To remind Mr. Obama: when Dr. Muhammad Mursi, an Islamic leader, was the president of Egypt, Mr. Obama remarked that democracy is not only about elections. Let us also remind him that Mursi’s presidency was not based on a single vote but on six elections, including the presidential election in which Mursi won, the parliamentary election where Islamic parties achieved great success, and the referendum on a constitution drafted primarily by Islamic members of parliament.

According to Mr. Obama, democracy isn’t just about elections—it is much more than that. Now, Trump has won the U.S. presidency and is set to become the next president. However, Mr. Obama knows the potential dangers Trump poses to the country, its democracy, and even the entire world.

This raises the question: Did the Obama administration play a role in managing the coup in Egypt? Or, at the very least, was it aware of it and chose to let it happen without intervening? At best, Obama tolerated the coup, believing it to be preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule.

The parallels between the two situations are striking. Trump has been elected, but if democracy is more than just elections, as Obama suggested in Egypt’s case, would he consider acting against Trump? Would Obama manage a coup against Trump, given his understanding of the dangers Trump represents?

Let us not forget that Muhammad Mursi was the first elected president in Egypt since the time of Menes—or Narmer, as he is known from ancient inscriptions. This makes Mursi the first elected ruler in Egypt in more than 5,000 years, predating even the era of Narmer’s predecessors.

Yet, it is unlikely Obama would urge anything resembling a coup. Coup-solutions appear to be exclusive gifts reserved by the West for countries like ours.