- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 10,032
- Reaction score
- 4,966
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Hello.
So last night I was thinking about democracy in the wake of so much news about Egypt on dw.de (a very good news site) or euronews (if you have 5min/day to watch the news, pick euronews)... Westerwelle says that Egypt may be on the brink of civil war... etc.
So as a history buff I started thinking about the history of democracy in Europe, because you know, this is the continent where democracy was born, died, and was reborn at various stages in history. The Athenians fought countless wars with other hellenistic civilizations to preserve their democracy, which was the best thing ever at that time. They fought wars with others and wars between themselves too. The Roman republic was shattered and reforged countless times and there were numerous civil wars for power. Until Augustus Octavian put the final nail in the republican coffin, the senate kept re-emerging after the threat or after being overtaken by very ambitious individuals.
Not counting the numerous wars between the various city states of Italy during the dark ages and the middle ages, of which some were republics... well, they weren't monarchies at least and some democratic ideas flourished (Milan is a prime example), you have the worlds' foremost examples of well established democracies born and reborn through civil war.
The american war of independence was a civil war between englishmen, and when one side won, they called themselves Americans. And then they had a civil war.
The french had one civil war to get rid of the absolute monarchy... when that was finally galvanized they had a revolution in 1848, when that eventually collapsed 4 years later (the bonapartes had a knack for overturning republics)... and when the second empire collapsed because Napoleon III f-ed up in Prussia, what was the first instict of the French people? To form a new republic, the third republic. Which got defeated by the nazis... then you had the 4th republic which had to reinvent itself to suit European integration and became what is now, the 5th republic. So we see the French had multiple attempts and reinvented their democracy over and over again through chaos and problems.
The British had multiple problems with their first go at improving democracy by giving more powers to the parliament and taking them away from the monarchy, a remarkable triumph was the English civil war between the royalists and the roundheads, which the roundheads won.
The swiss had about 3 civil wars in order to define exactly what kind of a democracy they wanted until they ended up having what they got today, the confederacy.
So these are just a handful of examples. There are of course, many more. But this does raise an interesting point. Are we not, by interfering, denying the Egyptian people the chance to truly appreciate democracy? After all, the aforementioned nations and many others, who have democracy, usually have it at a cost of blood and lives. As tragic as it is today, do we not hold the democratic freedoms we have today due to that sacrifice dearer? Do we not appreciate democracy more because many died for it, teaching us a lesson that democracy is worth dying for? If everything would be done sanitary and insulated from all harm, then wouldn't that diminish the appreciation of something? If it comes easy. if it comes with "help". Surely if the desire of the Egyptian people is strong enough to want a democracy, they will have it. And the deaths of the people who fight for it will consolidate the democratic legacy that follows for centuries. They're allowed to stumble, they stumbled once. Others stumbled more times. Let's let them make the sacrifice they need to make to create a prosperous future for themselves in a democratic setting. Let's not intervene.
At least that's what I thought waking up this morning. This was pretty much my train of thought.
So last night I was thinking about democracy in the wake of so much news about Egypt on dw.de (a very good news site) or euronews (if you have 5min/day to watch the news, pick euronews)... Westerwelle says that Egypt may be on the brink of civil war... etc.
So as a history buff I started thinking about the history of democracy in Europe, because you know, this is the continent where democracy was born, died, and was reborn at various stages in history. The Athenians fought countless wars with other hellenistic civilizations to preserve their democracy, which was the best thing ever at that time. They fought wars with others and wars between themselves too. The Roman republic was shattered and reforged countless times and there were numerous civil wars for power. Until Augustus Octavian put the final nail in the republican coffin, the senate kept re-emerging after the threat or after being overtaken by very ambitious individuals.
Not counting the numerous wars between the various city states of Italy during the dark ages and the middle ages, of which some were republics... well, they weren't monarchies at least and some democratic ideas flourished (Milan is a prime example), you have the worlds' foremost examples of well established democracies born and reborn through civil war.
The american war of independence was a civil war between englishmen, and when one side won, they called themselves Americans. And then they had a civil war.
The french had one civil war to get rid of the absolute monarchy... when that was finally galvanized they had a revolution in 1848, when that eventually collapsed 4 years later (the bonapartes had a knack for overturning republics)... and when the second empire collapsed because Napoleon III f-ed up in Prussia, what was the first instict of the French people? To form a new republic, the third republic. Which got defeated by the nazis... then you had the 4th republic which had to reinvent itself to suit European integration and became what is now, the 5th republic. So we see the French had multiple attempts and reinvented their democracy over and over again through chaos and problems.
The British had multiple problems with their first go at improving democracy by giving more powers to the parliament and taking them away from the monarchy, a remarkable triumph was the English civil war between the royalists and the roundheads, which the roundheads won.
The swiss had about 3 civil wars in order to define exactly what kind of a democracy they wanted until they ended up having what they got today, the confederacy.
So these are just a handful of examples. There are of course, many more. But this does raise an interesting point. Are we not, by interfering, denying the Egyptian people the chance to truly appreciate democracy? After all, the aforementioned nations and many others, who have democracy, usually have it at a cost of blood and lives. As tragic as it is today, do we not hold the democratic freedoms we have today due to that sacrifice dearer? Do we not appreciate democracy more because many died for it, teaching us a lesson that democracy is worth dying for? If everything would be done sanitary and insulated from all harm, then wouldn't that diminish the appreciation of something? If it comes easy. if it comes with "help". Surely if the desire of the Egyptian people is strong enough to want a democracy, they will have it. And the deaths of the people who fight for it will consolidate the democratic legacy that follows for centuries. They're allowed to stumble, they stumbled once. Others stumbled more times. Let's let them make the sacrifice they need to make to create a prosperous future for themselves in a democratic setting. Let's not intervene.
At least that's what I thought waking up this morning. This was pretty much my train of thought.