Spreading Freedom and Democracy

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

its Fundamental Government has a large support from the poplulation and there is no real opposition?

I don't think the situation there is that simple. There is real opposition - it's jailed and/or executed.

What popularity poll should we use to determine if a government is supported by the populace? Is 50% a high enough level of support? 75%?

How can we tell if "the people... understand or appreciate their freedom"?

Does the US understand or appreciate our freedom? I would argue no.

[Kagemusha]

I don't think the situation there is that simple. There is real opposition - it's jailed and/or executed.

What popularity poll should we use to determine if a government is supported by the populace? Is 50% a high enough level of support? 75%?

How can we tell if "the people... understand or appreciate their freedom"?

Does the US understand or appreciate our freedom? I would argue no.

Well if we go back on history the majority of the so called "West" has got their democratic Government model after armed conflict,dont you agree? For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?
About US understanding and appreciating its freedom,i cant answer becouse im not from US.But i havent heard in news about a large opposition against your Government model.

[rotorgun]

The Athenians of ancient Greece, one of the role models used by the founding fathers, the other being ancient Rome, in the founding of the United States, thought that they could force their democratic ways on many of their neighbors. This led to the long and bloody Peloponnesian Wars. The opposing states, mainly oligarchies, banded together against them with Sparta as their leader. Despite the "worthy ideals of democracy" espoused by Athens, she was rather ruthless in the spreading of her "doctrine". As a matter of course, she would use the refusal of any of her rivals refusal to join her Athenian League as a pretext for invasion, even sacking the Island city state of Mitylene (if memory serves) as an example to others. Her actual goals were actually much more economic, but this is how she deluded herself. Athens ultimately lost the War, after much bloodshed and sacrifice.

And then there was Rome, our other example of a republic. Spreading "civilization" and "Roman Law" were often used as an excuse for war. I won't begin to try and name all of the historical precidents known. Many of you already could site them better than me. An arguement can definately be made that there is some comparison with todays democracies.

What concerns me is the nagging question, are the United States and United Kingdom, both recognised leaders of the "free" west, not heading down the same path? Is this the spreading of freedom, or just a new "Pax Romana" for the 21st century?

[Red Peasant]

The Athenians of ancient Greece, one of the role models used by the founding fathers, the other being ancient Rome, in the founding of the United States, thought that they could force their democratic ways on many of their neighbors. This led to the long and bloody Peloponnesian Wars. The opposing states, mainly oligarchies, banded together against them with Sparta as their leader. Despite the "worthy ideals of democracy" espoused by Athens, she was rather ruthless in the spreading of her "doctrine". As a matter of course, she would use the refusal of any of her rivals refusal to join her Athenian League as a pretext for invasion, even sacking the Island city state of Mitylene (if memory serves) as an example to others. Her actual goals were actually much more economic, but this is how she deluded herself. Athens ultimately lost the War, after much bloodshed and sacrifice.

That's not quite the case. Athens also supported and even installed tyrants and oligarchies when it suited her (cf. US support and sponsoring of right-wing dictatorships). Real politics, classical style. I fail to see how they were deluded by democracy? Both Athens and the US discovered that 'spreading democracy' was not always in their best interests and often created more problems than it solved.

As for Mytilene, a right-wing coup d'etat occurs in one of her valuable and strategically important Aegean allies, sponsored by her great enemy Sparta. Her reaction was quite natural by the standards of the day. All powers respond to protect their interests if they are able.

[rotorgun]

That's not quite the case. Athens also supported and even installed tyrants and oligarchies when it suited her (cf. US support and sponsoring of right-wing dictatorships). Real politics, classical style. I fail to see how they were deluded by democracy? Both Athens and the US discovered that 'spreading democracy' was not always in their best interests and often created more problems than it solved.

Quite right, but I wasn't saying that Athenians deluded themselves by their style of government. I meant that they deluded themselves into using the excuse that they were only spreading their ideals as a pretext for war, rather than admitting to themselves that it was bald-faced imperialism. I was making a comparison to the current US actions in the east. I oftimes feel that many are deluding themselves in the US in a similar fashion. Why not just call it what it is?

As for Mytilene, a right-wing coup d'etat occurs in one of her valuable and strategically important Aegean allies, sponsored by her great enemy Sparta. Her reaction was quite natural by the standards of the day. All powers respond to protect their interests if they are able.

Agreed, but didn't she sort of sacrifice her own ideals in the process? Many in her assembly argued that this was the case in the debate preceeding the vote to take such an action.

Good post.

[Red Peasant]

Agreed, but didn't she sort of sacrifice her own ideals in the process? Many in her assembly argued that this was the case in the debate preceeding the vote to take such an action.

Good post.

The debate was concerned with the punishment to be inflicted after suppressing their opponents on the island (initially way out of proportion), not their own right to intervene in their own sphere of influence. Thucydides is showing the degradation of human morality during war, as can be seen with the Spartan decision at Plataea and the Athenians also at Melos.

[rotorgun]

The debate was concerned with the punishment to be inflicted after suppressing their opponents on the island (initially way out of proportion), not their own right to intervene in their own sphere of influence. Thucydides is showing the degradation of human morality during war, as can be seen with the Spartan decision at Plataea and the Athenians also at Melos.

Of course. After going back and reviewing Thucydides I realise that I was in error before. Still, the fact that they were in such a debate brings to mind the debates over torture and wether it is legal to keep the non combatant prisoners in Guantanemo. Surely, although Thucidides does not tell us so, it does reveal that there was probably no universal support for intervention in the first place. The fact that some where concerned about the punishment implies that there were "Hawks" and "Doves" among them. Didn't they decide initially to raise the city, then later repented that decision, and sent a fast vessel to stop the sacking only just in time?

[Upxl]

Very good question Kagemusha.
And I find that the answer is a most definitely NO!

Freedom and the state of mind that go with it can’t be forced.
Trying to shove democracy down their throats is as dangerous as it is dim-witted.
Not only you risk the threat of they coming to hate everything that stands for and with it;
You also risk to demolish an idea that sooner or later would develop on its own anyway.
In other words” Beat them to the governmental stone-age”.

I find that the perfect example can be found in “southern”-Africa.
By so many years of exploiting the natives and shoving our form of government on them,
They adapted a system that or they weren’t ready for or doesn’t fit the native way of life.
As a consequence you find massive forms of corruptions and other abuses in their governments.

I find that the best comparison is the one with agriculture.
Their lands aren’t suited fore our types of agricultural processes.
Our heavy machinery and ways of fertilizing are destroying their lands.
Simply because the fertility of the land is more surfaced.
And not suited for “western” processes.
They need to find their own system their own way!

However,
Since we most likely “have to” invade Iran we could as well build up a small foundation of democratic believes (mind you ;not management!).
And get the hell out of there as soon as possible!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well if we go back on history the majority of the so called "West" has got their democratic Government model after armed conflict,dont you agree? For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?
About US understanding and appreciating its freedom,i cant answer becouse im not from US.But i havent heard in news about a large opposition against your Government model.

So contentment is the same as understanding and appreciating freedom?

I ask this: how is one nation worthy of democracy and another not? The Islamic revolution in Iran was at least in part due to the US's lack of support for the Mean But Secular (R) Shah. Currently in Iran, bloggers are jailed for speaking out against the government. But Iran isn't even the main issue.

So far, the only places we've been spreading democracy is Afghanistan and Iraq. The former was more accidental; defeating the Taliban was #1, not freedom and democracy. As for Iraq, how is a population NOT appreciating democracy when they go out and risk death to vote?! That seems more appreciative than here in the US when more than half the population doesn't give a wooden nickel.

I find that the perfect example can be found in “southern”-Africa.
By so many years of exploiting the natives and shoving our form of government on them,

Give me a concerted effort by a Western nation to spread freedom and democracy to an African nation. The problems of corruption you lament come more from greed than democracy. We don't shove democracy down too many throuts in Africa - we just support one oil-rich gangster or another.

And what just is the native state of government that Africa needs so dearly? That's pretty much racism to claim that "natives" ("lesser beings," anyone?) can't handle democracy.

[Kagemusha]

So contentment is the same as understanding and appreciating freedom?

I ask this: how is one nation worthy of democracy and another not? The Islamic revolution in Iran was at least in part due to the US's lack of support for the Mean But Secular (R) Shah. Currently in Iran, bloggers are jailed for speaking out against the government. But Iran isn't even the main issue.

So far, the only places we've been spreading democracy is Afghanistan and Iraq. The former was more accidental; defeating the Taliban was #1, not freedom and democracy. As for Iraq, how is a population NOT appreciating democracy when they go out and risk death to vote?! That seems more appreciative than here in the US when more than half the population doesn't give a wooden nickel.

But the Islamistic revolution was the will of the people of Iran.If the US had intervened wasnt it have been against the values that US upholds?What is a country other then its people?If there would be will to replace the Power of Clerics in Iran by majority,dont you believe they could do it?About spreading or protecting Democracy i remember quite of few other conflicts where "West" has been fighting to protect or create democracy starting from WWII. About risking ones life.Isnt the job of creating Democracy the burden of the Iraqis not US.If one wants to be free unfortunately he or she should be willing to die for that right.The government is for Iraqis.Do you think they would have overthrown Saddam Hussein themselves? After years of sanctions there still wasnt a powerfull opposition in Iraq.
About US.Thats the beauty of Democracy.You have your vote and those who use it affect the decision making of their country.Those who dont,well if they dont care who runs the country then they deserve the government they get.If not anything else by voting you can secure your right to complaint about matters untill the next elections.If one doesnt vote he should just shut up,becouse he havent used his right to express his wiews.

[Upxl]

Give me a concerted effort by a Western nation to spread freedom and democracy to an African nation. The problems of corruption you lament come more from greed than democracy. We don't shove democracy down too many throuts in Africa - we just support one oil-rich gangster or another.

And what just is the native state of government that Africa needs so dearly? That's pretty much racism to claim that "natives" ("lesser beings," anyone?) can't handle democracy.

Okay,...

We didn’t try to persuade them to our forms like modern Iraq or so.
We just putted them there or some chose it because it was the “almighty” western way
Different way, same result!

No offence my friend.
But where the hell did you get the racist idea?
Don’t tell me that you so strongly believe that democracy is the only way.

If so, allow me to burst you’re bubble here.
First of all because WE believe that it’s a good system doesn’t automatically mean everybody does.

Ever been to Africa?
I’ve you had you would’ve noticed that its got a totally different mentality.
Not even close to ours.
Do you really have the arrogance to assume because it maybe works for us it will work for them?
Do you have the arrogance to tell people what they should believe in and what ideas they should follow?
(What you’re saying is “I like cola and the dude that likes Pepsi is an ignorant fool.
Because I know what the best taste is, and it isn’t Pepsi!”)

And if it would be true that democracy isn’t the best choice over there doesn’t mean their ignorant!
Just different.
Not better, not worse, just different.
And before you start…
No, that doesn’t mean we can’t get along.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Upxl - what government should they have, then, if democracy isn't any good? So far it seems they haven't found it - despots of one flavor or another lead to brutal and corrupt regimes.

As to the racism thing, you are saying, "because they are different they shouldn't have democracy." Replace the word "democracy" with "human rights" and you have a very racist phrase.

And democracy is an awful form of government, but what's better? There have been relatively few benevolent dictators (if you ignore certain poster's regards for Castro and Chavez ).

First of all because WE believe that it’s a good system doesn’t automatically mean everybody does.

And in this case WE are right.

But the Islamistic revolution was the will of the people of Iran.If the US had intervened wasnt it have been against the values that US upholds?What is a country other then its people?If there would be will to replace the Power of Clerics in Iran by majority,dont you believe they could do it?

I haven't been advocating overthrowing Iran, mind you. I have mostly been arguing about Iraq. There was a country were the "majority" seemed content with Saddam in power. No rebellions (though some massacres brought on by the Gulf War). But we removed their government, and gave them the opportunity to form their own democratically.

They came out in droves against threats of death to vote.

If democracy "wasn't for them" why did they do it?

Isnt the job of creating Democracy the burden of the Iraqis not US.If one wants to be free unfortunately he or she should be willing to die for that right.The government is for Iraqis.Do you think they would have overthrown Saddam Hussein themselves? After years of sanctions there still wasnt a powerfull opposition in Iraq.

Saddam had a nasty habit of killing dissenters. Funny thing about dictators...

[Upxl]

I give up

[Tribesman]

For example in Iran they also have had a succesfull rebellion that resulted in a Islamistic revolution. So if there is such a big will in turning into more free democratic system why isnt there a armed rebellion in Iran at the moment?

Depends on what you call successful , there were lots of different groups involved in the revolution , all wanting different things , but all in agreement that their current rulers had to go .
Once the regime had been kicked out the strongest group of the many involved took most power from its position of strength and imposed its aims over those of its former allies , the former allies either went along with it in the hope of maintaining some influence , or went their own way as counter revolutionaries . Though many that went along with it ended up being branded counter revolutionaries anyway and getting the same treatment as the rest .
BTW since it escaped your notice , there is an armed rebellion going on in Iran , in fact there are several and they have been going on ever since the post revolutionary split .

Actually , come to think of it its pretty similar to the Russian revolution and what happened to all the different groups involved , or the French revolution for that matter .

[Kagemusha]

I haven't been advocating overthrowing Iran, mind you. I have mostly been arguing about Iraq. There was a country were the "majority" seemed content with Saddam in power. No rebellions (though some massacres brought on by the Gulf War). But we removed their government, and gave them the opportunity to form their own democratically.

They came out in droves against threats of death to vote.

If democracy "wasn't for them" why did they do it?


Saddam had a nasty habit of killing dissenters. Funny thing about dictators...

Alexander im not sure what we are arguing here about.So lets start again.My original statement was that i think people should claim their freedom themselves.It shouldnt be handed to them by some third party.Do you agree or not?Ofcourse Dictators kill people.But shouldnt the dethroning of Dictators or opressive regimes should be the concern of the people of that country not some third party?I never have sayed that Democracy was not for the Iraqis or did i?How i feel is that if people want to change their government they should be do it themselves.It shouldnt be done by others.Ofcourse if the people have the will to do it then other Nations should help.