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

[Leet Eriksson]

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).

[al Roumi]

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...

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.

[Fragony]

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

[al Roumi]

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Idaho]

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.

[al Roumi]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Leet Eriksson]

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


...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.