Egypt and the Fate of Democracy "The Perils of a "People's Coup," " by Khaled M. Abou El Fadl (Op-Ed, July 8), is clear, concise and correct. The ouster of President Mohamed Morsi's government in Egypt, the arrests of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and the shutting down of some media outlets by the Egyptian military are actions in opposition to any real democratic process. There are better ways to oust an unpopular government, especially one that was democratically elected. Egypt's march toward democracy has suffered a major setback. The writer, a Middle East historian, is president of the International Council for Middle East Studies. My respectful suggestion to Egyptians: Consider adding a constitutional provision for "recall petitions" that would force early elections if signed by enough voters. The existence of such a mechanism would delegitimize military interventions while providing a check against truly bad governments. The validity of a signature list can be verified cheaply and reliably by verifying a small random sample. David Brooks supports the coup in Egypt because he agrees with those who opt for "substance" over "process" ("Defending the Coup," column, July 5). By so doing, he is forced to admit that he does not think that Egyptians are capable of democracy or ready for it. Whether or not the military overthrow of the duly elected government of President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood enhances the freedom and prosperity of the Egyptian people and furthers the interests of the United States remains to be seen. But one wonders how Mr. Brooks's position is different from those who refuse to accept the outcome of any election they don't like. The removal of Mr. Morsi after only one year may or may not be a good thing, but a step forward for democratic values it is not. David Brooks insults the will, humanity and democratic aspirations of millions of Egyptians when he writes that for a democratic transition, Egypt "seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients." Orientalist descriptions of Egyptians" lack of intelligence, particularly when it comes to self-rule, are as old as the European colonization of Egyptian peoples. Writing in the early 20th century, Lord Cromer conceived of the "Egyptian mind" as deficient and flawed, and thus incapable of self-governance. While this is not the first time that writers in the American media have missed the complexity of Egyptian politics, Mr. Brooks's column is particularly outrageous. The writer is a visiting assistant professor of South Asian history at Oberlin College. Since democracy in the Middle East and North Africa can flourish only if both secular and religious political parties are given the chance to govern, it would be a shame if the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi led to a renewed widespread repression of the region's Islamists. Bans on religious parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, will not generate moderation or democratization. Instead, exclusion will have the opposite effect, encouraging radicalism and empowering those who support violence as the only means to political power. While the Muslim Brotherhood governed poorly, it would be a mistake to conclude from this that Islamists should now be weakened "by nearly any means," as Mr. Brooks writes. The fall of Egypt's Islamists provides a sobering reminder to the region's other Islamist politicians and their supporters that they, too, will face Mr. Morsi's fate if they refuse to cooperate and forge alliances with secular parties to deliver viable economic reforms, or if they insist on enacting laws that antagonize women and religious minorities. The decline of the Brotherhood's political fortunes in Egypt thus provides all the more reason to invite the region's political Islamists to contest elections, and even to win them. The writer is an associate professor of political science at Syracuse University.