Here's a question I'd like to make without bringing Iraq into the discussion: Is it (or should it be) the responsibility of a democracy to protect democracy where the civilians of a nation are not actually choosing their government? In the 60s and 70s, I've read (though obviously wasn't present), it was rather a frequent cry to the strongly anti-Soviet government that nations should be allowed to 'choose their own system'. The US frequently supported questionable (if not downright Nazi) governments to down the chance of communism abroad. In fact, many people who frequent the peace-rallies I've spoken to still chant the banner that people should be allowed to choose their own government.....but how far does this? Should we in democracies feel a duty to protecting the right of people abroad to decide their own society? Should we allow dictatorships to exist? It's been obvious that the vast majority of (outspoken, at least) sciforums members are currently against the war looming in Iraq. But I would like to reiterate that if you think it is not the responsibility or duty of democracy to protect people's choice; why? Oh, and I am aware of the fact that it is not feasable to launch a war against every democracy. This is hypothetical. Again - please no bringing in Iraq and the States. I know a large number of you are anti-US, anti-War and whatever other 'anti-' pops up - but there are a million other threads devoted to your sentiments, let's reserve this one for a slightly different discussion, hm?
tyler, No. The arrogant assumption would be that democracy is a good system. Democracy is a system where people vote for what they want and not necessarily what is the best or correct. The effectiveness of democracy is further diluted by the one-person-one-vote concept where the majority is not fully aware of the issues and tends to vote on emotion rather than reason. A smaller fully informed group dedicated to researching the issues would offer a far more effective method of government than blanket democracy. This was the original idea for the American Electoral College system. It was never the intention of the US founding fathers to allow a massive uninformed populace to have a choice in who governed them. Until there is a consensus worldwide that democracy is the best system then no country or group of countries should impose their will on others. IMHO if a country has a poor system then the people involved must find their own way to change their system rather have one imposed upon them.
In a democracy, what is best or correct is what the majority of the people—or a majority of the people’s representatives—vote for, by definition. Where this is obviously true, democracies trust their representatives to research and choose. No blanket democracies exist. Then why does the US Constitution, as originally written by the founding fathers, allow for that?: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” And whereas many aspects of our current government were surely not the founding fathers’ direct intention, they did expect the Constitution to change, and allowed a process for amendment. That’s a catch-22. There can’t be a consensus until the people’s voices are heard worldwide. The democracies need to impose their will on others to simply hear their voices. I know of no country wherein the people freely gave up an opportunity to be ruled by a majority of themselves. People do not routinely put a “kick me” sign on their back. Then do you also agree that in a hostage situation, the hostages must find their own way out of their predicament rather than have a rescue be imposed upon them?
I think not. As I alluded to above, I see dictatorships as akin to hostage situations. There is ample evidence that people in dictatorships do not freely choose to be oppressed. The world is moving towards a global government for the purpose of addressing issues that affect everyone. Dictatorships do not fit well into that picture. Being ruled by a minority who can more easily carry out otherwise controversial choices, they are more likely to, for example, detonate hundreds of wellheads in an oil field, causing massive environmental damage to other countries. Hence dictatorships present an unacceptable risk and for that reason alone should be eliminated. It’s also the right thing to do for the people involved, says me.
Tyler, Sorry, but I wil have to use Iraq and the U.S. as an example.... The answer to your question is absolutely not. The U.S. government gains its authority from the American people, so it only has authority over the American people. The U.S. government has no authority to do anything in Iraq (with the exception of self-defense) because the Iraqi people haven't transferred their rights (through voting) to the U.S. government to act on their behalf. The U.S government has as much legitimacy in Iraq as Iraq's dictatorship government (which is none) regardless of its "good intentions". Tom
zanket, No. The result is not necessarily the best solution. The majority can be wrong and when most have only partial knowledge of the issues then the result is highly likely to be wrong. If there is sufficient group will and courage then oppressors need not win. Flight 93 is an example. Rebellions have occurred throughout history when a threshold number of motivated people react together. If the will of the group is strong then change will occur. If a system is imposed on a group when they are not ready then there will be little incentive to maintain it. In Iran there was a rebellion against the Shah and his system. Now it seems likely that there will be another rebellion against the current oppressors when the people are ready for change. Iraq will also change given time and patience. I have learnt from many events in my life that it is best not to interfere with the lives of other people. Even attempts to teach my children do not often work well. They simply do not understand until they learn by themselves and often by making their own mistakes and finding their own solutions. They are stronger that way. If democracy is the best system in the world then other nations with inferior systems will eventually adopt it or they will die out. The Soviet Union is a good example. War never took place yet their flawed system failed all by itself, and the people will eventually be the stronger for that. China is also changing extremely rapidly and they may eventually have a far superior system than that of western democracy. China is very likely to be the next super power and with such a large population will likely outpace the USA in technology and scientific expertise. We should not interfere with the growth and change in other countries. They must learn and develop at their own pace if the end result is to be of true value.
zanket, Yet many countries are immature and are not ready for such a big change. You would not expect a small child to take on an adult role before they are ready. In the same way individual countries must learn and find their own solutions to their problems before they can join a larger group.
What makes your opinion about what is wrong or not the best correct? What is the definition of a word? It’s what the majority says it is. Likewise with what’s best or wrong. It is important to have a personal opinion, but in a democracy your opinion is overridden by the majority. Saying that the majority is wrong is like disputing the definition of a word. Where there is only partial knowledge, the choices are typically left to representatives who have fuller knowledge. Considering there are only a few elections per year, I’d say nearly all choices are left to representatives. Yes, when to interfere must be carefully considered. The difference here is that the people in question are not children. Even if illiterate they can understand complex subjects, and democracy would not be an enigma. I don’t believe any country is so immature that its people cannot make decent decisions about their own governance. Heck, even jungle tribes do that. I think it highly likely that the majority of the people in every dictatorship would embrace democracy if given the opportunity. How do we know they are not praying every day for liberation, when if they ask out loud so that we might hear them, they are shot? Look at your tagline. Why should dictators be free to do anything they wish, when their actions often interfere with the freedom of others? We should interfere also because dictatorships are more likely to make choices that negatively affect everyone. Our interference, if done right, maximizes the freedom of others as a whole. To me that is like waiting for the hostage taker to die of old age before storming the building. I have not been to Cuba, but my reliable sources say that if you are a single male and visit there, you are beseeched by women who desperately want to leave the squalor of that dictatorship. They’ll give you all the blow jobs you want if only you’ll take them with you. What does it say about us that we would wait for a place like that “die out?” The word coward comes to my mind. You don’t think the Cold War played a role in their dissolution? Most anything’s possible, but right now in China if you meditate in public, you go to prison. I respect your opinion, but I don’t believe in doing nothing about the next Holocaust or Tiananmen Square brewing.
A democracy or some sort of republic is vastly preferable to a straight dictatorship. With a democracy, the representatives have the chance to stop any illogical or unreasonable moves. That's pretty simple, but I don't see how a dictatorship could be better than a democracy. And I would say that a democracy has the responsibility to foster freedom in other countries. It goes back to what I said a second before: democracies are vastly preferable to dictatorships and having fellow democracies around is a lot safer. That way, one man can't decide to nuke his neighbor.
The only reason any country or government has ever (and will ever) go to war is to satisfy its own interest. Anyone thinking that a democracy (or any other system) will donate a soldier or even a dollar to help free a people from their government , is greatly disillusioned.
Democracy means elected leaders are responsible only to their electors. "Democracy building" beyond boundaries of elected authority is not democratic- the "constructed" democracy would by definition be free to act against the interests of the Builder. In comparison, fighting to take some other country's bananas at the lowest price by installing a dictatorship is within the bounds of a true democracy expressing the will of a corrupt people. And I didn't bring up the I-word!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
