What Percent of People are Actually Against Mubarak?

[smk]

QUESTION: WHAT PERCENT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY DONT SUPPORT MUBARAK?
In the last elections, though there were some minor (nothing more than what you'd expect from any developing country) allegations of problems in the voting process (the actual allegations are of not allowing candidates from The Muslim Brotherhood to run for president and also of having posters and tshirts advertising a candidate inside of the actual polling place.) There were no allegations of voting fraud, as far as I know. Yet still, he got 88.6% of the vote in 2005. Did things really change that much since then? I have a suspicion that these protesters are perhaps the minority. If so, I pose the question: Should we follow the democratic system and keep Mubarak in power if he has the support of the majority of the people?

[Sasha]

2005 elections

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Unbalanced_scales.svg/45px-Unbalanced_scales.svg.png
This section has been nominated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_check) to be checked for its neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hosni_Mubarak). (October 2010) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/LulaMubarak.jpg/220px-LulaMubarak.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LulaMubarak.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LulaMubarak.jpg)
With the President of Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Brazil), Lula da Silva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lula_da_Silva), in 2003.


Main article: Egyptian presidential election, 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_presidential_election,_2005)
President Mubarak has been re-elected by majority votes in a referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum) for successive terms on four occasions: in 1987, 1993, 1999. The referendum in itself and its results are of questionable validity[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)]. No one could run against the President due to a restriction in the Egyptian constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution) in which the People's Assembly played the main role in electing the President of the Republic.
After increased domestic and international pressure for democratic reform in Egypt, Mubarak asked the largely rubber stamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_stamp_%28politics%29)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] parliament on 26 February 2005 to amend the constitution to allow multi-candidate presidential elections by September 2005[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Previously[when? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29# Chronological_items)], Mubarak secured his position by having himself nominated by parliament, then confirmed without opposition in a referendum.
The September 2005 ballot was therefore a multiple candidate election rather than a referendum, but the electoral institutions, and security apparatus remain under the control of the President. The official state media, including the three government newspapers and state television also express views identical to the official line taken by Mubarak. In recent years however, there has been a steady growth in independent news outlets, especially independent newspapers which occasionally criticize the President and his family severely[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Satellite channels beaming from Egypt such as the Orbit Satellite Television and Radio Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_Satellite_Television_and_Radio_Network) for example, also exhibit relative openness as exhibited in their flagship program Al Qahira Al Yawm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qahira_Al_Yawm). In the last few years however, the cabinet headed by Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Nazif) has been somewhat successful in turning things around. According to the List of countries by Human Development Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index) Egypt ranks 111th out of 177 countries, and rates 0.702 on the index.
On 28 July 2005, Mubarak announced his candidacy, as he had been widely expected to do. The election which was scheduled for 7 September 2005 involved mass rigging activities, according to civil organizations that observed the elections. Reports[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] have shown that Mubarak's party used government vehicles to take public employees to vote for him. Votes were bought for Mubarak in poor suburbs and rural areas. It was also reported that thousands of illegal votes were allowed for Mubarak from citizens who were not registered to vote. On 8 September 2005, Dr. Ayman Nour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_Nour), a dissident and candidate for the Al-Ghad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghad) party - Tomorrow party, contested the election results, and demanded a repeat of the election.
In a move widely seen as political persecution, Nour was convicted of forgery and sentenced to five years at hard labor on 24 December 2005.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-13) On the day of Nour's guilty verdict and sentencing, the White House Press Secretary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Press_Secretary) released the following statement denouncing the government's action:
"The United States is deeply troubled by the conviction today of Egyptian politician Ayman Nour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_Nour) by an Egyptian court. The conviction of Dr. Nour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_Nour), the runner-up in Egypt's 2005 presidential elections, calls into question Egypt's commitment to democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), freedom and the rule of law. We are also disturbed by reports that Mr. Nour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_Nour)'s health has seriously declined due to the hunger strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_strike) on which he has embarked in protest of the conditions of his trial and detention. The United States calls upon the Egyptian government to act under the laws of Egypt in the spirit of its professed desire for increased political openness and dialogue within Egyptian society, and out of humanitarian concern, to release Mr. Nour from detention."[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-14)
According to Reporters Without Borders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders); Egyptian media ranks 133 out of 168 in freedom of the press,[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-www_rsf_org4-15) showing an improvement of 10 places from 2005.


also:


Emergency Law rule

Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) is a semi-presidential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-presidential_system) republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic) under Emergency Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_law_in_Egypt) (Law No. 162 of 1958)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-21) and has been since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980s. Under the law, police powers are extended, constitutional rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Egypt) suspended and censorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship) is legalized.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-22) The law sharply circumscribes any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstration_%28people%29), non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner) run as high as 30,000.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-Death_Triggers_Cairo_Protests-23) Under that "state of emergency", the government has the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, thus keeping them in prisons without trials for any period. The government continues the claim that opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood) could come into power in Egypt if the current government did not forgo parliamentary elections, confiscate the group's main financiers' possessions, and detain group figureheads, actions which are virtually impossible without emergency law and judicial-system independence prevention.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak#cite_note-24) Pro-democracy advocates in Egypt argue that this goes against the principles of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), which include a citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen)'s right to a fair trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial) and their right to vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage) for whichever candidate and/or party they deem fit to run their country.


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak

i dont think you could speak about fair ellections in the slightest ever in egypt history

[Red Commissar]

It's hard to get an exact figure but he's not popular by any stretch of the imagination.

They manage to get these figures chiefly by intense demonstrations by NDP supporters (bordering on violence in many cases) in the days leading up to the election combined with restrictions on other party's ability to organize and compete.

During parliamentary elections you can see the problem more clearly. The NDP in 2000 only got 39% of the votes, and was only able to secure a majority by bringing some independents over to their side. Same case was repeated in 2005 before they decided to do an entirely different method all together.

Really it's more by intimidation than by support. Ben Ali operated by much the same way, securing "re-election" by large margins. I guess a similar case could be made for Saddam Hussein when he had a "presidential election" in 1995 and 2002.

[Blackscare]

If you seriously trust the "democratic" system in Egypt more than the many, many young people without jobs who are in the streets burning his party headquarters, with the support of a growing number of military people, you're fucking crazy. 88.6% is a tad high anywhere, more so in a country with the staggering economic problems that Egypt faces. I don't trust those elections, but even if they were true that was 6 years ago and I think the people are speaking now.


To watch that footage and think that all those people in the streets are a minority is absurd and insulting to the people there. It's not as if some tightly disciplined minority group is fanning the flames or instigating this, this was is a spontaneous uprising of predominantly young people, which is more evidence to me that this is not in fact a minority.

There were large-scale protests against Mubarak and his government the last two elections, from what I hear.


Strongman leaders like Mubarak don't ask all of their cabinet leaders to step down to prevent totally being toppled by a movement that isn't popular.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Egyptians should follow the democratic system and oust Mubarak. But seeing as there isn't any democratic system in Egypt, they're doing the only thing they can: Revolt.

[Struggle]

There is no such thing as a democratic process in Capitalist society. There is no such thing as a legitimate government in any society where there exists a ruling class, whether it be the United States, Britain, China or even Venezuela.

Was it democracy when Obama spent $600 Million on his presidential campaign, most of it which was funded by the ruling class. Is it democracy when money plays a fundamental role in the determine of an election?

It is justified to overthrow any government which was elected in Capitalist society, regardless of how much support a leader has. As arrogant as it sounds, correct as it is, the ruling class set peoples agendas to act in the interests of the ruling class, without the vast majority of people knowing it.

Democracy by definition means ‘The rule of the people’. That definition according to Marxism theory, is incompatible with Capitalist society. Marxists argue, the Ruling Class fundamentally rule society, and not the people.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Of course there are democratic processes in capitalist countries. Sure Obama and McCain spent a truckload of money, but that doesn't mean Obama "bought" the election.
The people who voted did so on their own accord - there was no voting fraud or voter intimidation.
What about the countries where leftist parties are elected democratically? What about Allende, who was elected by the people, should he have been ousted by the communists?
Saying elections are fraudulent when capitalists are elected, but the will of the people when socialists are elected, is moronic.

[gorillafuck]

Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that socialists should have tolerated the Nazi party?

Class war isn't a matter of giving up when bourgeois political leaders are popular.

Also, that's a ridiculously high number for any country, especially for a country like Egypt.

[Cheung Mo]

A leader who can pretty well wave his magic wand and block the Internet in an entire country is not a democratic leader. He's an autocrat.

There's no fucking way that a country where 30% cannot read or write, 40% live in dire poverty, and a powerful family amasses $70 billion while its patriarch is the head of state is a country where said head of state can win nearly 90% of the vote.

The Nazis never even hit 40% in a free and fair election. The Nazis relied on manipulation and intimidation.

[Nolan]

Hitler was elected democratically.

No.

Before the nazis gained power, they had suffered major electoral defeats by the KPD.


A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a revolution sent a petition to Paul Von Hindenberg asking for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenberg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, Hitler became the new Chancellor of Germany.

Why won't this myth DIE.

[smk]

Hitler was elected democratically
No.

Before the nazis gained power, they had suffered major electoral defeats by the KPD.


Quote:
A group of prominent industrialists who feared such a revolution sent a petition to Paul Von Hindenberg asking for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenberg reluctantly agreed to their request and at the age of forty-three, Hitler became the new Chancellor of Germany.

Why won't this myth DIE.

The Nazi party was elected democratically to the largest party in Germany, however, Hitler lost the presidential elections twice to Hindenburg by large amounts of votes. He eventually became Fuhrer when Hindenburg appointed him chancellor or (sort of a keep your enemies close kind of a thing. He wanted to be in control of Hitler because he knew he was crazy.) and then Hindenburg died like a year afterward.

[I know bad grammar everywhere]

[Princess Luna]

It seems like the only people who support him are those who believe the lies about him "preserving stability" and the wealthy fuckers who are happy sitting on the top and are afraid of anything that might threaten this , like giving the poor a voice in Egypt.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

The Nazi party was never had a majority after any election. Not until they torched the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists, which resulted in the Communist Party being banned.
So no, the socialists shouldn't have tolerated Hitler.

[ZeroNowhere]

Was it democracy when Obama spent $600 Million on his presidential campaign, most of it which was funded by the ruling class?Yes.


Democracy by definition means ‘The rule of the people’. That definition according to Marxism theory, is incompatible with Capitalist society.Marxist theory has nothing to do with 'the people'.


It is justified to overthrow any government which was elected in Capitalist society, regardless of how much support a leader has.I agree with the part about it being justified to overthrow capitalist governments regardless of whether it is democratic or not to do so.


What about the countries where leftist parties are elected democratically? What about Allende, who was elected by the people, should he have been ousted by the communists?Sure.


Hitler was elected democratically. Does that mean that socialists should have tolerated the Nazi party?Hindenburg was elected democratically. This still supports your point, of course, which I more or less agree with.


If so, I pose the question: Should we follow the democratic system and keep Mubarak in power if he has the support of the majority of the people?We are communists. "Democracy cannot be a principle for us."

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Yes.
We are communists. "Democracy cannot be a principle for us."

Why I am a democratic socialist.

[gorillafuck]

The Nazi party was never had a majority after any election. Not until they torched the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists, which resulted in the Communist Party being banned.
So no, the socialists shouldn't have tolerated Hitler.
1) You don't need a majority to effectively take control in a democracy, unless there are only two parties.

2) I really, really hope that that's not the only reason you think socialists should have opposed the Nazi's. If they got the majority, would you say they should have been tolerated?


No.

Before the nazis gained power, they had suffered major electoral defeats by the KPD.
Yes, they were beaten in 1930. But they were the most popular party in every election after that, even before the socialists were banned and before the Reichstag fire, due to their appeal during the economic depression.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

2) I really, really hope that that's not the only reason you think socialists should have opposed the Nazi's. If they got the majority, would you say they should have been tolerated?

No,of course not. Even if the Nazis got a majority democratically,they would still have turned Germany into a fascist one-party state, which socialists must oppose.

[danyboy27]

bbc poll gave gim 30%

i would say the truth would be closer to 20%

i dont think only the elite like him, support for him is somehow scattered all over different classes.

i bet you could find some capitalist/buisnessman who hate his gut beccause they cant have the good contract beccause they are not in the president inner circle.

[scourge007]

I'm sure it's probably 15-20% that truly don't like Mubarak. Most of Egypt's population don't really give a shit who rules them. They'd rather have work and food to put on the table.