- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The Iraqis recently elected an Iranophilic government. The Palestinians have voted for terrorism. In Egypt, the Islamists finished a close second to Hosni Mubarak's ruling party and would've finished much better if they had been allowed to contest more seats. In Saudi Arabia, it's safe to say that the results of democratic elections would bring about something resembling the Taliban. The Pakistanis would probably elect a hardline, pro-terror, anti-American, anti-Indian government if they had the chance.
So my question is this: Does it make sense for the US (or other Western nations) to support democracy in all cases? Should this always be a moral imperative? What's so great about democracy if the people vote for repression? In my opinion, the most important thing we should be encouraging is for governments to reign in their militants and establish security. After that, we can encourage them to expand liberty and human rights. I think we should only encourage democracy after the other conditions have been met.
So my question is this: Does it make sense for the US (or other Western nations) to support democracy in all cases? Should this always be a moral imperative? What's so great about democracy if the people vote for repression? In my opinion, the most important thing we should be encouraging is for governments to reign in their militants and establish security. After that, we can encourage them to expand liberty and human rights. I think we should only encourage democracy after the other conditions have been met.
Last edited: