Hacker News Reader

And that vague connection justifies what exactly ?

The parent correctly noted that the elected president represented ideology with ideals of is violent theocracy, and he almost immediately started powergrabbing, trying to gain non-supervised judicial and legislative powers in addition to executive. How vague is that? I don't know, to me it looks rather clear that this was a path from one authoritarianism to another.

Mohamed Morsi, far from a violent theocrat, was actually a neoliberal. Egypt, being 90-95% Muslim, ofc would take inspiration from Islamic law principles. Morsi was democratically elected and sought to maintain that democracy unlike that authoritarian that replaced him.

The Brookings Institute even rated him with the Polity Index (which goes from -10 to +10 with -10 being autocratic and +10 being democratic) and concluded he got between a 2 and a 4.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/was-mohammed-morsi-really...

Notably, unlike the current US-backed regime, he did not repress or imprison opponents.

I'm obviously not a fan of either leaders but it's absurd to suggest he did anything that justified ending a democracy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com