Can Democracy be forced?
The discussion on voting in Dubai I think raises a bigger question, can forcing a group of people to switch from tyranny to democracy ever actually succeed?
Personally, I think you need several prerequisites before democracy can succeed. These include:
A. A well-educated, independent middle class that can think about something besides basic survival.
Cultures with a small rich class and huge, starving poor class have too much strife for democracy to easily take hold.
B. An appreciation and understanding of basic human liberties, as well as a cultural tradition of cooperative government.
There are many parts of the world where because of religious/cultural standards, the people do not understand the idea of individual rights. Law is administered by the strongest, and the absence of a strong central figure results in anarchy. Other regions have a tradition of democratic leadership at the tribal but not national level. They can elect village leaders but have a hard time working with those other tribesmen in a parlimentary setting.
C. The desire to become democratic.
It can be as simple as colonists wanting the same rights and representation as citizens in the mother country (the American revolution). It can be the people are desperate and fed up with a corrupt dictatorship (the French revolution). Even in cases where democracy was hoisted upon a defeated regime, such as post-World War Germany and Japan, the people needed to get behind the democratic ideal for it to work.
D. A united population that doesn't suffer from balkanization.
Think about it; democracy has most succeeded in countries where the people are united under one culture, language, or heritage. (In America, a common language and common protection under the law can be seen as uniting factors.)
Greece could support democracy in the time of homogenous city states, but not in the time of Alexander's far-flung empire. The larger and more diverse the Roman empire grew, the less democratic it became.
The earliest modern European democracies, France and England, had the benefit of being united when it came to language and national identity. Germany, Japan, Italy and South Korea had to unite as dictatorships before they could move forward as democratic nations. True democracy has never occured in the Russia or China, as both are huge nations with hundreds of sub-ethnicities.
All this bodes ill for democracy taking root in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iraq at least has the advantage of an educated middle class and a desire to change. But it suffers from warring ethnicities and a lack of a democratic heritage (the region has always been controlled by one empire or another). Afghanistan does not meet any of the above conditions; I cannot see that country evolving into a strong democracy in the next 100-1,000 years.
I think democracy is an evolved form of government, not something natural that a person living under dictatorship will automatically be drawn to. If you've never known freedom, all you care about is survival. A dictatorship, even one as bad as Hussein's, is better at providing basic survival than pure anarchy.
Democracies need to be cultivated, not forced upon those who have only lived under dictatorships or anarchy. You also need a populace who are secure in their basic needs and are willing to work with each other.
What does everyone else think? Can people be forced to practice democracy? Does democracy have a chance in Iraq and Afghanistan?
And the Million-Dollar Question: Doesn't invading other countries in order to establish a democracy fly in the face of all the ideals that democratic countries espouse, such as self-determination?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Squeakus Maximus
While no doubt islam is going to play a huge part in any future goverments that take place in Afganistan it wont be on the model of the Taliban or Iran...there are too many voices in Afganistan now that was repressed by the Taliban that can now speak out to close the lid on it. As some more modern Islamic states have shown you CAN in fact have a democratic goverment that still respects the belief of their religion. I just cant see the Afganistan people walking down the road back to a system that murdered and repressed itself it will (imo) walk a third road in the middle of what the West and what Islamic nutcases would want. Obviously it all counts on the Afganistan goverment itself that cant be seen as a puppet of the west nor can it be seen corrupt, there IS a middle road they can walk down whether they can actually do it remains to be seen but Im more hopeful with the ultimate outcome of Afganistan then I am with Iraq. I cant picture a future for Iraq that doesnt involve it being broken up into 'states' with a loose federal goverment binding it together somewhat but with alot of violent acts by extremist.
