Is democracy right for every country?

[s0nny80y]

I was watching Bush give a speech to the UN Assembly and he kept mentioning spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.




Iran voted for their president.

The Palestinians voted for Hamas party candidates.

Hezbollah has political seats in Syria.

The list goes on.

 

[magburner]

It would seem that they are the wrong kind of democracies. What I think George Bush was trying to say was that he wants pro-western puppet regimes as opposed to any form of government that is acutally voted in by the people they are supposed to serve. Anyway, what is democratic about some country having restrictions on the type of government that can be formed (ala Hamas)?

Edit: Oops, I forgot to answer the main question: Is democracy right for every country? Simple answer, no.

 

[kennythebomb]

In my American opinion, democracy is the best system we have set up so far, in order to try and guarantee the rights of man, as determined by another American system.

A Chinaman can post here (assuming GTP isn't BANNED ) and declare that communism is the best thing since sliced bread.

Which of us is right?

Well maybe a guy from Switzerland could tell us.

All jokes aside, I would argue that democracy is the best system if the rest of the world chose to adopt it... but forcing it on other countries? I can't say I 100% support that.

 

[Swift]

Democracy is the best and would make a great debate topic Ultrabeat!

But the "democracies" that you mentioned in the middle east aren't like the American one. In America, you're usually not under threat of torture or death for voting or voting for the opposing candidate from the one currently in power. I don't consider those forms of government to be democratic. Look at the people of Iran. Many of them like America in general but their "elected" leader is against almost everything America ever does. How is that democratic?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Democracy is great if the populace is intelligent. If not, well, you end up with things like Tennessee.

 

[Danoff]

Asking whether democracy is right for everyone is like asking whether freedom is right for everyone (who hasn't committed a crime).

Is freedom right for everyone? Yes. Obviously. It is inherently better to be free to choose and act than to not be free. That being said, some people will abuse freedom, and would be in a better situation from a survival point of view if they were not free. Some people don't want to be free, like middle eastern women, for example, who seem to prefer oppression. This is like a black slave prior to the american civil war claiming that he'd prefer to be a slave than free. I'm sure there were some.

One of the things communists say they dislike is the freedom to choose between the variety of options available in capitalist markets. They prefer to not have to think, one type of milk, one type of car, one type of job. These people are casualties of the system. Like middle eastern women, or my hypothetical slave who likes slavery, the system has indoctrinated them to a very unnatural conclusion... to enjoy the lack of freedom.

Then there are those who prefer homelessness to working life. They like to have their day free to concentrate on important things like collecting cans and harassing people. Their time is too important to be spent doing something productive. These people would be much further from starvation if they were forced to work. They'd have a place to stay, maybe some medical benefits, a steady paycheck with which to buy food... a much more healthy environment. But they wouldn't be free either.

There are lots of odd people out there. The muslim women who enjoy oppression, the communist who dislikes choice, the homeless person who dislikes work enough to risk death. These are all people who one might think would benefit from a non-free environment. But one would be wrong to think that.

Freedom allows people to not be free - that's part of freedom. Muslim women can find men to oppress them in a free society as well. Someone who wants to work can work, someone who does not can choose not to. The communist can have someone else pick his products for him. The key here is that nobody who DOES want to be free is prevented from it. And the people who do not desire it are free to find ways to remove their freedom.

So the bottom line is that freedom is best for everyone. Democracy is argued in a very similar fashion. Representative government is better than dictatorship for the same reasons freedom is better than slavery. The person who wants dictatorship has only to not vote, and he will be ruled by the rest of the population without representation. In a democratic society, citizens can get the kind of government they want... even if it's a hard line psychopath.

Yes, obviously, democracy and freedom are right for everyone.

 

[Swift]

That's was pretty good danoff.

Also, this concept of an unatural conclusion goes back to bible times when Israel was being released from slavery in Egypt:

Exodus 14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because [there were] no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

And again:

Exodus 17:3And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore [is] this [that] thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?

Other times as well. When you don't have freedom, but you have survival, sometimes survival at it's bare minimum seems better. Even with whips across your back and your young being killed.

 

[Scaff]

It has to be remembered that just because a country holds elections and/or declares itself a democracy, that does not make it one.

The election process must be 'free and fair', as an example Iraq held elections when Saddam was in power. He was however the only candidate, you voted to keep him or not and you vote was know to the party.

Not exactly free or fair, but Saddam called it a democracy and claimed a mandate from the people.

Regards

Scaff

 

[ledhed]

I was watching Bush give a speech to the UN Assembly and he kept mentioning spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.




Iran voted for their president.

The Palestinians voted for Hamas party candidates.

Hezbollah has political seats in Syria.

The list goes on.

The ONLY valid example you give is Hamas . The Palestinian people chose the better ( in their minds ) of two bad choices .And the jury is still out .

Every person on earth deserves democracy and the freeddom to chose their leaders.

Just because the Germans once elected Hitler didnt make democracy bad for Germany and germans did it ??


How can you call having only government APPROVED candidates a democracy ?

Your problem is you made an assumption and thought voting equals democracy.

If you knew anything about history you would knoww China has voting , The Soviet Union had voting and Cuba has voting ,,almost every communist country that ever existed had voting..and Dictatorships like IRAQ ..had voting.


Being able to vote is not Democracy . take a look at iran and how this guy got to be president and then YOU tell me how you can use that an an EXAMPLE of democracy with a straight face .

 

[KSaiyu]

Democracy is the most ideal form of ruling for everyone, but it isn't right for everyone and every Country.

 

[ledhed]

Democracy is the most ideal form of ruling for everyone, but it isn't right for everyone and every Country.

It should read like this ;

" Democracy is the right of every person in every country but may not be the ideal form of government for some until they learn what it means and what responsibilities it places on them " .

 

[Omnis]

Social Contract theory certainly is the best choice for people. Of course, democracy doesn't work unless people agree to and comply with the social contract.

 

[kennythebomb]

Democracy is the most ideal form of ruling for everyone, but it isn't right for everyone and every Country.

Can you explain this in more detail, as in, why you believe this?

 

[Kent]

This is a messed up question since it setups such a possibility for bias.

Regardless of that though...
Democracy is right for every country in my opinion as long as the people actually get to vote their desire and have a government that will go through with the results of the election regardless of the winner.

Yeah sometimes that gives us "bad" countries but in the end, the people should still be represented by a leader they choose and not a powerful man who took control of the government by force.

In my opinion, this thread's subject may well have been- does man have the right to vote?

To develop the issue more though... What kind of democracy is in question?

What is the POV on this... I'm sure every dictator, ruler, and king would say NO, our right to be leaders is more important than the individual's right to vote.

So, with that in mind, to answer the question again...
No, democracy is not right for every country.
Then again, answer that from the POV of an American who desires some peace and stability in the world and well... No, democracy isn't right for everyone since it may result in governments that wish to hurt and destroy good nations throughout the world (so maybe some kind of peace-loving government would be best in those places). 👍

In any case..
I believe man should and does have the right to vote.
However, is "democracy" in a generalized sense, "right" for every country? I don't really know.

 

[Danoff]

What is the POV on this... I'm sure every dictator, ruler, and king would say NO, our right to be leaders is more important than the individual's right to vote.

So, with that in mind, to answer the question again...
No, democracy is not right for every country.

If you believe in human rights, you don't believe that man has the right to rule man. What you're saying is basically that a slave owner believes he has a right to own slaves - or perhaps that the murderer has a right to murder.

Human beings do not have the right to infringe the rights of others. The set of human rights must therefore not be conflicting... so if murderers have a right to murder, man does not have the right to life. If slave owners have the right to own slaves, man is not free.

 

[YSSMAN]

Social Contract theory certainly is the best choice for people. Of course, democracy doesn't work unless people agree to and comply with the social contract.

I'f I could give you a million Kudos right now, I most certainly would. Social Contract theory is the thing that many people forget about when it comes to democracy, people have to agree to want to have it, and they have to agree to use it correctly.

Part of the problem with "democracy" in the Middle East is that the rights of the citizens are still deminished despite the fact that they are able to vote. Fear often plays a large role in the ways votes are done, added to that the lack of opposing parties (again, fear defeating pro-west "democratic" parties), and the lack of voting rights not only for women, but for many men as well.

...But even then, the word "democracy" is thrown around a lot as well. Generally it would be defined as "rule by the people" in most circumstances, but the variants of this political process are vast and cover a wide range of nations that include dictatorships and republics.

Here in the United States, we use a "Constitutional Republic" for our frame of government. The framers of the US Constituion chose this model instead of a direct-democracy to protect the rights of a minority against that of a majority. Through the first ten ammendments to our Constitution (otherwise known as the Bill of Rights) and the system of "Checks and Balances" between our Executive (President), Legislative (Congress), and Judical (Supreme Court) branches of government.

It works out best for Americans because we belive in our representatives, and we trust them to get their jobs completed. Added to that, when we are upset over the current situation in our government, we are never too far from an election to hopefully change the course by electing new officals to the legislature, or even to the executive office.

---

What it comes down to is that people MUST want to share in the governance of their nation in order for a "democracy" to survive. Iraq has had it's small successes in forming a government, but with the three major factions not wishing to cooperate on many different levels, an uneffective government has been created. Certainly things are getting better, but far too slowly.

America had many of the same problems in our early days under the "Articles of Confederation" that although created a unified government, gave too much power to the states, and thus conflict errupted...

It is a touchy subject... One that I personally cannot go into great detail about...

 

[FoolKiller]

If a system is truly a democracy then I say yes. It is the only way to grant the full freedoms to the people. However, voting does not make it a democracy as when you are told how you will vote, or face the consequences, you have not made a free choice. You might as well not even vote.

Many times dictators will hold elections to try and justify their rule to the rest of the world but they may be the only candidate or they will have severe punishment for those who vote against them. These are not democracies.

The problem with forming a democracy is making everyone recognize the rights of each other in an equal way. Iraq has struggled with their constitution because the different groups are wanting more power or freedoms for themselves. This is not good for the country overall and the best situation would be to have every group have equal freedoms and rights.

Many of the countries listed in the first post do not have this situation or the leader is a dictator using elections as a disguise.

A new democracy takes time to smooth itself out and get to the point of equal rights for everyone. This struggle will reflect itself in the economy as the country grows in its new form and learns how businesses will work in the new system. Even today the US has groups that bicker back and forth over which one has more rights to do or not do something.

In the end a democracy will allow everyone equal freedoms and I fail to see how that can not be good for anyone.

 

[Danoff]

In the end a democracy will allow everyone equal freedoms and I fail to see how that can not be good for anyone.

...provided there is a bill of rights to protect those freedoms. Our democracy is limited, and rightly so. Without protections for freedom, the majority will vote to subvert the minority.

 

[FoolKiller]

...provided there is a bill of rights to protect those freedoms. Our democracy is limited, and rightly so. Without protections for freedom, the majority will vote to subvert the minority.

I thought my third paragraph kind of covered that and didn't feel the need rehash it when I summed up.


Of course, I think I rambled a bit, so it may have gotten lost.

But you are correct: a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority.

 

[exigeracer]

Can you explain this in more detail, as in, why you believe this?

It is entirely possible that a democratically elected government runs things that benefit some and leave others with less money. When a dictatorship (which tend to be older) enphasized education or other social priorities, a newer democracy will bring in newer ideas, which strongly harm the traditionalists in rural areas. The introduction of those modern trade systems affect a lot of people, even when industrialists move in and establish an export-only business, the harm is done to the land and ecosystem, which the local agriculturists and farmers respect and rely on for survival. The population in cities then grows and newer western society influences that tightly-packed population into rising crime and violence rates.

In this sort of case, dictatorship benefitted the people, democracy didn't. In the long run, it is debateable whether or not democracy will be helping a country like this.

 

[YSSMAN]

...provided there is a bill of rights to protect those freedoms. Our democracy is limited, and rightly so. Without protections for freedom, the majority will vote to subvert the minority.

Exactly...

Folks should check out Issue 10 of "The Federalist" by James Madison for an interesting look as to how our forefathers dealt with this issue.

An interesting quote:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existance; the other by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

 

[KSaiyu]

It is entirely possible that a democratically elected government runs things that benefit some and leave others with less money. When a dictatorship (which tend to be older) enphasized education or other social priorities, a newer democracy will bring in newer ideas, which strongly harm the traditionalists in rural areas. The introduction of those modern trade systems affect a lot of people, even when industrialists move in and establish an export-only business, the harm is done to the land and ecosystem, which the local agriculturists and farmers respect and rely on for survival. The population in cities then grows and newer western society influences that tightly-packed population into rising crime and violence rates.

In this sort of case, dictatorship benefitted the people, democracy didn't. In the long run, it is debateable whether or not democracy will be helping a country like this.

Nice post, the last paragraph is what I meant in my answer.

 

[kennythebomb]

So what if the local agriculturists and farmers aren't as happy under democracy? They are free to change 'careers.'

The way I see it, democracy would still be better for that nation since the average person has the possibility of leading a better life that they can help control their own destiny.

Sure, in feudal times it was more appropriate to have a king that would take care of the people. The trick is, if you have an evil king... then your life as a peasant really sucks! So there's no guarantee in the feudal system that your life will be remotely free.

Democracy affords the people to elect leaders that will take care of them; if they so choose correctly with a properly set-up system to elect those officials.

In the long run, democracy is needed anyway as opposed to the traditionalist approach. This modern world demands capitalism to compete in the global market. With an economy based on traditional farming, you better have some damn good crops. Hopefully the other profession in your country is bio-engineers creating genetically-altered crops that taste better than Chiquita bananas or Washington apples.

 

[exigeracer]

So what if the local agriculturists and farmers aren't as happy under democracy? They are free to change 'careers.'

The way I see it, democracy would still be better for that nation since the average person has the possibility of leading a better life that they can help control their own destiny.

No, you cannot simply "change careers," it just doesn't work that way. They are doing what they can afford to do, whether it gets food in their stomachs or not. They cannot invest in a new business for any number of reasons, the land can be poor, the market doesn't demand such a thing, it is federalised etc.

The people cannot better their lives. You didn't explain or consider this.

 

[kennythebomb]

No, you cannot simply "change careers," it just doesn't work that way. They are doing what they can afford to do, whether it gets food in their stomachs or not. They cannot invest in a new business for any number of reasons, the land can be poor, the market doesn't demand such a thing, it is federalised etc.

The people cannot better their lives. You didn't explain or consider this.

A farmer can move to the city and get a job, that requires no capital except the cost to move... which would be raised by selling the farm.

Granted, there are going to be some people whose lives are ruined. The lives of hopeful dictators will also be ruined.

But the majority of people, in the long run, will be happier that their country moved on and joined the rest of the world in the trend towards industrialization and democracy. A group of people may be happy living under a traditional system, but when introduced into capitalism they probably won't want to go back.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is entirely possible that a democratically elected government runs things that benefit some and leave others with less money. When a dictatorship (which tend to be older) enphasized education or other social priorities, a newer democracy will bring in newer ideas, which strongly harm the traditionalists in rural areas. The introduction of those modern trade systems affect a lot of people, even when industrialists move in and establish an export-only business, the harm is done to the land and ecosystem, which the local agriculturists and farmers respect and rely on for survival. The population in cities then grows and newer western society influences that tightly-packed population into rising crime and violence rates.

In this sort of case, dictatorship benefitted the people, democracy didn't. In the long run, it is debateable whether or not democracy will be helping a country like this.

So, you are saying that there is a case somewhere where a dictatorship might lead to less people being poor and more people being treated fairly? Please, show me an example of this.

Every society will have people who are poor or find that their current way of life no longer works as society moves in whatever direction it is going, but in a democracy those people have the option to change their place in life. In a dictatorship it generally (not always) requires you being a friend of those in power to be able to move up in the world.

No, you cannot simply "change careers," it just doesn't work that way.

Yes, you can and yes, it does. If I want to be a car salesman I can go and try to do that. If I want to be an architecht I can go to school and do that. If I want to sell houses I can go test for my realtor's license and do that. I miught suck at any of them or I might succeed. No system of government or social structure will guarantee you to have success, but Democracy does allow you to try whatever you wish, as long as it does not infringe on teh righst of others.

They are doing what they can afford to do, whether it gets food in their stomachs or not. They cannot invest in a new business for any number of reasons, the land can be poor, the market doesn't demand such a thing, it is federalised etc.

Actually, they can invest in a new business, despite all of those things. Well, except for the federalized part, but a true democracy does not infringe on capitalism. Heck, in the US the postal service is government run, but they must compete with FedEx and UPS.

Then no one said changing careers meant that they had to start or invest in a new business. They can go work on a successful farm, or find a manufacturing job, or get some training to do something in an office, or work in a million ways. You can change careers without running it yourself.

The people cannot better their lives. You didn't explain or consider this.

Everyone can attempt to better their lives. I still have yet to see how a true democracy will prevent someone from attempting to achieve something more. It wouldn't be a democracy if it did.

 

[ledhed]

There are many forms of Deocracy . To my knowlage no country practices a pure type of Democracy. Most are representative and almost all are some type of republic. For example the United States is considered a capitalist group of states /society run as a Democratic Republic .

France would be considered a Democratic socialist republic .

Democracy ONLY gives each adult the " right " to vote , either directly to run the government in a true democracy , or the right to vote for a representative to run the government. Democracy itself is no guarantee of social status , or financial gain or loss as much as the type of government philosophy , be it pure capitalist or socialist , or a hybrid type of capitalism as in the United States .

The bigger question to ask , would be " does democracy = freedom" ?

 

[FoolKiller]

The bigger question to ask , would be " does democracy = freedom" ?

When coupled with a legal defense of equal rights, such as the Bill of Rights in the US.

Otherwise the majority will rule the minority, which does not grant freedom to the minority.

 

[ledhed]

Well that answer kind of destroys most of the arguments in this thread doesn't it ?

You need a Constitution with a Bill of rights along with the correct philosophy and an educated public for Democracy to truly work .


Not easy to find is it ?

 

[kennythebomb]

Well that answer kind of destroys most of the arguments in this thread doesn't it ?

You need a Constitution with a Bill of rights along with the correct philosophy and an educated public for Democracy to truly work .


Not easy to find is it ?

Why educate when you can subjugate the public? Much easier.

Knowledge is power, and what dictator wants to give peasants the power to realize they can do better without him?