posted June 01, 2004 12:46 PM              

A member named TankGirl started a thread called "A question about democracy"; I wanted to link ya'll to it, but it appears to be in a members only section of the site (they had some problems with condescending attacks before making it so).
She started off by saying:

This has been really weighing on my mind of late and I thought I'd like to read your opinions on it.

Do you believe that a democratic government can be created by an outside force?

I believe that democracy, because it is a government controlled by the people, can not be imposed. A successful democracy should begin from the people - from their belief that they have certain rights and abilities. If the people don't believe in it, it will cease to exist. All government, all borders, all money are really psychic phenomena - by that I mean that without the belief in what they are, they don't exist. If all Americans stopped believing that the paper dollar had value, your wallet would just contain scrap paper... I think that a democratic government is similar, in that, if the people don't believe in their inherent rights the government will not truly be democratic even if the process is in place for it to be so.

I guess this has been on my mind so much as I ponder our actions in the Middle East. I would love to see democracy spread, I truly would. But I have my doubts that we will ever be able to force it on others. I think that ultimately, we are going to find that democracy has to be "earned", for lack of a better word, by the people who live under it.

I would love to know of a democratic nation that was not created by a revolution of the people and is successful, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.

In my mind, inherent to the democratic process is the belief that even while disagreeing, there are certain basic principles that all factions can agree to - human equality for one, the right of the individual to exist, the ability for various beliefs to stand peacefully side by side... these are not ideals often practiced or espoused in Middle East culture - there are so many fations there who believe in their ultimate cosmic correctness and can not accept the existence of others (for instance, those who believe in jihad the way it is being applied now), that I don't know how they will be able to be governed by one ultimate democratic government.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts this morning and I wondered what you guys think of this subject.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For myself I am an optimist--it does not seem to be much use being anything else.

-- Winston Churchill

Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: "What! You, too? Thought I was the only one."

-- C.S. Lewis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tankgirl@cinchouse.com

posted June 01, 2004 12:53 PM              

I can think of two successful imposed democracies: Germany and Japan.
The ideas of democracy were not practiced in the Far East before we forced it on them in Japan after WWII, now there are republics (which is what we are, not a democracy. We decide who makes all the decisions, we don't make all the decisions) all over that are models of decent government. South Korea, Japan and a bunch of others. It's not pretty, but if you turn the main power over to the people with free, open, stable elections as soon as possible, then you've got a chance. Except you have to abide by their decision. If Iraq wants to go route like Jordan or Kuwait, we have to accept it.
Each country puts its own cultural influence on democracy. American government is very different from French, even though both are republics with a bicameral system. The Empire has a queen and a parliament, Spain also has a constitutional monarchy. Italy has had over 60 leaders since WWII, but they are still there and kicking. A republic is just an over reaching term for a representative form of government. We all do it differently, but so long as the rights for the majority to rule and the minority to be heard are respected, we're all good.

I pointed out that Germany *had* elected Hitler, but that was about the best response I could come up with (a month and a half of sleep deprivation has a way of blunting one's debating ability. Two to four hours a night. wooooo.).

I then asked: re: Japan, others (and now Iraq): Do you think that decimation is a prerequisite to successful imposition of democracy?
He: It sure is handy, it seems. Italy went from facism to republic by killing Mussolini and his people and it was a quick transition. England did it by law, and if you start with the Magna Charta and end with some of the legislation that gave Parliament its power, it took them almost 700 years.
Blood seems to be quicker. France killed their aristocracy, had a republic, then had Napoleon, got rid of him, bloodily - also and formed another republic.