Why do we assume that...

[Time Commander Bob]

...the same political ideology will work for even country in the world, for every possible situation and every given time? Why do we assume that what will work well for one country will work well for the whole world? Why do people who have right or left wing tendencies not say "well, at the moment this isn't going to work, but in 10 years time, maybe it will" or "these policies work for country x but they won't work for country y". To me many people (from all over the political spectrum) are too deeply set into their ideas to even consider those from the other side.
Instead we always seem to think there is a grand political Utopian idea which simply isn't the case as the situations of countries constantly change so why do we think that political ideas ought to be constant given dynamic changes in countries?

[Daovonnaex]

In the name of "tolerance" many people in the West naively believe that human populations are essentially interchangeable. Therefore, since our nations are so successful, they irrationally assume that simply by superimposing they same edifices and institutions that govern our states other places with completely different peoples, languages, cultures, and even geography will reap the same success. The record, sadly, does not bear out this theory.

[Captain Blackadder]

Yes of course anyone with half a brain will realise that any system does not work 100% of the time in any given country but there are some countries that have similar issues to others and it never hurts to look at a way someone else dealt with the problem.

There are certain democracies that from a certain perspective would be better of under a different form of government.

[Bokks]

Well, obviously there will never be a one size fits all kind of thing, but democracy is the most fluid of all types of government, while remaining strongly constant. It can be molded to fit a system of monarchy, and systems of unicameral, bicameral and tricameralism. It can have bipartisan and omnipartisan forces that oppose eachother work together like cogs to better their own country. It fosters patriotism and national pride, while still protecting the rights for everyone to remain different and unique.
It has its weakness, of course, though they're largely not what you'd expect.
It's very susceptible to fascism, it can foster isolationist and racist tendancies. It can be fractured by its own existance, and so must be protected from itself much more than any outside threat.
Democracies in any form, which there are many, must have a period of about 40 years to consolodate and entrench themselves in the populace. Only after the first few peaceful elections and the kinks are taken out can it truly flourish. It has the capacity to do so, however, everwhere on earth. I do not promote American democracy, indeed the US isn't even a democracy but a republic, and the only one quite like it in the world. But that's the beauty of democracy as a whole, it can form itself to better equip any religion or culture. Some governments may work better with certain cultures, but this does not mean that democracy cannot work at all. And with the right motivation and a little experiance, I see no reason why democracy cannot exist everywhere at once. It is the government by the people... is that so bad?

[zinrohk]

this is just another US lie, "We want to bring democracy" to country A and B then later C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y and then Z

not because they care, but because they can profit somehow, just look at south america for example.

[Exarch]

this is a very interesting q, and one i think is very important for a lot of ppl, particularly americans to understnad. i dont think a democracy, as wonderful as it is, is appropriate for all cultures and countries. some cultures emphasize a paternalistic form of government whereby the people love, or are used to their leaders have loads of power with little human rights. russia is one eg, having had democracy for less than 2 decades.

[Time Commander Bob]

It is the government by the people... is that so bad?

I would say it depends how educated the people are. If you want a true democracy, where every person can vote to change the outcome of every government decision, then a populace learned in politics is required so that the voters will more likely to choose the best decision for the country, otherwise it would descend into a form of mob rule. As education varies from country to country, true democracies would function better in some countries than others.

I guess this is why a representative form of democracy is the government of choice in the western world. However citizens of the country still need to be educated to some extent to know who exactly they are voting for, their intentions, what that party stands for and whether their goals are realistic or not. If a populace is entirely oblivious to how politics works on the even most basic level, is a democracy still the best choice for the principles it stands for?

[Bokks]

I would say it depends how educated the people are. If you want a true democracy, where every person can vote to change the outcome of every government decision, then a populace learned in politics is required so that the voters will more likely to choose the best decision for the country, otherwise it would descend into a form of mob rule. As education varies from country to country, true democracies would function better in some countries than others.

I guess this is why a representative form of democracy is the government of choice in the western world. However citizens of the country still need to be educated to some extent to know who exactly they are voting for, their intentions, what that party stands for and whether their goals are realistic or not. If a populace is entirely oblivious to how politics works on the even most basic level, is a democracy still the best choice for the principles it stands for?

That's an excellent point, an idea that Thomas Jefferson realized at the very foundation of the US. There has been some tinkering with the idea of allowing only those who are literate (to some realistic degree) and can accurately argue for a particular point their beliefs the right to vote. that is of course illegal in the US but is potentially a possibility in another country. This creates an elitist system, of course, but in its pure form it could create a society whose people want to learn everything they can.
Right on target, although I would also say its because of the representative republics ability to counter itself, as well. I want a slow country that can be motivated in times of need, which is exactly what we have in the US.

[Chlodwig I.]

Intresting Topic
You should read "china code" but not sure if its available in English
but its also dealing with this topic

A Democracy is not the best for every country it always depends on the situation of the country and its citizens
Democracy only works if the country has a functioning Economy and the people have trust in thier Country (Political parties, Police, Rule of law etc.)
if one thing is missing you have a problem and radical left or right wing parties will get more influence.
If both is missing a democracy won't work much long.

[Problem Sleuth]

Intresting Topic
You should read "china code" but not sure if its available in English
but its also dealing with this topic

A Democracy is not the best for every country it always depends on the situation of the country and its citizens
Democracy only works if the country has a functioning Economy and the people have trust in thier Country (Political parties, Police, Rule of law etc.)
if one thing is missing you have a problem and radical left or right wing parties will get more influence.
If both is missing a democracy won't work much long.

For more on that, see the Weimar Republic (Germany's short-lived post-WWI republic).