Explaining why a coup is a coup

No doubt that what we saw in Egypt in the last few days is a coup, and a very typical one. In the last two weeks, I have heard the most ridiculous and insincere excuses being used just to avoid this term. Since a coup is a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government, this is a coup d'état by any dictionary or text book definition. It does not matter if the army has support on the ground, and it is not about who you got rid of, but it is about the methods you use to do it. A coup is a coup in every part of the world; those who execute a coup d'etat are anti-democratic, their murderous, fascist methods are always the same; the same excuses, the same rhetoric, and the same bloody scenes. The pro-coup mindset also has a common language. They use a polished style, they say 'We are just here out of necessity', 'We don’t intend to stay long', 'We won't interfere with politics' and so on. However, despite their "noble" intentions, they bring bloodshed, illegal arrests and polarization to the public. So while we have so much experience from history, and the same pattern repeating itself for all the world to see, why is there such hesitancy to say that this is a coup? Why avoiding the use of the precise term? Every single politician knows perfectly well that there is no such thing as a "democratic" coup. Overthrowing a democratically elected government and the seizure of power by military forces is exactly the opposite of democracy. Saying "Coups are bad, but this one is different" does not make sense either. However, the coup in Egypt has been presented in a way as if anyone who opposes the military junta‎ is a fan of Morsi or the Muslim Brotherhood so people who are loyal advocates of democracy did not speak boldly simply to avoid this false profiling. On the other hand, it is now glaringly obvious that not just the U.S. but almost the whole Western democratic world sees this as an operation to remove a scourge, a proper move to get rid of an establishment they see as a threat. Can there be a military-guided "democracy"? Obviously not. If you side with a "democracy" that is protected and guided by a junta, you cannot talk about real democracy. It is contradictory in its nature and thus simply against all fundamental democratic principles. As a simple point of fact, it is a very ugly policy to attempt to sugarcoat a coup and it is shameful to support a military junta knowing that blood will be spilled. Nevertheless, most Western politicians celebrate it, many Arab leaders show support, and even some in the streets cheer it on. How does the West deem appropriate a system—one that they would surely condemn in their country—as appropriate for another? If you try to correct people at the barrel of a gun, and advocate violence as the solution—which I will oppose by all means—, then one must be ever mindful of the horrible fact that the people in opposition may one day do the same to you. If the army claims that it is only interfering to break up a fight, then why are there arbitrary imprisonments, one-sided blackouts of TV stations, murders of unarmed protesters and various forms of intimidation? Cutting a political leader's connection with the world, arrests without transparent judiciary, and spilling blood with snipers, is little more than a continuation of the same old ugly military dictatorship in Egypt. If the Egyptians will run to the army at every disappointment they face, and welcome back the ancien régime, why did so many people sacrifice so much to overthrow Mubarak‎ in the first place? Egyptians will continue to be diverse in terms of ideology, faith, opinion and expectations; they just have to learn to live together in harmony, and if they are going to "fight" each other, this should be done via legitimate means without ruining the democratic process. Sinem Tezyapar is a political analyst. https://twitter.com/SinemTezyapar The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arabstoday.