CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Different cultures have different views on government. People will find the government that suits them on their own.
An alternative model for the Middle East: Dubai
- Thread starter Bozo Erectus
- Start date
tossi
Der kleine Prinz
rmsharpe said:
Wrong. Althoug currently 1/3 of the GDP comes from oil and gas, Dubai has a growing toursits industry (ever heard about the palom islands?) They know that their oil wont last forever and they are preparing for that.
Dubai works because it is rich. And it will continue to work even if oil runs out.
Which, in itself, is a form of democracy.CIVPhilzilla said:
Sims2789
Fool me once...
The West hasn't always been suitable for democracy; when it was forced upon them when they weren't ready caused a backlash against it, causing them to be ready later than they would have been had it not been forced upon them. The Middle East won't always not be suitable for it; forcing it upon them when they are nowhere near being ready only causes a backlash against it, causing them to be ready later than they would have been had it not been forced upon them.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
You're right. The solution is to change all the region from Morrocco to Afghanistan into the United Arab Emirates ! After all, the only thing needed would be to create oil reserves for 350 million Arab people which would be as huge as the UAE reserves for 2 million people ! That's easy !Bozo Erectus said:
Bozo. If people are happy, it's because money is falling from the sky thanks to oil revenues and the investments which is made possible thanks to it. You would be as happy as they are if dollars were growing in your backyard as it's the case in theirs. And you wouldn't mind enlightened cheiks governing the country in such conditions.
There's no model over there.
Democracy can work in the Arab world. I'm confident about this. The thing is simply that democracy isn't a kit you can offer as a gift, you can't enforce democracy on people, they have to build it themselves. Furthermore, Iraq was certainly the worst location to start spreading democracy. I'm confident that democracy will comes in the Arab world from the Mediterranean shores : Lebanon and Maghreeb.
After all, Lebanon has already been a democracy in the past. The was has put the mess in all this, but it worked well. As much in Lebanon than in Maghreeb, people are mature for a democracy. And it's a shame it's confiscated to them.
Jack the Ripper
King
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 785
CIVPhilzilla said:
Like Nazi germany
allhailIndia
Deity
For one thing Dubai is lucky to have had far sighted rulers who, unlike most other sheiks in the region actually planned for a time when the oil runs out.
That said, the rule is still that the middle east and many of the Islamic countries are still run by despots, or military rulers under the thin guise of elections. The exceptions are Bangladesh and Indonesia which are Islamic and Democratic, though under seige by Islamic fundamentalists threatening to take control of the government and undermine largely secular governments. UAE and more specifically Dubai, is an exception in that it is small, with access to the sea, and without a history of extremism or war to have a largely peaceful and peace-loving people with a emirs who thought of the future even when they didn't have to.
Any of these factors missing would not have made Dubai what it is and this lucky set of circumstances is responsible for the current prosperity Dubai enjoys. As such, it is no 'model' which can be followed anywhere else in the Arab world, where great inequality persists, or few economic avenues are available or ethnic and religious clashes abound.
That said, the rule is still that the middle east and many of the Islamic countries are still run by despots, or military rulers under the thin guise of elections. The exceptions are Bangladesh and Indonesia which are Islamic and Democratic, though under seige by Islamic fundamentalists threatening to take control of the government and undermine largely secular governments. UAE and more specifically Dubai, is an exception in that it is small, with access to the sea, and without a history of extremism or war to have a largely peaceful and peace-loving people with a emirs who thought of the future even when they didn't have to.
Any of these factors missing would not have made Dubai what it is and this lucky set of circumstances is responsible for the current prosperity Dubai enjoys. As such, it is no 'model' which can be followed anywhere else in the Arab world, where great inequality persists, or few economic avenues are available or ethnic and religious clashes abound.
allhailIndia
Deity
As far as freedom v. peace and prosperity go, I think people want both. They may temporarily compromise on one for the other, but that should not be taken as a sign that they would rather be rich than free or vice versa. A democracy probably takes more time to get to higher levels of prosperity than a dictatorship, but it is also more sustainable over much longer times than most dictatorships.
Democracy is not the prerogative of rich nations.
Democracy is not the prerogative of rich nations.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
UAE might be really great for the few thousands citizens that have oil up the butt
but for the rest of the people living there, who outnumber the citizens many times over, and do all the work, its pure hell
ive been there and talked to them myself
UAE, its really bizarre in some ways, i think drugs can get you death penalty, so you have all the youth, running around in those white robe things (arab mens wear, whatchumacallit) drive really nice expensive cars, and sniff glue!
but sticking to the topic, it cant work anywhere other than really small countries with alot of oil, cause nowhere will the government be able to give the citizens so much money
its not about regular prosperity that one would get through hard work, trade etc, in their case, its winning the (oil) lottery, and there can be very few winners there
but for the rest of the people living there, who outnumber the citizens many times over, and do all the work, its pure hell
ive been there and talked to them myself
UAE, its really bizarre in some ways, i think drugs can get you death penalty, so you have all the youth, running around in those white robe things (arab mens wear, whatchumacallit) drive really nice expensive cars, and sniff glue!
but sticking to the topic, it cant work anywhere other than really small countries with alot of oil, cause nowhere will the government be able to give the citizens so much money
its not about regular prosperity that one would get through hard work, trade etc, in their case, its winning the (oil) lottery, and there can be very few winners there
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Isnt it kind of racist to say that Arabs are incapable of having stable, peacefull societies if they dont have oil? The government of the UAE is based on a tribal system that has served Arabs well for millennia, long before oil wealth played any role in the region. We dont like their tribal, undemocratic system because its different from ours. Once again, we know best. The citizens of Dubai think they know how they like to govern themselves, but nope, sorry. We dont like their way of life and thats that. Theyre going to have to adopt Western ways of living whether they want to or not. Why cant we respect the cultural values and traditions of non Westerners?
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
The UAE is so unbelievably exceptionally rich, that it cannot possibly be an example for any other nation in the world.
The lack of democracy AND democratic feelings in the Arabian culture can be explained by the lack of enlightenment.
Before the second half of the 18th century (true) democracy was not even a potential eenieweenie tiny option in any Christian nation.
To understand the ideas of rejecting a dictatorship, but not thinking of democracy, try -reading a book on the Dutch war of indepence (from the Spanish, 1568-1648).
It gives insight in the lack of democratic ideas.
It kinda annoys me when people label critical analyses on cultures as racist.
Judging people on their religious and/or political views is a completely different matter than judging people on their race.
The lack of democracy AND democratic feelings in the Arabian culture can be explained by the lack of enlightenment.
Before the second half of the 18th century (true) democracy was not even a potential eenieweenie tiny option in any Christian nation.
To understand the ideas of rejecting a dictatorship, but not thinking of democracy, try -reading a book on the Dutch war of indepence (from the Spanish, 1568-1648).
It gives insight in the lack of democratic ideas.
No, that is analysing a culture and its history. It has nothing to do with race.
It kinda annoys me when people label critical analyses on cultures as racist.
Judging people on their religious and/or political views is a completely different matter than judging people on their race.
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Stapel, hmm, ok, then maybe we should invade the UAE and impose democracy on them. You know, since we know best whats good for them?
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Bozo Erectus said:
We should start with dictatorships that screw up
.Zimbabwe for instance!
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Wheres that Vogon constructor fleet?? I gotta get out of this madhouse!!
pboily
fingerlickinmathematickin
What do we mean by democracy?
Is it the freedom to be governed by elected officials, or the freedom to have a say in your own life (maybe that's Libertarianism, I don't know)? Because I live in a nominal democracy, but I've never had a say in how things should run, and by that I mean none of the people who I voted for to shape these things have ever been elected. So while I have exercised my democratic rights in voting and I haven't been voiceless, I've certainly been powerless: Canada is still not a mathocracy (and I'm only partly joking, here), and it's not likely to become one unless I'm willing to work some serious overtime to try to win a plurality of electors to my views (or at least, enough electors to be first by the post).
But I can still think and do math as I wish, and I would do so even if, for whatever insane reason, my countryfolks elected a government that forbade it.
So if democracy is my first definition, well, it's going to sound terribly cliché, but it's then a dictatorship of the majority (to which I will rarely, if at all, belong) whose expiration/renewal date comes every 4, 5 or 6 years rather than through a coup or through a death.
If democracy is the libertarian option, it's about being able to do what you want when you want (with the usual restrictions on harming my descendants and others), which I do already wether it's proscribed by the mores of laws of my country or not....
I mean, in Dubai (and under some dictatorships... I've had some really interesting conversations with former Orthodox Rumanians who live under the Soviets), it's only a question of not getting caught... of course, Nazis and co, didn't work that way at all, but if your views are not getting heard, what's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship? In one you are alive longer than the other, but that wouldn't fly with New Hampshirians now, would it?
A good democracy is always an election away from turning into a bad democracy, and vice-versa, whereas the changing of the guard between good and bad dictatorships could conceivably take place on a generational scale...
That being said, I still chose the democracy, not because it's the best option, but because it's the best conceivable option. I would like to live in a Libertarian paradise where people respect themselves, others and the planet, but that's just as likely to morph into a barbaric and anarchic nightmare.
Is it the freedom to be governed by elected officials, or the freedom to have a say in your own life (maybe that's Libertarianism, I don't know)? Because I live in a nominal democracy, but I've never had a say in how things should run, and by that I mean none of the people who I voted for to shape these things have ever been elected. So while I have exercised my democratic rights in voting and I haven't been voiceless, I've certainly been powerless: Canada is still not a mathocracy (and I'm only partly joking, here), and it's not likely to become one unless I'm willing to work some serious overtime to try to win a plurality of electors to my views (or at least, enough electors to be first by the post).
But I can still think and do math as I wish, and I would do so even if, for whatever insane reason, my countryfolks elected a government that forbade it.
So if democracy is my first definition, well, it's going to sound terribly cliché, but it's then a dictatorship of the majority (to which I will rarely, if at all, belong) whose expiration/renewal date comes every 4, 5 or 6 years rather than through a coup or through a death.
If democracy is the libertarian option, it's about being able to do what you want when you want (with the usual restrictions on harming my descendants and others), which I do already wether it's proscribed by the mores of laws of my country or not....
I mean, in Dubai (and under some dictatorships... I've had some really interesting conversations with former Orthodox Rumanians who live under the Soviets), it's only a question of not getting caught... of course, Nazis and co, didn't work that way at all, but if your views are not getting heard, what's the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship? In one you are alive longer than the other, but that wouldn't fly with New Hampshirians now, would it?
A good democracy is always an election away from turning into a bad democracy, and vice-versa, whereas the changing of the guard between good and bad dictatorships could conceivably take place on a generational scale...
That being said, I still chose the democracy, not because it's the best option, but because it's the best conceivable option. I would like to live in a Libertarian paradise where people respect themselves, others and the planet, but that's just as likely to morph into a barbaric and anarchic nightmare.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
Bozo Erectus said:
yeah except thats not what i said
i dont see how their tribal system is any diffrent from tribal systems or dictatorships else where, it works well if theres a good dictator in place, or until your opinion/will differs from the leader in some way
the reason this disent happen in UAE much is that people have too much money to care about politics
remember, 90% of politics everywhere is what to do with goevernments money, how to make/save the gov. money, government handouts/taxes etc
saying arabs cant handle democracy is racist
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
Jawz II said:
I find such remarks untrue, stupid and insulting.
Don't mix up culture and race please. There are explinations ehy the Arab culture is not so fertile for democracy. It has nothing to do with race.
stratego
Trying to be good.
A reform in freedom of speech/press would be more important than a democracy reform.
It's not like you really have a choice in a Democracy. Sure after living a quarter of your life, you can start going out and vote to keep yourself content, but you're just voting for the candidate the parties put out.
Voting between Kerry and Bush is not much different than the Saudis voting for their next prince. If you cast your vote for someone else then you're just wasting it.
It's not like you really have a choice in a Democracy. Sure after living a quarter of your life, you can start going out and vote to keep yourself content, but you're just voting for the candidate the parties put out.
Voting between Kerry and Bush is not much different than the Saudis voting for their next prince. If you cast your vote for someone else then you're just wasting it.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
stratego said:
Indeed!
In fact, I think an established and experienced freedom of press is a basic need for democracy.
I don't really see it working the other way around.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
Well, saying Arabs can't handle democracy is indeed not racist... it's simply factually wrong. Indeed, Lebanon had been a stable democracy during decades and it needed a war and an occupation to destroy it.Stapel said:
Similar threads
