Spreading Freedom and Democracy

[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....

[Soulforged]

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

I can assure you that I don't... Only wanting to learn.

[-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".

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "non-Western" democracy. Western democracy is far from perfect, but if a "non-Western" one involves curtailing freedoms then it is morally bad and it propagates injustice.

I find it hard to call Pakistan a democracy, because isn't there little to no chance that a new leader will be elected? I thought Musharraf was in there for life...

[Redleg]

I find it hard to call Pakistan a democracy, because isn't there little to no chance that a new leader will be elected? I thought Musharraf was in there for life...

Or more correctly I image until someone decides to end his regime......

[-ThundeR]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "non-Western" democracy. Western democracy is far from perfect, but if a "non-Western" one involves curtailing freedoms then it is morally bad and it propagates injustice.

I'm referring to governments as in Thailand, Malaysia, really any government anywhere not in Europe or North America/Australia etc. has a whole list of traits that we may see as unthinkable. The point I was trying to communicate was that a country has to become pretty rich before a democracy can be productive.