Reply #6: You may recall... [View All]

[Sufi Marmot]

...that we weren't able to impose democratic rule on Japan until after we incinerated http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs19.htm">800,000 of its citizens. Given a choice they might have preferred the slower transition.


fall into the category that it is the obligation of the US to spread democracy; it is the obligation of the great democracies of Europe & Asia & Africa to spread democracy. The US is only one of these that has the ability to project power and impose such a change, so the question is whether We the People want to pay the price and whether the people of Iraq (or any country) can afford the cost?

Is it wise to try to impose democracy on a country with:

a) no democratic tradition (at least in the way we understand it)

b) very few, if any of the structures needed to support democracy (stable middle class, absence of corruption, functioning legal system, protection of civil rights, competent law enforcement, free press, etc.)

c) severe ethno/religious divisions

d) a majority of inhabitants who adhere to a religion that does not seperate personal religious practice from society. Many Muslims would have some interesting thoughts about "Jeffersonian freedoms" as pertains to their religious practice. In fact, regarding Iraq, your initial premise that most Iraqis would embrace Jefferson's notion of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" may indeed be faulty.

Also, it's nearly impossible to get people to accept major social change if they are hostile to the ones trying to get them to accept it, regardless of whether such change would benefit them or not.

Many people think that unless you're willing to completely subjugate a nation (like we did to Japan), it can't be forced into democracy, but rather it has to develop slowly, ususally in conjunction with increased economic prosperity and a growing middle class which demands a more representative government along with its consumer goods.


-SM