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

[Idaho]

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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'.

[al Roumi]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[al Roumi]

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.

[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.

[Subotan]

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.