I quite agree with you; I’m no fan of martial law, however there are, from time to time, situations that warrant it. Depending on whether or not the MB accepts it like it a man, so to speak, and says, “Well, you can’t win ‘em all” (I don’t really see that happening, though I would be pleasantly surprised if they did) and tells their followers to calm the hell down, or depending or not whether they start a massive riot. If they follow the latter course, well, then it’s martial law.
I guess there’s a third option, which is peaceful protest, but being as folks in that part of the world take their politics rather passionately, I really don’t see that happening.
Sad to say, but in most of the Middle East, if you’re a leader, you sort of need to be an autocrat. You can run the gamut from fairly benevolent, like King Abdullah II of Jordan, to wild bug-eyed crazy absolute dictator like the late Saddam Hussein.
About the only exception, really, is Turkey. But then again, don’t get me started on how much the Turks, even fairly religious ones, carp about the “Arabic lack of culture”. Yeah, I’ve heard that term. I get the feeling Turks have something have an issue with the Arabs, despite being ostensibly co-religionists.
I’m not either, but which model is better Chile’s or Iran’s?
Send some U of Chicago economists over and watch Egypt thrive.
A democratic or a republican form of government just does not work in Muslim countries. There has never been one, so why would anyone think it can work now.