Yell at me if we've discussed this already.

George W. Bush, and many others, seem to think that democracy is some sort of panacea, a cure for all the worlds problems. Just "give" them democracy, and everything will sort itself out.

This has clearly been shown not to be the case. Take Palestine for example, they elected Hamas, a terrorist organization. If the people in Iran had democracy, does GW really expect the result to be any different?

I want to bite my tongue while I'm saying it, but I've decided that I don't think that democracy is always the right thing. We just need to look to the Middle East. I think we should be promoting states like Jordan and Turkey. Turkey is now a muslim nation with a secular government. It is also now a democracy (right?) but it did not BECOME what it is now through democracy.

On the other hand, I think some countries are very ready for democracy. Cuba, for instance, I feel could do pretty well with democracy, provided that their northern neighbors don't shove it down their throats.

Note: when I use palestine as an example of a nation not ready for democracy, it is not only because I don't care for Hamas. I think from a completely neutral point of view, Hamas is not the best thing for furthering the Palestinian People's aims.

I guess this post is a bit rambling... any comments?

__________________
Working with God since 4,000,000,000 B.C.
[IMG]http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/E-Darwin.gif[/IMG]

__________________
Kanadees

[B][COLOR="Red"]United Nations mission statement - Keeping the world save for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.[/COLOR][/B]

You've stumbled upon something very important, IMO, Donkey. This is why I do not call upon China to have immediate elections and democracy. Compare and contrast the economic performance between China's dictatorship and India's democracy. It doesn't always work that way that democracy gets you on the path to rapid economic growth.

Now there are two aspects to what you are talking about and I think you should try to pick one to discuss. The first one is the US imposing democracy on other countries, and the second one is whether or not other countries should impose democracies on themselves. Or maybe alternatively, we could discuss: will the US imposing democracy on countries it doesn't get along with solve problems? Or will the international community imposing democracy on countries that have internal problems, solve those problems?

Where do you want to take this?


WEB

Democracy is important, but it is not the only thing a country need. the rule of law is another important thing, as well as the freedoms of speech and religion that Kanadees mention (but I do not know what Kanadees mean by "freedom of choice", freedom to choose what?).

Democracy can become the tyranny of the majority, if you don't have the rule of law and separation of powers, i.e. checks and balances. Preferably also separation of central, regional, and local power, though this depends on how big the country is.

You have to have a Constitution which is hard to amend and upheld by the courts of law, police, and (if necessary) military, a constitution with a Bill of Rights or its equal that ensures rights and freedoms to the people which cannot be done away with by a simple vote in the Legislature of the country or by an executive order by the Head of State. The Legislature should not be able to outlaw political parties just like that, as happened in Germany in 1933.

Most important for a democracy, though, is a good educational system. Democracy gives a lot of power to the people, but the people must be adequately educated to be able to use this right. In a lot of Third World countries, democracy has resulted in the people voting for non-democratic parties, for instance in Algeria and Palestine. I don't blame the people as such, but the ignorance of the people.

__________________
[U]President Josiah Bartlet:[/U] Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
[U]Leo McGarry:[/U] Maybe they don't and they can't add.

I think it isn't democracy that is the problem but it is being forced into democracy before they are ready that is the problem. A country has to come to democracy on it's own rather than be told by another country that it has to be a democracy. They have to want to change before they can change.

__________________
Up there in the immensity of the Cosmos, an inescapable perception awaits us. National boundaries are not evident when we view the Earth from space. Fanatical ethnic, religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars. -Carl Sagan

__________________
Kanadees

[B][COLOR="Red"]United Nations mission statement - Keeping the world save for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.[/COLOR][/B]

This is an interesting thread concept, and I'll probably return for discussion in greater detail later, when I'm less busy.

Let me just say that I believe democracy requires a well-established and sizeable property owning middle class in order to be successful. I believe that attempts "democratize" third world countries, which lack that, will meet with marginal success at best. It seems to me that countries comprised mainly of poor citizens will make uninformed decisions and 'elect' regimes with dictatorial ambitions, landing them right where they started. Democracy requires an educated populace that can bring some pressure (of various sorts) to bear on their elected officials.

__________________
[b][SIZE=2]"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."[/b][/SIZE]

-Thomas Jefferson

Bingo
Excellent post. A well educated, law abiding populus is just as important.

__________________
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance!

"Un hombre del honor debe nunca olvidarse de cuáles él es porque él ve cuáles son otros."
- Baltasar Gracian

Nice to see you have joined the 'reality' based community.

I was arguing back in 2002 that forcefully imposing democracy in Iraq is a fool's game. Democracy cannot be 'imposed' by anyone on anyone.

And Hamas is the legal and democratically elected government of the Palastinian territories. The fact that the USA can't deal with this fact shows how little the US government values actual democracy.

Donkey, if you are interested in the process of evolution from tyranny to democracy, I think S.Korea provides the best recent example of what works and what doesn't. Needless to say, 'rushing' towards democracy is definitely the wrong policy.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Another aspect to consider is that it appears to be more sucessful when the population has, for the most part, common goals and a common cultural background, at least enough to allow cooperation. Many of the nations we are trying to impose democracy on are nations in name, but in reality consist of warring factions that have no history of cooperation. This does not make for a tenable democracy.

__________________
[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=DarkGreen]"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin [/COLOR][/FONT]