Scenario 1: Say there is a south American nation led by a nationalist authoritarian. Of course you have a problem with him. You looked up other options and sure enough, you found 2 parties that are screaming for reform and are having their members jailed for appealing reform. The 2 parties are: "Take everything what the rich have and share it amongst the poor" party and "Take everything what the rich have and share it amongst the poor then shoot the rich in their back of the head and do so in the middle of the street" party, and sadly, no 3rd party. And sadly yet even more, these two parties have overwhelming majority support of the citizens. Are you going to support the democratic reform in this nation? Scenario 2: Consider a mundane, secular nation in the Middle East. Women can go to work, they can drive and men can watch belly dancing. It is led by an "iron-fistish" figure. All of sudden, political reform is on the horizon, people started demanding elections, the contender for a possible future regime is a radical fundamentalist religious faction that believes in all women covering themselves airtight, staying away as far as possible from work and automobiles. And it has too, the overwhelming majority's support. The question, again, is: Are you going to support the democratic reform in this nation? If your answer is "Yes" to any of the scenarios above, then you need to have both your IQ and human decency checked. If your answer is "No" to the first scenario, bad news for ya: 2012 had long gone. If your answer is "No" to the second scenario, bad news for ya too: Egypt is now in complete shambles. For those of you who had been waiting for a punchline, here it is: Good job democrats.
In scenario 2, will the contending radical fundamentalist regime allow men to watch belly-dancing? My answer hinges upon this question.
If the people wish to have their country ruled by people who hold beliefs which don't align themselves with what we strive for in the United States, who are you to tell them otherwise? You aren't living there, you didn't chose those leaders. I take a hands-off approach to foreign affairs. If they have a conflict and they wish to have a referee, then by all means the UN can step in and try to do something. If the overwhelming public support is for something that isn't in line with good decency, they'll eventually get too big for their britches and directly (*)(*)(*)(*) off the wrong people and then those people affected at that point can do what they have to do within reason. Until then, leave 'em alone. It's not our job to spread democracy and liberty and freedom. It's only our job to promote it at home.
hseiken, my post was an attempt at humor. I tend to agree that we get a bit too bent-out-of-shape over the cultural differences of other countries. Regarding "democracies" themselves, I don't think they are the panacea many think they are, although perhaps for different reasons than the OP suggests.
Yes is the most basic answer I can provide for both scenarios, though the situations sound like they would be sufficiently complex that a simple yes or no would do them a disservice. Provided the public appears to be in favor of a new order, rebels do not engage in terrorist activities, and they agree to set up a system of representative democracy along with a generous array of social rights and civil liberties, I am generally in favor of extending direct and overwhelmingly decisive military assistance to revolutionaries fighting to overthrow regimes that act in violation of human rights. In the scenarios you described I would be in favor of reform but not the parties that subsequently rise to power. If the transitions are rocky and a lot of civilians are getting caught up in the crossfire I'd weigh other options, of course, and in any case multilateral action would be far more desirable than taking on the issue alone.
Thank you for your reply. Again, I just want to suggest you have a read on your political-maturity O-meter. Sometimes what's best in theory isn't always the best in reality.
They should be free to have their democracy, but that democracy shouln't be able to vote away freedom. Especially not belly dancing, HELL NO.
Though a pragmatic sort of bloke in general, I am not a utilitarian and insist on being rigid on the matter of fundamentals of liberal philosophy. I am not going to pick and choose which rights people ought to have based on whether I think they will use those rights in a way that conforms to my moral sensibilities henceforth. All else being equal in your scenarios, I would passively support a transition to representative democracy in both countries you described without actively rendering aid to either side - at least initially, before violence breaks out or factions start to perform other acts that further complicate the matter. This is a similar line of thought to the one I have concerning the Civil War - that the CSA should have been allowed to secede from the Union pending negotiations for peace and tying up whatever other loose ends might make the split problematic. That does not make me a fan of cultural conservatism, agrarian lifestyles, the institution of slavery, etc. It makes me consistent as an advocate for the People's sovereignty and self-determination.
Scenario 1: I would support those who would redistribute wealth without violence. They are a lesser evil. Scenario 2 is still playing out, since the protests resumed once the fundamentalists made a power grab. The military stepped in and removed the violators from power and are currently working on stabilizing the country. Once said country is stable, I believe the country will make another attempt at true democracy with a stronger Constitution. The last three lines of your post are inflammatory. Authoritarianism begets nothing good, as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hussein, and Assad have proven.
The principle of a democracy, I think, is that votes are what is the final say. They do it every week in the house and congress (well, mostly in the house, lately). If this methodology was so bad, we wouldn't be carrying it out so often for official legislation and policies. The only problem I see with democracy is buying votes and is the only way the process gets corrupted, in my view. If the people really want to be enslaved, then so be it. However, there's also propaganda, misinformation, many things that take advantage of people's perceived lack of intellect in a democracy and is exploited. In the end, someone's always going to complain and they'll complain until a voting result goes their way.
How about no redistribution at all? But if it fails yet again, it is not a "real" democracy, right? As for the people you mentioned, I think they are the stellar cases against democracy. After all, those leaders had full positive support of all people. The tears shed at the moaning of King Jung Il were genuine. Most so called "dictators" got into office by adding precisely the most democratic ingredient populist support. Thanks to goodness in this world that America is still not so democratic that people can still voice discontent against democratically elected leaders guaranteed by the constitution, which was in place to ensure America being as undemocratic as possible.
The principle of a democracy is a non-existent majority, tooled and toyed by one or a few malicious demagogue(s), fooled into doing whatever this/these so-to-speak demagogue(s) desires. All religion are false, yet people practice them all the time. That, unfortunately, is the entire essence of democracy.
In my opinion...anyone truly supporting democracy would stay out of both scenarios and let the people decide what they want and do as they will. Democracy is not something to be forced on others....that's kinda the point of it.
Your initial premise gave the option of two, and only two options, which is what I went off of. I will not allow you to turn around and change your premise on an ex post facto basis. Even the mere attempt shows that this entire thread was meant to bait and then denigrate those in opposition to you. He was Kim Jong Il. Anyone who understands the simplest concepts of current North Korean society would be able to tell you that 95% of the content of North Korean state media is , in fact, propaganda. The propaganda furthered by the Kim regime is that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il were demigods. In fact, Kim Jong-Il's official North Korean biography stated that he was born on Mount Paektu, a mountain as revered in traditional Korea as Mount Fuji is in traditional Japan or Mount Olympus was in Ancient Greece. Those who have bought into the indoctrination would more than likely have cried genuine tears, as would anyone who would believe the widespread North Korean propaganda. State media says that North Korea is the most prosperous nation in the world, even more than their ally China and certainly more than the Imperialist, capitalist, democratic cesspools of America and it's puppet South Korea. Such nonsensical hullabaloo is only believable so long as the North Korean government maintains its current foreign media blackout. It would not surprise me if the average North Korean doesn't even know that the Internet exists, the media stranglehold is that total. North Korea also has a history of staging mass demonstrations for propaganda purposes. It would not surprise me if the majority of the demonstrations were staged with the premise that if you didn't go, you would be sent to one of the finer state institutions like Camp 22. The constitution was set up at a time when the concept of citizenship was dependent upon owning land or being learned. Two-party systems like ours, as ensured by a first-past-the-post electoral system, are inherently undemocratic since they limit choice. I have pointed out that a stronger system of democracy exists through the D'Hondt method. The United States Constitution does, in fact, allow for itself to be changed without the say-so of Congress.
