Is an imposed democracy better than no democracy?
In the west, at least until recently, we have had a pretty unshakeable faith in the ‘goodness’ of democratic systems, to the point that we have destabilised regions of the world because of our leaders’ beliefs’ that democracy is not only the best structure with which to govern, but if only we can introduce it to the citizenry of other nations, they will embrace the core principles of democracy and be much better off for it.
There can be a logic to the argument of transporting democracy in certain instances. After all surely if the citizenry of a country wish for democratic governance do we not have a moral imperative to support them by intervening and imposing democracy in opposition to those that rule within a theocratic or dictatorship construct? We know that when people struggle against oppressive regimes they often lack the necessary tools to do so effectively, and aiding freedom fighters in these circumstances may not fit the definition of imposed democracy. After all, it cannot be called an imposition if the majority wants it, even when the leadership of the nation does not. Or can it? Rationally speaking if we impose a government on a nation, even if the people of that nation wish for democracy, it is not a government created by the people it governs, and therefore, surely, by the very definition of democracy it is an undemocratic system, and creates a mockery of the supposed moral imperative for intervention. Essentially the imposition of democracy is an oxymoron.
Democracy is a precious thing for those who live within that system. However, democracy cannot be developed over night. One cannot click ones fingers and expect democracy to work where there is no history of democracy. Living in the oldest modern democracy on the planet I would not wish to live in any other system, however it is not the only system and who are we to tell other people’s that their form of government is not as good as democracy? That they SHOULD aspire to be democratic. While we may believe that self-determination is a core value for governance of our nations, why should this mean others should hold this value higher that the values under which they are currently governed? Values develop over time, sometimes centuries. Different values have different significance in different communities.
Fundamentally, even if democracy is objectively a more robust and free system of governance if people within a nation do not desire democracy they will not respect it. If they do not respect it, they will not respect the laws and if they do not respect the law how can the government maintain order. Indeed, we need not look any further than the death penalty handed down today to see foreign-imposed democracies have a tendency to slide back into authoritarian regimes. The imposition of democracy does not lead to democracy. It leads to destabilisation and undermines the very definition of democracy. Think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya.
Just sayin'
= new reply since forum marked as read
