TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Democracy cannot be installed !
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Democracy cannot be installed !

Democracy is a historical process that needs to reach maturity over time. One cannot export democracy with guns. If you look at the history of all Democratic nations today, they all fought for it for decades. And it was the people who fought for it, not govt or institutions.

And if you look at history of non-democratic countries, they never had it, nor do they wish to. Almost all Muslim nations prefer non-democratic system.

US cant change the mindset of people. For democracy to suceed it has to be deep rooted in the society. People have to beleive in it, and clearly the number and facts states Muslim countries dont prefer democracy.

I tend to agree.

Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

It's about giving people a choice and a voice. I agree that it takes time. It's certainly not a perfect system, but I don't see how it is not the most desireable. Unless of course, you are in line for the throne.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

Completely true...

^^ yeah, but the difference being that west germany had a history of democracy before democracy was re-introduced...

the problem is if we accept that democracy can only come through maturity over time, wtf do we do with brutal dictatorships around the globe?

oh, sorry, we cant help/intervene becoz you havent reached the right point of governmental evolution? meh.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

I think those circumstances were just a little bit different.

And people wonder why there's no end in sight with Iraq--going to war with ideologies and installing those ideologies into countries that think otherwise is difficult, if not useless at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think those circumstances were just a little bit different.

Both post-war forced transition of governments?

I think it's ironic how non-religious people generalize and bitch about how ALL religious people want to impose their views on them while they see no problem in going to war and imposing a system of goverment on some other nation. What's the fucking difference? One form of fascism stems from religious ideology while the other from political ideology, point being, they are both fascism. And anyone who thinks what is nowadays called "democracy" is freedom is truly delusional. There's nothing democratic about electing leaders who represent major coorperate interests and don't give a shit about the general population (except the richest 1-5 % ofcourse). This democratic crusade that my beloved nation's pursuing makes me sick to the core, along with the fascist hypocrisy of secular people (and religious people alike).

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Both post-war forced transition of governments?

With all due respect Neo, WHAT FUCKING WAR?!?! There is no war in Iraq. It's a fucking invasion and raping of a nation. I don't mean anything personal by it (especially since I think you're basically a good guy) but it really pisses me off when such serious matters are mischaracterized, something very prevelant in our culture so we "feel good" about what we're doing (and people only run into this problem when they identify or associate themselves with whatever power structure they live under, in this case our goverment).

P.S. I also just got done watching the new George Carlin HBO special and I think his anger and frustration rubbed off on me a little bit.

EDIT: On another note, that a very inappropriate comparison. Iraq is very different from Germany or Japan, and those were VERY different wars too.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Both post-war forced transition of governments?

Well, you have to consider that after the German Revolution of 1918 (which led to the creation of the Weimar Republic), Germany's National Assembly elected Friedrich Ebert as their first president. They didn't need an occupational force because the people themselves (via the workers and soldiers council's) pushed for revolution.

While they may not have been completely unified as a country, the German people were much better educated as a whole (in comparison to the Iraqi's.) Weimar was (quoting Wikipedia):

quote:

one of the great cultural sites of Europe, since it was the home to such luminaries as Bach, Goethe, Schiller, and Herder. It has been a site of pilgrimage for the German intelligentsia since Goethe first moved to Weimar in the late 18th century. The tombs of Goethe, Schiller, and Nietzsche may be found in the city, as may the archives of Goethe and Schiller. The period in German history from 1919-1933 is commonly referred to as the Weimar Republic, as the Republic's constitution was drafted here because the capital, Berlin, with its street rioting after the 1918 German Revolution, was considered too dangerous for the National Assembly to convene. Weimar was the center of the Bauhaus movement. The city houses art galleries, museums and the German national theatre.

Iraq's literacy rate is what, about 40 percent? It's comprised of Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Persians, Armenians, Turcoman's and Chaldeans. Each of Iraq's ethno-religious factions have been vying for control for how long now? (I don't know the full history I just know it's been a hell of a long time)

The political structure of Iraq is a non-cohesive, non-homogeneous combination of (from www.State.gov):

quote:

Al-Sadr Movement [Muqtada Al-Sadr]; Constitutional Monarchy Movement or CMM [Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein]; Da'wa Party [Ibrahim al-Ja�afari]; Independent Iraqi Alliance or IIA [Falah al-Naqib]; Iraqi Hizballah [Karim Mahud al-Muhammadawi]; Iraqi Independent Democrats or IID [Adnan Pachachi, Mahdi al-Hafiz]; Iraqi Islamic Party or IIP [Muhsin Abd al-Hamid, Hajim al-Hasani]; Iraqi National Accord or INA [Ayad Allawi]; Iraqi National Congress or INC [Ahmad Chalabi]; Iraqi National Unity Movement or INUM [Ahmad al-Kubaysi, chairman]; Jama'at al Fadilah or JAF [Ayatollah Muhammad 'Ali al-Yacoubi]; Kurdistan Democratic Party or KDP [Masud Barzani]; Muslim Ulama Council or MUC [Harith Sulayman al-Dari, secretary general]; Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or PUK [Jalal TalabaniI]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that in relation to Iraq, Germany was amazingly unified, with an educated and (relatively) informed citizenry (edit: something that seems necessary for Democracy to function properly.)

I think that any country which is split into that many vehemently opposing factions (as Iraq is) will undoubtedly have an overwhelmingly difficult time achieving any sort of diplomatic cohesion. I think that cohesion is necessary for the basic foundations of democracy to adhere, and Iraq is void of it.

That's my humble opinion.

@ Trancer-X: Dude, your inbox is full and I can't PM you.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z @ Trancer-X: Dude, your inbox is full and I can't PM you.

LOL

Sorry man, I guess I need a bigger inbox.

Give me a minute and I'll clean it out.

Okay, let me rephrase things because I know "war" is a very subjective and loaded term now-a-days.

Both post-military defeat, forced transition governments.

I guess the burning question is what motivation is behind installing a democracy...

I guess the burning question is what motivation is behind installing a democracy...

I guess the burning question is what the motivation behind installing a democracy is...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Okay, let me rephrase things because I know "war" is a very subjective and loaded term now-a-days. Both post-military defeat, forced transition governments.

How can you have a fully functioning democracy when the people are as ethno-politically divided as they are in Iraq? I personally think that it would be better to let each faction have their own territory first and then try and give Democracy a go. Each individual territory could vote for a democratically elected official (governor?) to represent them.


BTW - did you know that:

quote:

the Kurds were promised their own country under the terms of the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, only to find the offer rescinded under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. (...)

and

quote:

In October 1991, the government of Iraq voluntarily withdrew its civil administration and the citizens of the Kurdish safe haven were left to govern themselves. Elections were held in May 1992 and the Kurdistan National Assembly (KNA) and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) were created. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) entered into an equal power-sharing arrangement, with five of the 105 KNA seats allocated to members of the Assyrian-Chaldean Christian community. Turkomans boycotted the election, although efforts were made to include representatives from all ethnic and religious communities. Participatory processes were instituted to develop experience with the requirements, and systems and procedures of democracy. These elections were deemed to have been free and fair by international observers.(5) Regional governance has been based on the March 1970 Autonomy Agreement with Iraq. Four provinces were established, each headed by a governor. The regional government, headed by a prime minister with a cabinet of ministers, was established in the regional capital of Erbil. But the 50-50 power-sharing arrangement broke down within two years. Today, the Kurdish safe haven is governed in two separate parts, each by one of the two main parties (KDP and PUK). Efforts have been on-going to find how to integrate the two administrations. Despite this disappointment, there have been some more positive developments. Free and fair local elections, under international observation, were conducted in dozens of municipalities in 2000 and 2001 in the KDP and PUK areas. For the first time since 1994, the KNA convened in its entirety in Erbil on October 4, 2002. The reconvening of the KNA is a clear indication of the growing cooperation between the KDP and PUK, particularly in their dealings with the Bush administration and US Congress, as well as with states in the region and Europe. In particular, the KDP and PUK are unified in asserting the Kurdish right to self-determination in a future democratic Iraq in which they call for Iraqi Kurdistan entering into a federal relationship with the central government under a new constitutional arrangement. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/EA21Ak03.html

sorry if this was a little sloppy but I'm in a hurry

Sure you can. Every democracy that has ever existed was installed at one point or another.

Most people will rationalize any government after living under it long enough. The rest will be marginalized, eliminated, or otherwise swept under the rug regardless of the particular system being used.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X [color=#33ccff]How can you have a fully functioning democracy when the people are as ethno-politically divided as they are in Iraq?

Ever looked at the U.S.? About the most ethnically diverse society I have ever seen. And at least a decently functioning Democracy at the very worst.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Ever looked at the U.S.? About the most ethnically diverse society I have ever seen. And at least a decently functioning Democracy at the very worst.

Or Canada for that matter...

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Japan and West Germany worked out pretty well.

They had history of democracy in past, and more important thing is that the people in the country mentioned believed in Democracy.

But in Iraq and midlle eastern countries they dont believe in democracy, they never had democracy, they never want democracy. Noone can force its ideology and its thinking on others.

Simply because democracy is good for you dosent means its good for everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Purple But in Iraq and midlle eastern countries they dont believe in democracy, they never had democracy, they never want democracy. Noone can force its ideology and its thinking on others.

While I will concede that it's never easy to foretell what somone else 'wants', I think it's a bit overreaching to say "They never want democracy." How do you know? How about "They've never tasted Democracy." How many countries that have successfully democratized have gone on to revert to a totalitarian dictatorship? Or have devolved back into something else? I think that given the chance, most people would prefer to have a vote on policies that dictate how they live their lives. Particularly in the long-run.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka While I will concede that it's never easy to foretell what somone else 'wants', I think it's a bit overreaching to say "They never want democracy." How do you know?

Iran has voted practically against democracy and freedom, with people voting for more hardline and conservative president. The important point to look in here is that they are Muslims, and muslim couintries like it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How about "They've never tasted Democracy."

You have never tasted Dictatorship, so should Syria invade your country because it and its people believes that Dictatorship is better that democracy ?

Who are you to tell what to taste? Just because its a success in your country dosent mean it wll be successful their too.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How many countries that have successfully democratized have gone on to revert to a totalitarian dictatorship? Or have devolved back into something else?

Pakistan. And point to notice here again is that its a muslim country.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I think that given the chance, most people would prefer to have a vote on policies that dictate how they live their lives. Particularly in the long-run.

Yes and thats why Iran keeps voting for more hardline and conservative president.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.