Alternative to Democracy?

[enlightenment06]

What if the Iraqis decide they don't want to have a democracy (a decision which would be ironically democratic)? Should the United States pursue putting in a puppet regime like in Iran, or do we hold true to the ideal of self-determination and let them decide what they want?

And if they do decide they don't want democracy, does that put their value system in contradiction with ours? Will we regard them as "uncivilized" for doing so?

I think this is a valid question to ask, and one that we better have some answers for.

[DeltAlum]

It is an absolutely valid question. Or questions.

Although it is not an apples to apples comparison, take a look back to the Vietnam Conflict. It is probably true that outside of a few diehards on each side of the "democracy" issue really cared, the vast majority of the Vietnamese population didn't care one way or the other. As long as they could make a living off their farm, they were OK with pretty much anything.

It takes a certain amount of education within a society for democracy to work. Iraq is probably farther along than Vietnam was in the mid 1900's, but does the average citizen care?

I don't know the answer to that question, but if they don't -- or the society doesn't have the educational base to support its' ideals, democracy (at least as we know it) probably won't work long even if it is imposed.

ETA Simply because we (I) believe that our democratic system is the best in the world, it doesn't work for everyone, despite our desire to force it on them.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by enlightenment06
What if the Iraqis decide they don't want to have a democracy (a decision which would be ironically democratic)? Should the United States pursue putting in a puppet regime like in Iran, or do we hold true to the ideal of self-determination and let them decide what they want?

And if they do decide they don't want democracy, does that put their value system in contradiction with ours? Will we regard them as "uncivilized" for doing so?

I think this is a valid question to ask, and one that we better have some answers for.

In my opinion, absolutely not. I'm not aware of any people educated in a secular society, anywhere, that would not want a democracy unless they are currently benefitting from some other form of government. Those who directly benefitted from the Baathist regime, probably don't want a democracy.

I am also not aware of any credible opinion analysis of the Iraqi people that even suggests that they don't want a democracy. A democracy in Iraq will mean a nation that, unlike a friendly dictatorship, is not reliably behind US policy, but that's OK. The Middle East will not be remade, in a way that constructively moves away from duplicitous governments who support the radical madrases, with any type of dictatorships.

If a responsible (to its own people) democracy can be jump-started in Iraq, then that nation will become the paradigm for the region. With modern communications systems (satelite TV, internet), these ideas will spread like wild fire. With non-corrupt governments, national wealth will go into schools so that fewer people will be drawn to cults of dispair.

I don't the American pursuit of democracy in Iraq as altruistic, I see it as necessary.

I also don't see how the Iraqi people would reject democracy. This could only be credibly done through democratic means. I would regard such a rejection as electoral corruption, like when Soviet leaders (or Sadaam Hussein) got 99.9+% of the vote.

Has any nation ever rejected democracy through democratic means, with an educated populace, without electoral corruption?

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
Has any nation ever rejected democracy through democratic means, with an educated populace, without electoral corruption?

Germany

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Germany

Interesting.

I took "Government of Germany" as part of Political Science minor in college -- but that was over thirty years ago. I would be interested in more information on that contention. I was (perhaps incorrectly) under the impression that Germany has an elected legislature and chancellor.

ETA or are you talking about the Hitler era?

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
ETA or are you talking about the Hitler era?

Hitler era. I would also say the French during Napolean era. Not sure about the French though, I need to go and deep more into the history.

[James]

We conquered them. They are a subjugated people. They will do as they are told for now. And no doubt we will keep a troop prescence there to ensure that they continue to do as they are told for quite some type.

As far as opinion polls and what not about what the Iraqi people want, and their wishes aren't real relevant anyway, I doubt if they were given a multiple choice about which form of government they would like best with explanations as to the pros and cons of all that were mentioned.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I attended an event at the Carnegie Council in December about democracy which involved some of the leading thinkers in politics and economics. The transcript is not yet available online, but here is a link if you are interested in what the Carnegie Council is doing. http://www.cceia.org/page.php/prmID/...mocracygateway Check out their PDF to read the full project description. They are doing some important work there. I love attending their lectures because I find out what will happen in the world months before it actually happens.

Last week I attended a lecture by international prosecutor Richard Goldstone. He made some interesting points about establishing democracy. He is from South Africa where a majority of the population was systematically excluded from the vote. When democracy was being established in South Africa, many countries turned their backs on them except the US, particularly African American judges, politicians, and lawyers. It took several years of work, but South Africa had free elections in 1994 and elected Nelson Mandella. Many people believed that it could never happen, but it did.

Goldstone served as the Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. During 1998 he was the chairperson of a high level group of international experts which met in Valencia, Spain, and drafted a Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities for the Director General of UNESCO (the Valencia Declaration). He drew some interesting parallels between Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq as well as the Nuremberg trials. When a transcript is made available, I will share it.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Germany

We must have studied two different nations with the same name. Germany did not reject democracy. The Nazis took power, and abused the democratic system to eliminate democracy.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
We must have studied two different nations with the same name. Germany did not reject democracy. The Nazis took power, and abused the democratic system to eliminate democracy.

The Nazis came into power through coalition. They used democratic means to eliminate democracy. The Germans, though one can argue that many were afraid to go against the Nazis, accepted Hitler's rise to power due to the death of Hindenburg. Hitler proceeded consolidated the power of the chancellorship and the presidency into one position, the Führer.

The fall of democracy in Germany came because of democratic process (ironically). His rise to power is democratic, the method he used to maintain his power is not.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by moe.ron
The fall of democracy in Germany came because of democratic process (ironically). His rise to power is democratic, the method he used to maintain his power is not.

I agree that the rise to power was through democratic means. Its the elimination of democracy (or "the method he used to maintain his power" as you phrase it) that we both seem to agree was not. Was that method of maintaining power a legitimate use of Germany's democracy? I don't believe so.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
I agree that the rise to power was through democratic means. Its the elimination of democracy (or "the method he used to maintain his power" as you phrase it) that we both seem to agree was not. Was that method of maintaining power a legitimate use of Germany's democracy? I don't believe so.

Isn't that what I said? His rise = democracy. Maintaining the power = no democratic.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by moe.ron
Isn't that what I said? His rise = democracy. Maintaining the power = no democratic.

When I used the term "electoral corruption," which you seemed to refute, I meant it in a sense that was broad enough to abuse democratic process (parliamentary procedure.)

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
When I used the term "electoral corruption," which you seemed to refute, I meant it in a sense that was broad enough to abuse democratic process (parliamentary procedure.)

Which Hitler use to gain power. In essence, him using parliamentary procedure was the catalyst for the fall of the Weimar Republic. It probably help that most Germans were also disfranchised with the Weimar Republic and was glad that a strong leader could come in and "reform" the country. This is also showing in many nations that has recently transformed into a democracy from either a dictatorship or a one party system. Russia is a good example where many people are now longing for the return to the Communist era, though I would argued that its more for stability then the return to the communist era. Indonesia show signs that it wants to go back to the New Order period, however, like russia, the people also want strong leadership.

[DeltAlum]

I think you are in basic agreement.

I was thinking of "modern" situations in my original post, which is why I edited the Hitler question -- and I agree with both of your comments on how he originally came to power.