist since their own Constitution didnt set up protocol for impeaching a president.

"If he violated the Constitution of the country he should have been impeached instead of overthrown."

Their Constitution doesnt have a process for carrying out an impeachment of the president though.... Once Morsi was elected there literally was no legal way to remove him from power without either killing him or a military intervention.....

On the other hand Morsi did do several things that were blatantly illegal.... One of the first things he did was overturn a courts ruling to dissolve the Parliament for new elections, which the president is not allowed to do. Morsi also made declarations where he could make decisions that were immune from judicial review.
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com...

Morsi did several things that were illegal and unconstitutional, but he couldnt be impeached since the Egyptian Constitution didnt set up protocol for how a president could be impeached. So instead the military stepped in to do the right thing and remove Morsi from power.

" To keep this democracy alive and well Morsi should not have been deposed by the military, that action undermined the entire democratic system they were trying to construct. Instead he should have been dealt with via channels through the government and the courts and the law. "

But those channels literally didnt exist! There was no means for impeaching a president anywhere in Egyptian law, which means the only way you can remove a president from power is through a military coup, or through an assassination. The military coup allows for a new Constitution to be implemented and a new president to be elected while an assassination doesnt, so a military coup was the only good option for the people of Egypt.





2) Turmoil once more

"The military overthrow of Morsi has thrown the country back into turmoil."

Now hold on, Egypt was in turmoil well before people even wanted Morsi to be overthrown.... Unemployment is at 12.5% and climbing, its around 25% for youth, foreign investments in Egypt dropped by $418 million in 2011 (well before all the hubub with Morsi happened), many people can only barely afford food while many cant afford electricity, and Egypts national debt is one of the highest in the Middle East....
http://www.dw.de...

Theyve been in turmoil LONG before Morsi was ever ousted, and his ousting didnt cause any of this turmoil either since it already existed...

"With the military's intervention, they have degraded their democratic system and made the country unsafe for people of certain views and beliefs and therefore unfree"

Their own Constitution makes it so that the principles of Islamic law makes up the main source of legislation... It also only recognized Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as religions people are free to worship, and there isnt a single thing about the protection of women's rights, other basic freedoms of minorities in the Constitution, or freedom of expression either. People were unfree the second their Constitution was adopted and the Constitution was pretty illegitimate from the start... Getting rid of Morsi didnt make people any more or less unfree.....

http://www.slate.com...

"The relative peace and steps towards a stable future have been shattered because of this military uprising."

Egypt is the story of presidents abusing their powers without there being any legal means to impeach them, and Morsi was going down the same road and taking all of Egypt with him. The military intervention is allowing Egypt to take that critical first step to becoming a strong democracy by giving them the opportunity to iron out all the problems with their government that keeps allowing for power hungry dictators to keep coming to power.




III. The Alternative

"If he had been allowed to stay in office, he might have tried to grab some powers sure, but he was being thwarted by the courts, as is supposed to happen in a democratic system"

He wasnt being stopped by the Courts to do anything, in fact he made it so that the Courts couldnt judge on ANY of his decisions and orders so the claim that the courts were keeping him in place is a flat out lie.
http://www.cnn.com...

" The crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood would not have happened"

You dont know that.... If Morsi stayed in power he easily could have become even more unpopular to the point that people would be openly killing members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a hell of a lot worse then what the Muslim brotherhood and its members are facing right now....

"The government system established after Mubarek would have remained in place, ripe for reform and amendment"

Thats just wishful thinking.... Theres absolutely no evidence that Morsi would have carried out more popular reforms since he only focused on pleasing his own constituents, the Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.juancole.com...

"It would have arguably led to a stronger, more unified and consolidated Democratic Egypt."

Had Morsi been left in power it only would have led Egypt right back to authoritarian rule from a corrupted ruler.... To think that Morsi was a reformist and Egypt's George Washington os a belief that can only be held by those who are woefully unaware of Morsi's rule....

Conclusion

Ill skip responding to Pro's rhetoric (since its nothing BUT rhetoric) and make it simple

- 1 - Morsi blatantly abused the power of the Presidency in Egypt
- 2 - There was literally no legal means for him to be impeached through Parliament, the courts, a national vote, etc
- 3 - He clearly was guilty of abusing his powers which meant that it was right to remove him from power
- 4 - The only clean way you could remove him from power was through intervention by the military, or by killing him

Therefore, Morsi should have been removed from power since he was abusing it, and he should have been removed by the military since there was literally no other way to remove him from power short of killing him....
Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I. Respect for Institutions and the Law

It is true that a democracy could not function if respect for the institutions did not exist. Checks and balances in democracy is not only a new concept but one that isn't even universally practiced by democracies. The French have a very centralized democracy with very little executive oversight and they're considered a leading democratic power. We see time and time again in places like Africa and Southeast Asia when there is little to no faith or respect for elections and elected officials democracy falls apart.

Furthermore, I don't know what kind of research imabench has done but there WERE channels for impeaching Morsi.

In late 2012 courts and judges were considering impeaching Morsi. [1][2][3] How could you consider doing something that wasn't written into the Constitution? They couldn't. Morsi could have been impeached for "violating his oath and undermining the country's constitutional foundations." [1] So when my opponent says there were no channels for removing him via other means he is blatantly wrong. All of his points saying that the only way to remove Moris was via military coup are therefore false.

II. Turmoil

My opponent describes turmoil that already existed in Egypt. Great, I didn't say life in Egypt was fine and dandy before the coup. What I'm saying that the dissolving of the government and the control of Cairo by the military isn't going to HELP any of this stuff. In fact, having protests being violently put down as they have been recently and having Morsi supporters targeted by the military is in no way helping these people.

And they are indeed less free than before. They're government formed by the people was ripped down. Supporting Morsi and being part of his government has gotten dozens of people killed or imprisoned simply for supporting someone politically. Just because there was turmoil there before doesn't mean that adding more turmoil that a coup necessarily does, isn't bad for the country as a whole.

Furthermore, people said the LAST military intervention (the interim government set up after Mubarak) was the "first critical step to becoming a strong democracy" but that obviously didn't work. At what point does the military step down and reattach the leash it is supposed to have be held by the executive and give up that power? Or does Egypt get to only live under governments approved by the military as they do now?

III. Alternative

All of my opponents arguments here are merely speculation. He says that people MAY have started killing Muslim Brotherhood members. But due to his coup the military is openly killing protesters. Should we trade their blood for speculation that citizen killings might have been worse? There is no evidence for this. Again, he counters my factual argument of my saying that the government would have remained in place by saying that there might not have been reform. At least there would be a government.

I never said Morsi was a good president. But my opponent's speculations do nothing to negate the facts that if left in power, there would actually be a government to amend and change instead of the military rule we see now. Morsi was a bad president yes, but he should not have been removed from office, especially if the argument for doing so is based off such massive amounts of pure speculation.

Conclusion

1. Abuse of power should have been dealt with internally.
2. There were internal judicial and constitutional means of removing Morsi.
3. Removing Morsi from power is one thing but the military suspended the entire government for a military run government which is damaging and wrong.
4. Again, there were other ways of removing Morsi rather than a full military take over.

[1] http://rt.com...
[2] http://www.sampsoniaway.org...
[3] http://english.ruvr.ru...
imabench

Con

1) Legality of impeaching

"there were no channels for removing him via other means he is blatantly wrong. All of his points saying that the only way to remove Moris was via military coup are therefore false."

If you would maybe like to provide evidence showing that the Egyptian Constitution does establish a process for impeaching presidents then that would help, because just claiming that they can impeach them when there is no evidence suggesting that anyone has that type of power is simply lying

You can look at the actual text of the Egyptian Constitution though there is nothing in there about impeachment. See for yourself: http://www.egyptindependent.com...




2) Turmoil

"Great, I didn't say life in Egypt was fine and dandy before the coup."

You were certainly trying to imply that....

"Supporting Morsi and being part of his government has gotten dozens of people killed or imprisoned simply for supporting someone politically"

The military isnt condoning that though, the instances where the military has killed Morsi supporters all were scenarios where the supporters may have attacked the military first. There are dozens of pro-morsi demonstrations happening all over Egypt at any given time and the military is respecting their right to protest and are simply keeping things in order.

http://www.worldbulletin.net...

"At what point does the military step down and reattach the leash it is supposed to have be held by the executive and give up that power?"

When they have a president who doesnt try to use the power of the presidency to make himself immune from the courts would be a good start.....






3) The Alternative

"He counters my factual argument of my saying that the government would have remained in place by saying that there might not have been reform"

Might? Its a FACT that there wouldnt be any reform should Morsi have stayed in power because he was only pandering to his base supporters (Muslim Brotherhood) as I have previously shown through sources. He was disregarding reforms long before he was overthrown, and had he stayed in power theres no reason to assume he would have changed his ways.

"Morsi was a bad president yes, but he should not have been removed from office, especially if the argument for doing so is based off such massive amounts of pure speculation."

Its not pure speculation though, its a fact that he abused his powers, a fact that he wasnt pursuing reforms, a fact that he was pandering to his own base, and a fact that there arent legal ways to impeach him.





4) Conclusion

"Abuse of power should have been dealt with internally."

By who, the courts? He made it so that they literally couldnt question anything he did, there wasnt an internal path to counter Morsi's abuse of power.

"There were internal judicial and constitutional means of removing Morsi."

Im still waiting to see where it says that the Courts had the power to do such a thing

"Removing Morsi from power is one thing but the military suspended the entire government for a military run government which is damaging and wrong."

I agree, but we're not debating whether or not they should have suspended the WHOLE government, just whether or not they should have kicked out Morsi

"Again, there were other ways of removing Morsi rather than a full military take over."

Still waiting to see where it says that in their Constitution.....
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Egyptian Constitution on Impeachment

Article 152 of the Egyptian Constitution states:

"The President of the Republic is impeached for felony or high treason if at least a third of the members of the House of Representatives sponsor a motion of impeachment, and the House passes the motion with a two-thirds majority.

As soon as the impeachment is in effect, the President of the Republic stops all work. This stoppage is treated as the result of a temporary hindrance that prevents the President of the Republic from assuming his responsibilities. It ends once the verdict is announced.

The President of the Republic is to be tried before a special tribunal headed by the President of the High Council of Judges and staffed by the senior deputies of the President of the High Constitutional Court and the State Council, and the two most senior presidents of the appeals courts. The Public Prosecutor assumes the role of prosecutor. If the most senior person is unable to play his part, the person next in seniority takes his place.

The law specifies the procedures of the trial as well as the sentence. If found guilty, the President of the Republic is relieved of his duties. This does not preclude additional penalties." [1]

As I said before my opponent keeps claiming there was no formal or legal way to remove the President and yet there was. In removing the regime from office by for the military threw the Constitution by the wayside by ignoring it completely, the very thing my opponent says Morsi should have been removed from power for, thus undermining my opponents entire argument. You cannot argue that Group A is in the wrong and yet hold up Group B's actions when the actions of Group B are in the same shade as Group A. It is contradictory and illogical.

That is where my opponent's argument falls flat. He says Moris should have been removed for abusing power and ignoring the Constitution by supporting a group who used their military power to ignore the Constitution. The only, and the I mean the only, reason my opponent supports the military's action is because they see it as morally greater than Mrosi's actions when in fact that is merely a perception. The two groups share the same crime.

Therefore, I affirm again, if Egypt is to be ruled by the people and by democracy and not by whoever has the most power then you MUST start by respecting the institutions of democracy. By allowing the military to do this once, you have sent a message to them saying they can do it whenever they please. They are guilty of the same crimes of Morsi.

Final Conclusion

Again, I say that Morsi was NOT in the right and that indeed he SHOULD have been impeached and tried for breaching the Constitution just not in the way that was conductive. The way that it went down was completely against the principles and goals of the democracy movement in Egypt. What's stopping the military from removing a "good" president? Nothing. The only way to ensure that all presidents are safe from removal is to instill respect for democratic institutions in the military, the government and the people. You can't do this if the country is ruled by the military.

The ousting of Morsi has undermined democracy, thrown the Constitution out the window and put people in power who did the very thing Morsi did: use power to ignore the Constitution. Other avenues of removal were available and ignored. The president wasn't even allowed to finish his term. If Morsi tried to OVERSTAY his term as president then you'd have a more legitimate claim to removal by force. Until Morsi was allowed to fill out his full term all other options are mere speculation and thus you have defended the destruction of a Constitution and a democratic institution based on mere speculation. There are plenty of bad presidents in the world. Power hungry leaders. Shady politicians. Yet until they are impeached they must be respected and allowed to stay their term without fear of military removal or else there is no true democracy anywhere.

Morsi should not have been removed from office by the military. Letting him remain would have saved lives. It would have respected the fragile Egyptian democracy. The Constitution allowed impeachment but was ignored by the military who abused their power in the name of "the people" to throw the Constitution away. The fact that Morsi was not allowed to serve out his term spoke volumes about the military and the people, until then he should have been dealt with politically.

Thus, the resolution is affirmed.

Thank you.

[1] http://niviensaleh.info...

imabench

Con

Well f*ck me up my a**, they actually DID have a process for impeaching the president.....

How about that.

That is the LAST time I trust MSNBC on anything political... Since my entire argument was based on a lie from MSNBC I have no choice but to concede the debate to pro

Titties
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Thank goodness you're going to debate seriously... lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
ConservativePoliticoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
ConservativePoliticoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concession.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
ConservativePoliticoimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.