the white man's burden, revisited.

[taxidriver]

it has come to this- the last few freepers defending the iraq war now have their only line left, that we must "spread democracy".

must we spread democracy, and save those 'poor, non-white souls' from themselves? seriously, who decided that democracy works everywhere, in each culture, and it was our job to deliver it? i am of the opinion that as good as democracy is, it isnt suitable everywhere (let's think about free elections in pakistan or saudi arabia...UBL would end up the president). any thoughts on this? It seems to me that this administration is trying to resurrect the glorious imperialism of the White Man's Burden.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

1. If you look at history...

Straight democracy doesn't work for very long. Tyranny of majority usually turns into fascism and it just gets very dirty. Even our Democratic Republic, with all the protections against tyranny of the majority has problems. What seems to work better is the parlimentary systems, which have problems of their own, but it has lasted for quite some time in England. I don't know...I may be completely wrong, and if I am, please tell me. I'm just going by what I've seen.
Duckie

[beanball]

2. Spreading democracy

if the its the desire of the Bushes,#41&lame son #43 to spread democracy through out the middle east,why not start with Kuwait and Israel? I think they are just spreading more bull----,all over the world.

[baldguy]

8. But, but - Isreal is a democracy!

:eyes:

[BOHICA06]

3. If you believe Jefferson ...

and that all men are endowed by their creator with the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then you have to ask what form of government most facilitates these rights.

All I come up with is Constitutional Democracy - whether in the form of a Republic or Monarchy or Parliament System. Do all the peoples of the earth have a right to such a system? If yes, how do they obtain it? If no, why?

Japan had no history of democratic rule - it was imposed upon them. Are they better off now than in the 1920s in regard to the personal freedoms that Jefferson said were their right? Brazil, Chile, Peru, and other SA countries gained their freedom from Europe in the 19th Century, but only developed or were allowed to develop (i.e. US interference not withstanding) democratic systems, however fleeting, in the 20th Century. So an imposed system took less that 15 years while a self-developed system took more than a century. So, were those people that lived and died during the development period with out the Jeffersonian freedoms better or worse off?

I 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?

[Sufi Marmot]

6. You may recall...

...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

[BOHICA06]

7. Japan apparently could afford the cost

it remains to be seen if Iraq can do the same.

If Jefferson's self-evident truths are not acceptable to a culture or people, then you are very right, democracy & individual freedom will fail.

[Sufi Marmot]

11. "Countries" do not pay the costs...

individual humans do. A country is a socio-political construct and as such does not have feelings or desires. Whenever policy wonks and government officals start talking in the abstract, real people usually suffer.

If Jefferson's self-evident truths are not acceptable to a culture or people, then you are very right, democracy & individual freedom will fail.

And they may well be acceptable at a later date, but they become meaningless if they're imposed at gunpoint. There are plenty of things we could do to nurture democratic tendencies in undemocratic countries. These include encouraging free elections, promoting human rights, and nurturing freedom of expression. We don't, of course, for any number of well documented economic and political reasons.

-SM

[Karenina]

9. You cannot "export"

what you, yourself do not possess. :eyes:

[BOHICA06]

10. But we do possess it ...

a Constitutional Representative Republic that is. It gets messy sometimes, but it will bounce back nicely.

If you're reffering to the SCOUS ruling in 2000 - the Court makes bad decisions and then corrects them in time - have faith things will improve.

[Radical Activist]

4. Well, that's why Britain invaded last time

You know 80 years ago or so. It was only to give them their freedom and spread civilized self rule throughout the region. Now that I think about it, why isn't Iraq a democracy now since we already invaded them once for that purpose? Oh well...I'm sure we'll get it right this time. And if not we can just invade them again 50 years from now until they have a democracy we like.

[Kat45]

5. Why don't they start by honoring democracy in our own country?

And respecting it. Instead of stealing the election; conducting meetings in secret; keeping the entire contents of meetings, including their participants, secret; letting the fox guard the henhouse (ie, letting lobbyists write the laws that regulate their industries); lying to the people about reasons for going to war; disenfranchising voters who are poor and/or people of color; bending the rules of the legislature to keep the voting open past its time limit until they get the results they want and browbeating legislators to change their votes; taking away the rights of citizens by holding them prisoner without due process (or any rights at all); abusing their power by sending homeland security feds to track down legislators trying to avoid a bill to permanently favor the republicans with skewed voting districts; taking away the privacy rights of the people (and whatever other rights they can get away with stealing); trying to find a way to postpone the election that should end their reign.

I guess they think democracy is the way anywhere that they are not the ruling elite.

[democratreformed]

12. And who says the people there want it - and the responsibilities

that come along with it?