Egyptian Democracy

I was reading an article about how the leader of the Arab League was opposed to the continuation of Air Strikes.  This is an indication of loss of support for this policy among Arabs.  This has disturbing implications for national security in the U.S. and other Western nations that are involved in the conflict.  Continuing military involvement of this kind puts us at some risk of terrorist retaliation against what is seen, by some at least, as military action against a Muslim country and perhaps against Islam itself.  The less popular this military action is in the Arab world, the greater the danger.

One minor point in the article that really struck my interest was when the leader, Amr Moussa, spoke about what kind of government Egypt was going to have in the future.  Since he is likely to become the first president of this country his views on this subject are likely to be influential.  He states that Egypt will have a constitution, a president, a council of ministers and a parliament.  In short it is to be a presidential rather than a parliamentary democracy.  I think this is a mistake.

In my last post, I believe, I mentioned that there is some concern by people who study such things that this form of democracy is less stable, produces laws that are too lengthy and difficult to correct once implemented.  Parliamentary democracy is generally better at protecting property rights and protecting economic liberty.

A look at the Wikipedia article on Egypt reveals that Egypt has a constitution that has a basically presidential system of government and has had the problems that other such governments have had.  The president took over and became a dictator.  I hope that the people of Egypt will learn from this, but in general in a republic people are likely to see problems in personal rather than structural terms.  We don't see the problems that are caused by the system, but instead cling to the belief that if we just elect the right people, then these problems will be solved.