Creating Democracy Worldwide.

Ok, now I was watching a debate between two of my cousins friends,
one of whom is a stereotypical bleeding-heart Liberal, and the other
who was a Right leaning moderate with conservative beleiefs on some
things.

Well they got into debating forcing democracy on undemocratic countries,
and of course as I suspected, the more conservative one was'nt objeting
to it, and the Liberal one was vehementaly against it.


Anyways I started thinking about it, and I thought it'd be interesting to
see the opinions on it of my fellow ATSers/PTSers.

So, do you approve of or oppose forcing undemocratic countries to be
democratic and why?


Personally I approve of and support doing so.
Simply because every person should have the right to choose what their government is, and should have freedom.

The issue isnt as simple as it appears to be there is more to creating a Democracy then removing what is considered to be a rogue regime and installing a new government. If the US government built a house the same way they install Democracy in the likes of Iraq they would built the roof first and then make a poor attempted to add the walls.
Without foundations any building or government will collapse.

I support removing rogue regime if some thought gose into the process instead of using the memories of 9-11 to justifie incomptance and label people traitors and unpatriotic.

Quote from the movie serenity fits what I feal about the situation perfectly.

Teacher: So with so many social and medical advancements we can bring to the Independents, why would they fight so hard against us?

Student: We meddle.

Teacher: River?

Student: People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

Teacher: River, we're not telling people what to think, we're just trying to show them how.

Its one of the main reasons the middle east dislikes the west so much, its why there are terrorist attacks, its why Iraqi's cheer when the shoot down another helicopter, we meddle with there life's and we don't have the right to.

Originally posted by iori_komeiSo, do you approve of or oppose forcing undemocratic countries to be democratic and why?

Isn't forcing a given political structure upon a nation by military means necessarily undemocratic?

Our way of practicing representative democracy is not the only way: it reflects our culture and our history. Would the Iraqis have freely chosen our way, or would they want something else perhaps?

I consider the war itself a seperate issue, but I believe that we should have been more hands off in the formation of a new government. They have a right to self determination: if that means a confederation, so be it. If that means 3 separate constitutional monarchies, so be it. Democracy in the presidential, parliamentary, or Somali tribal system or any other, whatever. For us to come in there with a framework and a supervisory role wasn't very "democratic" regardless of the system that resulted.

Forcing a political view on annother is not the correct thing to do. But consider Russia at its peak... it was trying to spread its type of system around the world in fear that no growth would lead to its own eventual destruction. Well guess what happened in the end?

There is a case for imperialism whether a lot of people like it or not but it is better to use a carrot than a stick I say.

Imperialism aka Rome for example helped to form modern Europe which begat the Americas and other developed parts of the world.

I can assure anybody here that in its time, Rome was not loved any more than the US is.

The problem we have today is Israel and its supporters, short and simple if you ask me.

Complex subject....

According to Socrates there was only one great form of government and it wasn't democracy. Socrates claimed that a monarchy was the greatest form of government.

Now, whether it be communism or democracy, a TRUE form of either will never exist. Communism, which is a great idea but will never work, will not work because of human nature.

Human Nature dictates: What is mine is mine. What is yours is yours. Sorry,folks,that's just the way the human brain is programmed.

Communism dictates: What is mine is mine and yours. What is your is yours but also mine. I wish humans were more like this, but let's face it, we're not.

Now, a TRUE democracy will never work because it gives the few too much power over the many. It finally leads into a hodge podge of political parties, much like Germany had during world war II. The U.S has never been a pure democracy. We are a representative democracy,a republic.

Now, to the question at hand. Should we try and democratize the world? Well, I don't really even think it should be a question. The real question should be by what means. I think we certainly should fight for freedom for all creeds,colors,ethnicities,religions, et cetera.

If America is going to be the "beacon" of freedom she was intended to be, then,yeah, we should try to promote our way of life to the world. It's the best there is.

By what means? To me, this is the real question. I certainly do not believe in the "devastate until you submit" tactics that the present administration is using, but I do think the principle is correct. If there is ever going to be peace on earth, it will only be achieved through freedom. Only after every man,woman and child is free will there be any real peace on earth.

So,some will ask what method do I propose. Well, in some instances military action would be necessary. However, most of the world know, and dare I say that most of the world would like to share our freedom, about America's freedom and its strength. What needs to be done in the Middle East is that America needs to set up a big media corporation there and promote our ideologies WITHOUT BASHING THE IDEOLOGIES OF THE ISLAMIC CULTURE. Communication is key,folks. It is key.

I guarantee you, if we do that,yeah, it may take decades, but you will see change. If that is done, I guarantee you, you will see change.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

A democratic nation can support Emerging Democracies by helping them grow. What any nation can not do with any success is to force Democracy into a region of a population that is not ready and willing for it.

And worst of all when is fed with hidden agendas.

Democracies are supposed to bring peace and security, while supporting and protecting Human rights.

It’s that the type of Endeavour we see right now in the Middle East where our leaders are trying to push their Democratic agendas?

Instead of bringing Fundamental freedoms and the desire for fighting crime and terrorism we see the contrary; we see chaos, mayhem and devastation.

Instead of seen the growth we see instability, political weakness, economic reverse, and less tolerance between the people that the democracy is push upon.

Democracy under this conditions will never be sucessful.

I forgot to say it, but I do agree, forcing with military action and
subjegation is'nt a good way, I suppose I implied that when I
used the word force though.

When I say force, I don't neccessarily mean go in and tear down
the government and kill everyone that does'nt agree.

What I mean is purposely over a set period of time create
influences for democracxy, and when the time is right, and the people
want it, and if the government starts killing them for it, than take some
military action.

Originally posted by iori_komei

What I mean is purposely over a set period of time create
influences for democracxy, and when the time is right, and the people
want it, and if the government starts killing them for it, than take some
military action.

I understood you post Iori, and that last quote summarized what I am saying, you are right, only when the people is willing force from nations that can help can be use to help with tyranny.

Your question reminds me of an essay question on an exam that my cousin showed me for one of his highschool classes during the last school year. It was something like "Could Ronald Reagan be considered a Wilsonian? Explain. Could George W. Bush be considered a Wilsonian? Explain." Now, it's fairly easy for us to see what the teacher wanted the kids to write - but they are just in high-school (I think my cousin is 14 or 16 or something.)

Now, creating the conditions that allow a people the means to self-determination is definitely a good thing - no sane person would argue against it. Insisting the result of their self-determination be a US-style republic/democracy? Well, that's different.

There was a guy a long time ago who wrote some book or paper that came to the conclusion that democracy will not work in countries that are within so many degrees latitude of the equator. I think he was dismissed as a racist - I never read the work, but have heard people talk about it. Does anyone know what I'm talking about - maybe the name of the author or title or something?

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
There was a guy a long time ago who wrote some book or paper that came to the conclusion that democracy will not work in countries that are within so many degrees latitude of the equator. I think he was dismissed as a racist.

That would be interesting to read, environemtnal factors impacting
the effect of kinds of governments established within the test area.

I guess nobody knows or has heard of the piece I was talking about, bummer . Next time I stop in to chat with the professor I believe mentioned it, hopefully I'll remember to ask him more about it. I agree it should be an interesting read - I'm surprised I didn't press for details when I originally heard about it.

Forcing democracy? It's almost an oxymoron ... how do "force" a group to have choices? What's the difference between forcing democracy and dominating a nation? I am not for supporting forced democracy in any fashion ... in order for there to be a productive change within a culture there must be a want or will of the people for the change.

Perhaps part of our problem in Iraq is just that ... we came in with the grand idea that the people of the nation would be so happy that we were there to liberate them. Did the want to be liberated? Now that they are liberated the Sunni enemies have free access to kill and maim them ... the same Sunni's that Saddam kept at bay for many decades ... albeit in a very brutal fashion.

I'm probably coming off as a liberal and I'm not ... althought I'm closer to there than the conservative right. I believe that if there is going to be an intervention into a foreign countries political system than it should be a clear-cut issue of what and why and it should be governed by an international group that agrees (such as the UN). No one country should be allowed to attack another solely for the purpose of "spreading democracy".

-STL

Originally posted by iori_komei
Ok, now I was watching a debate between two of my cousins friends,
one of whom is a stereotypical bleeding-heart Liberal, and the other
who was a Right leaning moderate with conservative beleiefs on some
things.

Well they got into debating forcing democracy on undemocratic countries,
and of course as I suspected, the more conservative one was'nt objeting
to it, and the Liberal one was vehementaly against it.


Anyways I started thinking about it, and I thought it'd be interesting to
see the opinions on it of my fellow ATSers/PTSers.

So, do you approve of or oppose forcing undemocratic countries to be
democratic and why?


Personally I approve of and support doing so.
Simply because every person should have the right to choose what their government is, and should have freedom.