I don't think democracy works everywhere.

[James D Hill]

Yes we all think democracy and capitalism are the best systems in the world but I think in many countries with a high uneducated population, old clan or tribial fueds or a religous hotbox like Iraq that a dictatership is the best bet. I think a dictater can hold a country together that would fly apart if it was a democracy. We Americans want freedom for all and that is good for us but I am starting to wonder if it would be good for Islamic states. I guess the one exeption woud be Turkey but they have many things going for them that other Islamic countries do not have most of all a secular government.

 

[lizzie]

Of course it doesn't work everywhere. If it's incompatible with other factors determining culture, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Goshin]

Democracy, that is to say simple majority rule, has rarely ever worked very well anywhere. Fortunately that isn't what America and most Western nations are founded on. They are instead Republics operating as Representative Democracies, in most cases with.... now HERE is the key phrase, pay close attention.... LIMITED GOVERNMENTS.

Most, like ours, have some kind of Charter or Constitution that limited the powers of government to some degree, and/or some kind of checks and balances to keep government from going off on a power-trip.

The key provisions in our form of government are that government is limited, and the recognition that government's power derives from The People, not the other way around. That, along with personal and economic liberty, and the principle of no taxation (or authority imposed) without representation.

Democracy, in its pure form, is simply two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The ancient Greeks discovered its faults and failings a long time ago, that is why our Founders avoided it.


I'm not married to Republic via Representative Democracy as the ONLY form of good government though... I think almost any form of government can be "good" if it has the following:
1. Limited powers
2. Power/authority and RESPONSIBILITY are equal and co-ordinate.
3. A means of checks and balances against the power of the ruling class.
4. an institutional respect for the rights of the citizenry.

 

[Sherman123]

Yes we all think democracy and capitalism are the best systems in the world but I think in many countries with a high uneducated population, old clan or tribial fueds or a religous hotbox like Iraq that a dictatership is the best bet. I think a dictater can hold a country together that would fly apart if it was a democracy. We Americans want freedom for all and that is good for us but I am starting to wonder if it would be good for Islamic states. I guess the one exeption woud be Turkey but they have many things going for them that other Islamic countries do not have most of all a secular government.

I'm always amazed to hear this coming from people who classify themselves ostensibly as liberal, and when I hear it makes me never want to take my progressive friends seriously again. Yes, obviously brown Muslims are incapable of accepting democracy. Let's even use Iraq as our example, obviously there has been atrocious violence and problems to be worked out, but the people in poll after poll have put great value in retaining their new democracy and have had several successful elections. Is democracy incompatible with the desires of the Libyan people? The Tunisian people? The Egyptian people? If so, why?

 

[clownboy]

No system will work perfectly will all humans or all groups of humans. Nor are "democracy and capitalism" single systems, there is so much variation in implementation, they account for many, many differing flavors of governance.

 

[Ben K.]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. It's worked in various countries on all continents and across all religious groups. Countries that are predominantly Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist et al have had success.

I see no reason why it can't work anywhere, though the path toward it may be more or less difficult for certain societies for a variety of reasons.

 

[James D Hill]

I'm always amazed to hear this coming from people who classify themselves ostensibly as liberal, and when I hear it makes me never want to take my progressive friends seriously again. Yes, obviously brown Muslims are incapable of accepting democracy. Let's even use Iraq as our example, obviously there has been atrocious violence and problems to be worked out, but the people in poll after poll have put great value in retaining their new democracy and have had several successful elections. Is democracy incompatible with the desires of the Libyan people? The Tunisian people? The Egyptian people? If so, why?

I am just making a point. These countries seemed alot more stable when the have a dictater or military rule. I am not saying what is right or wrong. Lets look at Iraq. The country is at the crossroads between Sunni's and shiites who hate each other along with the Kurds to the north. Anything other than a iron fist will not keep the country stable. Sad but true.

 

[Sherman123]

I am just making a point. These countries seemed alot more stable when the have a dictater or military rule. I am not saying what is right or wrong. Lets look at Iraq. The country is at the crossroads between Sunni's and shiites who hate each other along with the Kurds to the north. Anything other than a iron fist will not keep the country stable. Sad but true.

That honestly just sounds racist. They don't need a dictatorship or the 'iron fist' of an autocrat. You are also zeroing your focus to Iraq when your point was a broad statement about Muslim and Arab countries in general. But fine, let's look at Iraq. It is a country that prior to its current situation had a dictator who buried hundreds of thousands of his own citizens in democidal campaigns, and hundreds thousands more in campaigns of aggression. It was a country with a labyrinthine secret police network and astonishingly brutal torture dungeons. Is it any surprise that even with the horrors of the civil war and internecine conflict Iraqi's still support and back the idea of democracy and oppose a return to Saddam? There is a huge difference between saying a country has deep problems that need to be resolved, and a troubling road ahead, and saying perpetual dictatorship is the answer.

 

[Sherman123]

Was Yugoslavia racially, culturally, or ethnically prepared for independence? Were the Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Slovenes, Kosovars, etc ready for independence? Or was the brutal ethnic conflict of the 1990's with sporadic outbursts into the early 2000's evidence that dictatorship was the superior option and form of government for these people?

 

[lizzie]

That honestly just sounds racist. They don't need a dictatorship or the 'iron fist' of an autocrat. ..........There is a huge difference between saying a country has deep problems that need to be resolved, and a troubling road ahead, and saying perpetual dictatorship is the answer.

Some countries most certainly do need a dictatorship, otherwise, they would not have one. When any group is adequately ready for change, it happens. No doubt it will often be a rocky road, but people who have much difficulty controlling their base impulses, need strong authoritarian leadership. Without it, what we see is a series of tribal wars and unrest. Just as it is said that here, we get the government we deserve, the same principle generally applies in just about any society.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Yes we all think democracy and capitalism are the best systems in the world but I think in many countries with a high uneducated population, old clan or tribial fueds or a religous hotbox like Iraq that a dictatership is the best bet. I think a dictater can hold a country together that would fly apart if it was a democracy. We Americans want freedom for all and that is good for us but I am starting to wonder if it would be good for Islamic states. I guess the one exeption woud be Turkey but they have many things going for them that other Islamic countries do not have most of all a secular government.

Whether it "works" depends on the aim. Assuming the aim is to have a government where all people are represented, then many types of government, including dictatorship with the right dictator, could work, but I think that the one most likely to succeed and that gives people the greatest opportunity to be represented is democracy because democracy, at least, gives everyone a vote.

However, in order for democracy to actually work as well as possible, citizens have to make their votes matter which first requires them to know how to make their votes matter and acquire the means to do so. THAT requires an educated population. Without that education, I think citizens may actually be more susceptible to manipulation in a democracy than in other forms of government because they exist under the illusion that the mere guarantee of a vote ensures that their voice is being heard. In other words, people in a dictatorship KNOW that they don't have a say in things. Many people in a democracy DON'T. Instead, they live under the illusion that merely voting gives them an influential role in their government which makes it easier for the powers at be to keep them submissive.

 

[gavinfielder]

I think it's less an education, and more attitude that dictates whether people can check their government. A low baseline of education, perhaps, but more vital to democracy is simply recognition and adoption of the philosophy behind it. And that, of course, is a cultural issue.

 

[lizzie]

I think it's less an education, and more attitude that dictates whether people can check their government. A low baseline of education, perhaps, but more vital to democracy is simply recognition and adoption of the philosophy behind it. And that, of course, is a cultural issue.

I dunno. I tend to thing that recognition and adoption of a philosophy requires at least a well-rounded educational status.

 

[Gardener]

The single biggest impediment to democracy in the ME is their high rate of consanguinity. How can democracy possibly flourish as we know it when the population is so thoroughly inbred as they are?

When people are loyal to blood over ideals, democracy cannot hope to flourish. The population needs to be liberalized FIRST, and then democracy can flourish. It won't happen the other way around.

 

[Wiggen]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. It's worked in various countries on all continents and across all religious groups. Countries that are predominantly Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist et al have had success.

I see no reason why it can't work anywhere, though the path toward it may be more or less difficult for certain societies for a variety of reasons.

A democracy is incompatable with a theocracy. And it is essentially incompatable with an uneducated population that is suddenly given political power with no experience in how to use it. And that's what we see in some of the emerging middle east states.

 

[Ben K.]

A democracy is incompatable with a theocracy. And it is essentially incompatable with an uneducated population that is suddenly given political power with no experience in how to use it. And that's what we see in some of the emerging middle east states.

Very few nascent democracies had an educated population with experience in governance. It helped if you were a predominantly white colony whose metropolitan center developed the magna carta. Countries like Japan, Turley and India took it to quickly, countries like South Korea had a few hick-ups and countless Latin American countries (and Germany most famously) reverted in and out of the democratic process.

Democracy is not wholly contingent on disavowing theocratic element. The UK herself and a variety of European nations have national churches while Ireland makes overt appeals to their Catholic heritages in its constitutions. Morocco provides an example of a Muslim nation that constitutionally recognises its religious heritage while operating as a relatively functional constitutional monarchy.

Democracy is no fait accompli, but to say it can't work in certain cultures is myopic. The only thing you can count on is that it will always be some degree of dysfunctional where ever one goes and it rarely achieved over night.

 

[Ben K.]

How can democracy possibly flourish as we know it when the population is so thoroughly inbred as they are?

When people are loyal to blood over ideals, democracy cannot hope to flourish. The population needs to be liberalized FIRST, and then democracy can flourish. It won't happen the other way around.

That's a terrible thing to say about Ireland!

 

[AliHajiSheik]

It can work everywhere, but when there is a vested power that doesn't want it to work, there are always problems.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes we all think democracy and capitalism are the best systems in the world but I think in many countries with a high uneducated population, old clan or tribial fueds or a religous hotbox like Iraq that a dictatership is the best bet.

When you put it like that, it doesn't sound unlike the USA.

I think a dictater can hold a country together that would fly apart if it was a democracy.

Some countries need to fly apart so they can put themselves back together in a more suitable manner. The problem with many current dictatorships goes back to their original dictators in the palaces of Europe and all their neat straight lines (Iraq being a classic example).

We Americans want freedom for all and that is good for us but I am starting to wonder if it would be good for Islamic states.

What would be best for Islamic states would be for westerners to stop treating them as if their all the same. The best (or least worst) way forwards for each country will be individual to that country and the people living in it.

 

[Wiggen]

Very few nascent democracies had an educated population with experience in governance. It helped if you were a predominantly white colony whose metropolitan center developed the magna carta. Countries like Japan, Turley and India took it to quickly, countries like South Korea had a few hick-ups and countless Latin American countries (and Germany most famously) reverted in and out of the democratic process.

Democracy is not wholly contingent on disavowing theocratic element. The UK herself and a variety of European nations have national churches while Ireland makes overt appeals to their Catholic heritages in its constitutions. Morocco provides an example of a Muslim nation that constitutionally recognises its religious heritage while operating as a relatively functional constitutional monarchy.

Democracy is no fait accompli, but to say it can't work in certain cultures is myopic. The only thing you can count on is that it will always be some degree of dysfunctional where ever one goes and it rarely achieved over night.

Well, it depends on what you call 'working', I guess. If baying mobs crying out for blood are your idea of democracy, then I guess it works. If establishing nations where women are enshrined as second class citizens then I guess it works.

Democracy is rather dependant on the freedom to express thoughts and ideas that might be contrary to those held by the majority, with the reasonable expectation that doing so will not result in death or imprisonment. I don't see that in any Muslim country where religion is the guiding force.

 

[Zhao Ningkang]

What if we replace democracy with basic human rights?

 

[lizzie]

When people are loyal to blood over ideals, democracy cannot hope to flourish. The population needs to be liberalized FIRST, and then democracy can flourish. It won't happen the other way around.

I'm not sure how liberalization of the populations could be facilitated without education, and in order for education (besides religious indoctrination) to be facilitated, some sort of concensus would have to be reached that a world of legitimate ideas and concepts exists outside of religion. In order for this to happen, clerics will have to lose their hold on the authority over people, but for people who are conditioned to respond to authority, and without strong authority figures find themselves rather lost and aimless, this is a huge obstacle to overcome.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

What do you mean by "work"? Establish a stable political climate?

 

[Peter Grimm]

You are correct, democracy does not work everywhere. Also, it is not America's responsibility to export democracy to the whole world. As long as a foreign government reflects the will of its people, is stable, and is friendly to the US and to US business interests, I have no problem with them.

Yes we all think democracy and capitalism are the best systems in the world but I think in many countries with a high uneducated population, old clan or tribial fueds or a religous hotbox like Iraq that a dictatership is the best bet. I think a dictater can hold a country together that would fly apart if it was a democracy. We Americans want freedom for all and that is good for us but I am starting to wonder if it would be good for Islamic states. I guess the one exeption woud be Turkey but they have many things going for them that other Islamic countries do not have most of all a secular government.

 

[Fisher]

I guess the rub has been always what if people elect to have a Czar or Communist government--isn't that democracy as well?

I don't think democracy is incompatible with religions and cultures by default but getting from here to there can be a huge hurdle not well-suited for rapid democratization.