The Arab Spring, According to Vox

The title is "Egypt's former dictator has been freed from jail. The 2011 revolution is officially dead".

In the view of the author, this was what happened in Egypt since 2011:

• The people carried out a pro-democracy revolution, resisting the Former Dictator's brutal repression.
• The Former Dictator fell.
• Elections were held.
• The Muslim Brotherhood won.
• All was well.
• The Muslim Brotherhood elected officials were deposed in a militar coup.
• The New Dictator took power.
• Brutal repression resumed.

The article had this to say about the Muslim Brotherhood:

Egypt held its first free elections in 2012. Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, was the victor. But his time in office was short-lived: He was deposed in a military coup in 2013 that brought in Sisi.

And that's it. I found it a bit telegraphic, and decided to take a more detailed look, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Within a short period, serious public opposition developed to President Morsi. In late November 2012 he 'temporarily' granted himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, on the grounds that he needed to "protect" the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure.[94][95] He also put a draft constitution to a referendum that opponents complained was "an Islamist coup".[96] These issues[97]—and concerns over the prosecutions of journalists, the unleashing of pro-Brotherhood gangs on nonviolent demonstrators, the continuation of military trials, new laws that permitted detention without judicial review for up to 30 days,[98] and the seeming impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities[99]—brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets starting in November 2012.[100][101]

Before I go on, I'll state clearly that I'm not saying the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. I have no credible evidence to prove or disprove that.

What I'm saying is:

• The Muslim Brotherhood is a religious organization, not a secular organization.
• As such, it's safe to assume it won't establish a secular state.
• Therefore, its commitment is not to democracy.

And if you think you can have a state that is both religious and democratic, just take a look at the Vatican. Or, better yet, consider the consequences of a Christian religious party ruling, say, the US. Consider a Christian president, backed by a Christian religious party (i.e., no separation between state and church), granting himself power to legislate as he sees fit because he needs to "protect" the nation from... whatever.

If we accept that the Arab Spring was a pro-democracy movement, then the "2011 revolution" died when the Muslim Brotherhood won the elections, as far as Egypt is concerned.

Having said that, though... the majority of the Egyptian people voted for the Muslim Brotherhood. That, to me, means that the majority wanted a religious state, and democracy be damned. So, I do agree with the author of the Vox article on this point, that it was wrong for the military to depose the elected government. The majority of Egyptians chose, let them have what they chose.

Other than that, this Vox.com article, as is usual with most media, is terribly biased. Its goal is not so much to inform, but to sell a narrative in line with its agenda and call it an "explainer". Just like, say, Breitbart. It shows a partial view of the whole picture, rushing over any detail that could endanger their "explanation".

I've got no problem with that, actually. I've learned how to think for myself, and how to go looking for information, instead of waiting for it to fall on my lap, dispensed by the Holy Algorithms of Facebook & Friends. However, it's a bit annoying watching progressive media constantly presenting itself as "owners of the truth" and calling everyone else "fake" when, as we can see in this example, they're as biased as everyone else.