On a personal level, I think the country isn't ready for a stable democracy, regardless of how many billions we pump into it.

But I want to know how the PF community feels about the U.S.'s recent efforts to establish a democracy in Iraq and our condemnation of other Governmental systems.

1. Is one Governmental system better than the others? Which one? Why?
2. Can a peaceful democracy exist in the Middle east?
3. Is it undemocratic to impose democracy?

Thanks.

__________________
Beliefs - Marxism, Altruism and Social Darwinism

Sorry, don't know what PF stands for. But I'd like to reply anyway

Your first question (No. 1) deserves an entire thread to itself and I'm not going to attempt to answer it.

A peaceful democracy can very plausibly exist in the Middle East, democracy simply requires mass participation in public institutions. Does anyone know how the Iraqis feel about the invasion? Of course not. Democracy offends the West and it is the US's greatest enemy. All that is needed to establish democracy in the Middle East is participation amongst the population, which has existed at various points in Middle Eastern history and has subsequently been thwarted by the Western powers. When democracy is established, people act out against authority because it's unjustified. Take Iran nationalizing it's oil in the 50s, it was strongly influenced by a desire of the population to manage it's own resources. The West simply can't allow that and have to stop it. In fact, the brutality of Middle eastern dictators is largely, if not entirely, the fault of western intervention. Saddam was put into power by the West because a ruthless dictator would cool Iran's growing independence. The West then needed an excuse to invade Iraq because of it's own growing independence after Kuwait. Everything awful that has happened in the Middle East, at least over the past twenty years, is rooted in Western intervention. Middle Eastern people don't hate democracy, only a tiny fringe group of extremists do. The best way to impose democracy is to leave them alone.

Of course you can't impose democracy. But that's not even what the West is doing. The reason Iraq has lasted longer than WWII is because there is zero incentive to instill genuine democracy in the country. If that happened, the US armies would be removed and all of their administrative institutions would be massively scaled down, oil industries would be very likely to be nationalized and people would be able to start there own free market. Can you imagine if a market like our own but not our own emerged in the Middle east, a country that is naturally extremely affluent? The West would have to actually compete with someone, which wouldn't be allowed.

__________________
Why would you vote for someone who wants to be in power?

Of course, the OP rests on the assumption that Iraq had anything to do with "spreading democracy", it didn't.

1. Yes. Democracy. Power isn't as centralised, and is transferred peacefully instead of being destabalised every few decades with usually quite bloody coups. Also uses intellect better as ideas don't all have to pass through a central vetting process before getting any serious consideration/development/action.

2. Sure. We're not so different, and they're not so diferent to the crucibles of our own democracies.

3. Yes, though I'd say thats an oxymoron if we were really doing it for democracy; but yeah shooting the place up and virtually installing democratic leaders doesn't count.

We really need to work on our own democracies before spreading it...

PF stands for political forum.

__________________
Beliefs - Marxism, Altruism and Social Darwinism

Thanks for the thought, but the war has evolved into a quest for stability in the region and the country is now holding democratic elections.

__________________
Beliefs - Marxism, Altruism and Social Darwinism

There will be no working democracy in the middle east as long as Islam exists. The very basis of Islamic belief is that the government should be controlled by the beliefs of Allah, thats how Mohammed held power in his own life, by creating a religion that helped him dominate the state. Look at Iran, sure they have a 'president' but he has about as much power as the Queen of England nowadays. Groups of Muslim Clerics hold the power of the people in Muslim states, and they are always dictators. You do not get to choose your Cleric, or vote him out, or question anything they do. Even in countries like Pakistan, a large enough group of radicals controls such a large group of the population that the country is constantly teetering on civil revolt. If Pakistan's 'elected' leaders ever attempted to take down those powers, they would be crucified for it.

The middle East needs to be reformed of radical Islam first, before a democracy could possibly flourish.

Pakistan recently tried to democratically elect a female named benazir bhutto. They are not as corrupt as you think. They also recently did away with Musharaff and cleaned up their system by democratically electing benazir bhutto's widowed husband.

Oh, and they're islamic.

__________________
Beliefs - Marxism, Altruism and Social Darwinism

Or so we're told.

Yeah, that one turned out real well for her and Pakistan. Exactly my point. If something like that were to happen anywhere in the middle east, expect teh same thing to happen. Notice that despite the fact that she was assassinated, Pakistan still refuses to let the US come into their Western wastelands and clean up radical Islamists. If I didn't have the military to destroy these radicals or at least arrest them, and they killed our political leader, I'm asking for help from big brother. In this case, it seems that Bhuttos own husband refuses to do anything about the radicals in their own country. It only strengthens their cause.