Spreading Freedom and Democracy

[Divinus Arma]

The enforcing of liberty and democracy upon certain countries is comparable with the spread of communism in the 20th century. Who is to decide what ideology is the "correct" one? Certainly not a foreign power.

Additionally, I think that countries will find democracy when they are ready. Stability of government and strength of economy takes priority when starvation and poverty are your primary concerns.

Uhm. Let's See. democracy enables you to actually have a conversation such as this. I'm talking democracy only in the political sense. Communism and socialism is primarily an economic institution, and the two concepts are not entirely mutually exclusive. (though the lack of private property ownership and centrally controlled command econmoies due to tend to inhibit poltical freedom as a byproduct)


Why should anyone be denied political freedom? Who is anybody to enforce their political will over another?

After all, that is the central theme of such an argument. Democracy is not the enforcement of a political ideology, it is the empowerment of people to dictate their own lives rather than have their lives dictated for them.


There exists only TWO political ideologies: Political power in the hands of the many (democracy), or political power in the hands of the few (everything else).


How can this discussion even be seriously debated at all? I simply do not understand thjose of you believe that others would desire to be controlled by a dictator, and that this could be the "best" ideology by anyopne other than those who unfairly hold the power. After all, in everything else but democrarcy, the power is held by few and decided by the few. In democracy the people rule rather than be ruled.

[-ThundeR]

That is, in a pure democracy. There can be no pure democracy just as there can be no (lasting) pure autocracy. When in the control of a benevolent dictator, the interest of a nation can be held at utmost regard, whereas in a democracy many people will just vote to satisfy their own interest.

I am not contrasting the ideologies of democracy and socialism; I understand that they are not mutually exclusive. I am comparing the Iron Curtain, largely opposed by the USA, with what I see as a similar growing blanket of democracy, largely advocated by the USA.

My point is that foreign intervention is rarely a good idea. If the people are ready for power then democracy will impose itself; it is almost a law of nature.

[Divinus Arma]

My point is that foreign intervention is rarely a good idea. If the people are ready for power then democracy will impose itself; it is almost a law of nature.

Like in the French revolution, right?

Or in the English revolution?

Or in the Russian revolution?

Even the U.S. almost became a dictatorship following the American revolution.


We must be patient and stay the course. The Iraqis desire self government. They desire political freedom. The desire peace and prosperity under democracy. There may be elements of Sharia Law in their government, and that is certainly their right to impose that on themselves.

Stay the course, have faith in the people of Iraq. They will succeed with our help.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That is, in a pure democracy. There can be no pure democracy just as there can be no (lasting) pure autocracy. When in the control of a benevolent dictator, the interest of a nation can be held at utmost regard, whereas in a democracy many people will just vote to satisfy their own interest.

Firstly, find me some benevolent dictators today.

Secondly, in a democracy the people can choose what matches their interests. This is known as self-determination and is the opposite of interventionism. If we are supporting self-determination, it is hardly interventionist.

[-ThundeR]

I wasn't referring to the current Iraq situation in any of my posts, but indeed the course must be stayed, one can't leave a job half finished.

Firstly, find me some benevolent dictators today.

Pervez Musharraf is arguably one, though elections were held after his coup. It's a challenging task, but I'll find you a few once you find me some benevolent democratically elected heads of government. :P

[Tribesman]

Pervez Musharraf is arguably one

Would that be President Musharraf whose benevolent dictatorship is summarised as.....
The government's human rights record was poor, and serious problems remained. The following human rights problems were reported:


restrictions on citizens' right to change their government
extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape
poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest, and lengthy pretrial detention
violations of due process and privacy rights
lack of judicial independence
harassment, intimidation, and arrest of journalists
limits on freedom of association, religion, and movement
imprisonment of political leaders
corruption
legal and societal discrimination against women
child abuse
trafficking in women and children, and child prostitution
discrimination against persons with disabilities
indentured, bonded, and child labor
restriction of worker rights

[-ThundeR]

It's quite easy to criticise the running of a 150million+ population. Much of the list above is beyond the control of a single person (Pakistan is a democracy, was loosely categorising Musharraf as a dictator). You could probably go to any non-Western country (and even some Western) and make a similar list, democracy or not.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Meanwhile, you don't see democratically-elected leaders in the Western world taking freedoms away like non-democratic leaders. IE, a stable, developed democratic system with checks and balances will not have the problem of Musharraf, who keeps his country in his fist by force (though he seems to be better then some dictators, maybe). Sure, we can gripe about the freedoms beings taken away by the Bush administration, but they are hardly the gross injustices perpetuated by the leaders of many non-democratic states.

It's probably easier to criticise the running of a 150million+ population. You wont find that sending in any superleader will change most of those problems.

What?

[Redleg]

What?

Didn't you know that democracy is bad? Didn't you know that a democratic republic such as the United States is even worse?

It's probably easier to criticise the running of a 150million+ population. You wont find that sending in any superleader will change most of those problems.

I wonder if someone understands the concept of the pot calling the kettle black......


Edit:

To cap off the point about this thread, is a simple saying. With Freedom comes responsiblity. Take it to mean what you desire it to mean....

[-ThundeR]

Meanwhile, you don't see democratically-elected leaders in the Western world taking freedoms away like non-democratic leaders. IE, a stable, developed democratic system with checks and balances will not have the problem of Musharraf, who keeps his country in his fist by force (though he seems to be better then some dictators, maybe). Sure, we can gripe about the freedoms beings taken away by the Bush administration, but they are hardly the gross injustices perpetuated by the leaders of many non-democratic states.

That's because the Western world is far more socially developed, so many of the problems Musharraf has to deal with are far less commonplace. Which is why I suggested "non-Western democracy".