Why Are Non-Democratic Countries Discriminated Against?

[Exarch]

Often I've heard things like 'xyz country isn't a democracy so it doesn't matter what they think...' or 'xyz isn't a real democracy so it doesnt matter what they think' etc etc etc

it brings to mind the rather arrogant attitude of crusading countries during the crusades era that considered non-western christian countries as amoral/immoral and worthy of invasion/regime change and conquest.

discuss

[Trey]

Often I've heard things like 'xyz country isn't a democracy so it doesn't matter what they think...' or 'xyz isn't a real democracy so it doesnt matter what they think' etc etc etc

it brings to mind the rather arrogant attitude of crusading countries during the crusades era that considered non-western christian countries as amoral/immoral and worthy of invasion/regime change and conquest.

discuss

Are you serious? Countries/people have always thought that about other countries/people, i.e. they are superior.

It has jack to do with the crusades. What it stems from is the view that people from non-democratic countries don't have their views welfare represented adequately, which is more or less true. Sure, things aren't all rosy in democratic countries, but on a whole at least there's an effort to represent the views of the people.

[Exarch]

Are you serious? Countries/people have always thought that about other countries/people, i.e. they are superior.

It has jack to do with the crusades. What it stems from is the view that people from non-democratic countries don't have their views welfare represented adequately, which is more or less true. Sure, things aren't all rosy in democratic countries, but on a whole at least there's an effort to represent the views of the people.

see that
that attitude is akin to that of european crusaders who believed that the whole world should be christian and that non christian countries had less say and less right to an international opinion.
ref christopher tyerman's 'god's war'
this is dangerous because it gives ppl the belief that since their cause is just, they can commit all sorts of human rights violations and call it 'collateral damage', or 'we're doing it for democracy yay!!' little thought given to the democracy being violated as they utter it

[Trey]

see that
that attitude is akin to that of european crusaders who believed that the whole world should be christian and that non christian countries had less say and less right to an international opinion.

They thought it would make a better world. Many Muslims and Christians sincerely believe the world would be a better place if the world was their particular religion, it isn't necessarily malicious. And for the last time, believing that your country deserves more say has nothing to do with being Christian or non-Christian? Do you understand that?

this is dangerous because it gives ppl the belief that since their cause is just, they can commit all sorts of human rights violations and call it 'collateral damage', or 'we're doing it for democracy yay!!' little thought given to the democracy being violated as they utter it

What people think that human rights violations are ok? They're considered scum where I come from. People will use anything to justify their cause, be it religion, democracy, capitalism/communism. It doesn't matter. It's as old as society and will exist unto perpetuity. The fact of the matter is that in general, democratic nations have a better record on human rights. That is the most important factor, it's a natural progression of what happens when everyone has a say in the country.

[Jexiel]

You seem to be confusing Democracy with Representative Republic. In reality, pure democracy is a lousy form of government.

Also related,

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.

[Exarch]

. The fact of the matter is that in general, democratic nations have a better record on human rights. That is the most important factor, it's a natural progression of what happens when everyone has a say in the country.

most democratic nations today-western countries come to mind-attained a higher standard of living (which is conducive to better human rights) via trampling on human rights in other countries (colonialism/neocolonialism) in order to get there.

fact of the matter is, democracies are no less machiavellian, no less heavy handed, no less hypocritical than the communist/fascist regimes they supported 'for xyz's interests'.

Double post merged -Seleukos

You seem to be confusing Democracy with Representative Republic. In reality, pure democracy is a lousy form of government.

Also related,

i'm alluding to oft heard quotes whether here in the fora or in newspaper opinion columns that 'xyz country isnt a democracy so their laws and customs are inherently inferior and we shouldnt respect them'

[Trey]

most democratic nations today-western countries come to mind-attained a higher standard of living (which is conducive to better human rights) via trampling on human rights in other countries (colonialism/neocolonialism) in order to get there.

fact of the matter is, democracies are no less machiavellian, no less heavy handed, no less hypocritical than the communist/fascist regimes they supported 'for xyz's interests'.

Look, we're not gonna get into some long drawn out argument about colonialism, k? There are countries that don't have great economies but are pretty good on the human rights scale, and vice versa.

I'm arguing that in the treatment of their own citizens, democracies tend to do better than non-democracies. Why? If things get bad enough, you get new leaders.

[A pimp named Slickback]

How can a nation be "discriminated" against? It's not exactly a person and there are not exactly any real international laws to truly be certain of when such a "discrimination" has occured even. Sounds like a dumb question honestly, no offense.

[Nouvelle Vague]

Because they are all part of the axis of evil dah!

[jankren]

Because they are evil.

[Avendiel]

The thing about the Crusaders that was bad wasn't thinking that a certain culture was great, or liking it better than that of others. You pretty much can't go through life without making those kinds of value judgments. And it's impossible to admit that and then expect people not to act on it somehow. IMO there's nothing wrong with that at all.

The thing about the Crusaders was that they were willing to do some nasty things to enforce their dominance, and acted against the values that they set out to spread.

[Каие]

Non-Democracies shouldn't be discriminated against for being non-Democratic nations. The problem is that non-Democratic nations also are often the same countries which are pure evil, tyrannical and inhumane. Likewise some Democracies are also inhumane, tyrannical and oppressive. We should discriminate against nations on the basis of their behaviour towards their own and other citizens, rather than discriminate against them on the basis of the governmental style they have chosen.

I'm pretty sure in the eyes of many people Britain with more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones, it's unelected Head of State, it's non-secular constitution, unelected Judges, unelected Police chiefs and non Proportional voting system is somehow ''undemocratic''

[Denny Crane!]

Non-Democracies shouldn't be discriminated against for being non-Democratic nations. The problem is that non-Democratic nations also are often the same countries which are pure evil, tyrannical and inhumane. Likewise some Democracies are also inhumane, tyrannical and oppressive. We should discriminate against nations on the basis of their behaviour towards their own and other citizens, rather than discriminate against them on the basis of the governmental style they have chosen.

I'm pretty sure in the eyes of many people Britain with more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones, it's unelected Head of State, it's non-secular constitution, unelected Judges, unelected Police chiefs and non Proportional voting system is somehow ''undemocratic''

Except we've seen what happens when populism and ''justice'' go hand in hand in the USA and it is a flawed system.

It is a dangerous idea to be so fanatical about any idea that you'd try to apply it relelntlessly regardless of merit and it is true of democracy as well. Meritocracy serves the UK fine in many ways, our system could no doubt be improved. Having the chief of police of the met as a mouthpiece for the Government obviously isn't good but in less policial areas where it is hopefully merit based it works just fine.

The USA on the other hand who willfully executes and incarcerates its population at whim almost should be subject to examination in many areas.

[Trey]

The USA on the other hand who willfully executes and incarcerates its population at whim almost should be subject to examination in many areas.

Who and what are we talking about here?
Those who are executed and incarcerated are done so through law. Just because some of the laws are terrible doesn't mean it's on a whim.

[Denny Crane!]

Who and what are we talking about here?
Those who are executed and incarcerated are done so through law. Just because some of the laws are terrible doesn't mean it's on a whim.

Oh rly?

Why did North Carolina pass a bill on August 5th, the racial justice act because of a disparity in the amount of coloured people executed compared to white people. Their is systemic racial bias, proving that it is indeed whimsical certainly not even or ''just'' much like many laws which incarcerate people. Drug Traffiking being another whimsy that is enshrined in law.... because....

[Chlodwig I.]

I'm pretty sure in the eyes of many people Britain with more unelected Parliamentarians than elected ones, it's unelected Head of State, it's non-secular constitution, unelected Judges, unelected Police chiefs and non Proportional voting system is somehow ''undemocratic''

The GDR had elections but was never a modern democracy.
Iran has elections but is not a modern democracy

The amount of elections doesn't tell if a country is democratic or undemocratic.
The thing about modern democracies is not the voting
but the constitutional basis.
that law protects the people from arbitariness (despotism) of the government.

[Gauvin]

Likewise some Democracies are also inhumane, tyrannical and oppressive.

Eh? Name a few.

I thought tyranny implied a tyrant, and democracy limits the power of the head of state, so tyrants cannot function in a democracy, as no one has absolute power.

Democracy is the antithesis of tyranny.

[Exarch]

Eh? Name a few.

I thought tyranny implied a tyrant, and democracy limits the power of the head of state, so tyrants cannot function in a democracy, as no one has absolute power.

no, but oligarchies thrive in a democracy

[Каие]

Eh? Name a few.

I thought tyranny implied a tyrant, and democracy limits the power of the head of state, so tyrants cannot function in a democracy, as no one has absolute power.

Democracy is the antithesis of tyranny.

Tyranny: dominance through threat of punishment and violence
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=tyranny

There are many definitions of tyranny beyond classical Greek and Roman concepts.

[bushbush]

Eh? Name a few.

I thought tyranny implied a tyrant, and democracy limits the power of the head of state, so tyrants cannot function in a democracy, as no one has absolute power.

Democracy is the antithesis of tyranny.

democracy can become the tyranny of the majority; read the federalist papers by framers of american constitution.