Western foreign policy, when push comes to shove: Democracy sacrificed for Stability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Your second section gives the insight that you are missing from the first. The idea of pan-islamic statehood and the world caliphate is a fantasy. Islam is a massively sectarian religion, for one. Islamic nations have shown the same willingness for hypocracy, civil war, national interest and scullduggery that Christian nations have over the centuries.

Fearing a pan islamic world is like the 17th century protestant fears of an all-powerful pope taking over the world.

---

Fair point. There certainly is something of the "Mahometian peril" about the western fear of political islam. You do have to acknowledge Frag's point that there does exist a minority in favour of a caliphate and all that jazz though. A balanced democracy (i.e. with proper seperation of powers etc) should be able to hold fringe extremism at bay however, yet therein lies much of the possible concern: democracies are not born without strife and take a while to settle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

OK I admit it was unfair for me to ask you about something specific like that. But I still feel it shows that the USA wants to spread democracy, but doesn't see the support of autocratic regimes a terrible thing in comparison to the alternative (Communism, Radical Islamists etc.), which I would say isn't that bad for the world's only super power.

---

I think the US primarily wants allied and controllable client states. If they are democratic, then that's a bonus. In the words of Churchill "The US can always be relied on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

You do have to acknowledge Frag's point that there does exist a minority in favour of a caliphate and all that jazz though.

...

democracies are not born without strife and take a while to settle.

---

A minority of people believe all sorts of crap! Don't 50% of Americans think 9/11 was a hoax and Obama is a muslim?

It's true - democracies do often have difficult births - and sometimes they produce results that other countries don't like - Gaza for example. But we either believe in democracy or we don't. Once you start cherry-picking, that defeats the whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

A minority of people believe all sorts of crap! Don't 50% of Americans think 9/11 was a hoax and Obama is a muslim?

---

Exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It's true - democracies do often have difficult births - and sometimes they produce results that other countries don't like - Gaza for example. But we either believe in democracy or we don't. Once you start cherry-picking, that defeats the whole point.

---

Indeedy-doody. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I think the US primarily wants allied and controllable client states. If they are democratic, then that's a bonus. In the words of Churchill "The US can always be relied on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other options".

---

I think the US wants whatever keeps the US secure, and the US recognises that stable democracies abroad naturally serve US interests the most. It's a win-win situation, but the US is very prepared to jettison democracy when it is unfeasible or contrary to US interests.

Was more a musing than a point mind you, but I think it all comes down to nation-states interacting. We aid minorities if a hostile nation-state needs to be disrupted and vica versa when it isn't hostile. Don't think particular ideologies come first, just politics. Democracy in the middle-east is clanwars 2.0 anyway, way too complex. Way to corrupt as well it's basicly begging them to flock with their own

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I think the US wants whatever keeps the US secure, and the US recognises that stable democracies abroad naturally serve US interests the most. It's a win-win situation, but the US is very prepared to jettison democracy when it is unfeasible or contrary to US interests.

---

I suppose that's where we differ. You think that democracy is prime, but is neccesarily subordinated for US interests. I think that US interests are prime, and democracy is just a happy and occasional bi-product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Was more a musing than a point mind you, but I think it all comes down to nation-states interacting. We aid minorities if a hostile nation-state needs to be disrupted and vica versa when it isn't hostile. Don't think particular ideologies come first, just politics. Democracy in the middle-east is clanwars 2.0 anyway, way too complex. Way to corrupt as well it's basicly begging them to flock with their own

---

In societies without robust political and democratic institutions, people rely on a network of family, ethnic, tribal, geographic and other institutional influences to affect changes in their lives. This isn't a peculiarity of the middle east, it's just a necessary political strategy for societies with this level of political development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

In societies without robust political and democratic institutions, people rely on a network of family, ethnic, tribal, geographic and other institutional influences to affect changes in their lives. This isn't a peculiarity of the middle east, it's just a necessary political strategy for societies with this level of political development

---

But why would democracy be a necessity at all? An old middle eastern proverb I just made up 'who's in control doesn't negotiate'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

But why would democracy be a necessity at all? An old middle eastern proverb I just made up 'who's in control doesn't negotiate'.

---

You answer yourself in a way, in a properly balanced democracy, no-one holds enough power to not have to negotiate. It is at once the greatest strangth and weakness of democracies. There is a school of thought that "benevolent autocracy" can produce better results and quicker than democracy, but the "benevolence" of autocracy is statisticaly quite fleeting -and of course we need not go into the possible damage by autocracies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

You answer yourself in a way, in a properly balanced democracy, no-one holds enough power to not have to negotiate. It is at once the greatest strangth and weakness of democracies. There is a school of thought that "benevolent autocracy" can produce better results and quicker than democracy, but the "benevolence" of autocracy is statisticaly quite fleeting -and of course we need not go into the possible damage by autocracies.

---

Someone has the hold the knife that slices the pie, in a democracy everybody wants to be that, and we at least can expect it to be not all too unfair. Wouldn't the Middle Eastern countries benefit from an enlighted despot or even a theocrate who's authority isn't to be doubted, bit like a referee to solve disputes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I suppose that's where we differ. You think that democracy is prime, but is neccesarily subordinated for US interests. I think that US interests are prime, and democracy is just a happy and occasional bi-product.

---

Basically yeah, although I would say that it's generally in the US' interest for countries to be democratic, rather than them being mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Someone has the hold the knife that slices the pie, in a democracy everybody wants to be that, and we at least can expect it to be not all too unfair. Wouldn't the Middle Eastern countries benefit from an enlighted despot or even a theocrate who's authority isn't to be doubted, bit like a referee to solve disputes.

---

That's kind of the point of democracy though, all the seperate parts (legislative, executive, judicial) should push against themselves and hence support the whole system.

With the best will in the world, saying that the people of the middle east need something different to democracy smacks a bit of orientalism: that "they" only recognise a strong man and that "we", by inference, are naturaly more democratic. I know you don't mean it like that but democracy is just a system, as is monarchy or dictatorship. People almost certainly said that monarchism was the natural/most culturaly appropriate thing in Europe during the 1700s, but thank god, we are no longer stuck in the societies of the 1700s.

That said, there are some within political Islam who are not keen on democracy, ostensibly becasue they regard it as a foreign/christian invention and hence alien to Islam. My feeling is that these people are those who stand to loose more from a balanced and hence potentially less theocratic state, so of course they don't like the idea of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

That said, there are some within political Islam who are not keen on democracy, ostensibly becasue they regard it as a foreign/christian invention and hence alien to Islam. My feeling is that these people are those who stand to loose more from a balanced and hence potentially less theocratic state, so of course they don't like the idea of it.

---

Great posts, good points overall, however i beg to differ on this last line, outside of theocrats, islamist movements do believe in some sort of democratic voting system, it isn't something western or foreign since the first four caliphs after muhammed were voted in, by what would be called a Bai'ah. Its not exactly progressive in this day and age, since it relied on the person having knowledge in alot of islamic qanun and shariah, the point is democracy as a system isn't really alien, and there is alot of literature that goes back to the 50s to support that, as well as the recent egyptian elections fiasco (the muslim brotherhood supported El Baradeis platform which was secular).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

Great posts, good points overall, however i beg to differ on this last line

---

How funny, I could say the same to you, your consumate intelligency... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

the recent egyptian elections fiasco (the muslim brotherhood supported El Baradeis platform which was secular).

---

...not without a degree of internal discussion, and strife, did the MB support El Baradei.

The need for democracy is a bit too whitemenguildish for me. Let them do it their way they'll figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The need for democracy is a bit too whitemenguildish for me. Let them do it their way they'll figure it out.

---

I see what you're saying, and you are spot on that only a context driven/derived system will ever work, but democracy really is just a system -and you only have to look around the world (not just the west) to see how many permutations there can be of supposedly successful forms to (IMO) see that it can work for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I see what you're saying, and you are spot on that only a context driven/derived system will ever work, but democracy really is just a system -and you only have to look around the world (not just the west) to see how many permutations there can be of supposedly successful forms to (IMO) see that it can work for everyone.

---

That's a bit of a missionaries take, the west isn't the east. Democracy is something that naturally evolved here because of a quazillions of reasons, but it's a poor export product without them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

How funny, I could say the same to you, your consumate intelligency... :wink:


...not without a degree of internal discussion, and strife, did the MB support El Baradei.

---

The fact they reached that decision is telling, it wasn't because of democracy, but rather some of his [al baradei] more secular policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That's a bit of a missionaries take, the west isn't the east. Democracy is something that naturally evolved here because of a quazillions of reasons, but it's a poor export product without them

---

Naturally evolved? I don't think so. It was a foreign idea imported and implemented violently against enormous resistance by the powers at the time. In the 18th century most European monarchs looked at the American and French revolutions with undiluted horror. The Great Reform Act of 1832 in Britain divided the politicians even though it's measures were very conservative. The 19th century was marked by piecemeal compromise by the ruling class to democracy. One could easily argue that modern democracy, as we now know it, in Europe and the US was really only something implemented in the 20th century.

The idea that democracy is something only befitting Europeans is a fantasy that appeals to European right-wingers and the incumbent despots and wannabe despots of other parts of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

That's a bit of a missionaries take, the west isn't the east. Democracy is something that naturally evolved here because of a quazillions of reasons, but it's a poor export product without them

---

yeah ok, you are being orientalist now.

A functioning and secular democracy will self-replicate itself in its population. It is only when people become desperate that more oppressive measures are required till the point where revolution is only the real solution.

Problem in the west is that many of our democracies are simply compromises or out-dated rhetoric which hasn't progressed with the times. The issue other places is that they haven't really experienced a democracy. The democratic deficient is also a problem as it makes 'democracy' look weak when it is actually one of the most stabilizing forces in a society.

There is also the case where many people just fail to learn from history and instead of trying to make a better tomorrow, they are either blinded by petty selfishness, historical grievances or just give up and don't bother.

In order to make a real difference, you have to think beyond your own interests, and only then when we as humanity can make our real differences.

Usually, this is the point where I get attacked by nationsalists and other groups usually associated with the 'right', because they have their own self-interests, such as wanting their country to better than everyone else, or being a position of some sort of unearned advantage over others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

yeah ok, you are being orientalist now.

---

OK, if that's a bad thing I'll just put it in my collection. Consensus driven policy just happens to be a western thing, non-western democracy is usually a facade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

OK, if that's a bad thing I'll just put it in my collection.

---

I just mean that you are saying that they are different people/cultures so should be considered differently, which is ironic because I'm normaly harping on about tolerance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Consensus driven policy just happens to be a western thing, non-western democracy is usually a facade.

---

It certainly is in many cases, but that isn't actually democracy. Elections do not a democracy make, yet the two are very commonly, and quite incorrectly, conflated to be the same thing. Elections are widely abused and used as a fig-leaf for more naked dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

OK, if that's a bad thing I'll just put it in my collection. Consensus driven policy just happens to be a western thing, non-western democracy is usually a facade.

---

Any examples to back this up, or are you shooting from the hip again?

Japan, South Korea and India are all examples of non-Western countries with secure democracies. True, all were heavily influenced by Western ideas of democracy, but which democracy isn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Any examples to back this up, or are you shooting from the hip again?

---

Kidding me? Can you name me one African or Middle-Eastern democracy that can hold a candle to the western ones? They have a running joke in Egypt where a burglar finds the winners of the next elections, such fatalist humour exists for a reason. Means to and end, not democracy as the end. Not saying they are unfit for democracy, but these countries are much more complicated. Again, clanwars 2.0, less bloody, but hardly ideal. And often bloody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Kidding me? Can you name me one African or Middle-Eastern democracy that can hold a candle to the western ones? They have a running joke in Egypt where a burglar finds the winners of the next elections, such fatalist humour exists for a reason. Means to and end, not democracy as the end. Not saying they are unfit for democracy, but these countries are much more complicated. Again, clanwars 2.0, less bloody, but hardly ideal. And often bloody.

---

lol are you serious? how is egypt a democracy again? just because it calls itself one doesn't mean it is. This is a rather euro/western centric view to claim that non-western countries have no agency and are only capable of being ruled by an iron fist, too simplistic and terribly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

lol are you serious? how is egypt a democracy again? just because it calls itself one doesn't mean it is. This is a rather euro/western centric view to claim that non-western countries have no agency and are only capable of being ruled by an iron fist, too simplistic and terribly wrong.

---

Exactly what I said no?

Botswana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Exactly what I said no?

---

Yeah but the difference is that you say Egypt has a crap democracy because Egyptian people/society can't handle/don't want democracy.

I think we have to recognise that societies look different after a period of a particular kind of rule, be it capitalist, democracy, communist, dictatorship etc. If you were to look at France prior to 1780, would you think it was suitable for democratic rule?

Also, what do you think would make a country suitable for democratic rule? Because from the sound of what you are saying, it sounds like a country would have to already be a democracy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Botswana

---

Ghana's not bad either. (AFAIK)