Should we try to force/encourage democracy in the middle east at all?

[Che Guava]

Making democracy is an organic process; it has to come from within, and from the grass-roots up, not imposed from above. I would say offer money and training to grassroots democracy movememtns, and let them decide how thier system should be set up...

 

[Swedishguy]

Yes, by encouraging without force.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Making democracy is an organic process; it has to come from within, and from the grass-roots up, not imposed from above. I would say offer money and training to grassroots democracy movememtns, and let them decide how thier system should be set up...

I agree with the bolded part

I would spend whatever money is now being wasted on making our own democratic and free society something to be proud of. Rather than sending ourselves spiralling into debt bombing people into our way of thinking.

 

[Atlas14]

Encourage democracy without force, but by trying to show how illogical some of their beliefs are and encourage overthrowing of the theocracies by the people.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

We cant be the Jehovas Witnesses of democracy. Banging on peoples doors, and then breaking it down and performing home invasions at gunpoint, to make them accept the Good News of democracy.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Encourage democracy without force, but by trying to show how illogical some of their beliefs are and encourage overthrowing of the theocracies by the people.

Exactly. We should do wht we did with the Communist bloc: support the People and fight (peacefull) the Regimes, sadly we are doing the exact opposite with the Middle East today. The Middle East people are like all other people, they want to decide for themselves and democracy, in a form or another, is the only way.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Who said it is our problem? Let them sort it out. Look at Africa we set the borders there and look what happend.

 

[Che Guava]

I agree with the bolded part

I would spend whatever money is now being wasted on making our own democratic and free society something to be proud of. Rather than sending ourselves spiralling into debt bombing people into our way of thinking.

True dat

ALthough I think that we can still effectively promote democracy abroad! Maybe it just has to be on a different level. Maybe we take could the model of the micro-lending agencies: start a large trust to fund small democratic intiatives like starting up unions, founding new newspapers, supporting municipal governments, voter-resgistry intiatives. If we put all our eggs in one basket (i.e. invading a country and putting a government in place), then we only have a success or failure as options. With smaller intiatives across the board, we win some, lose some, and learn from our mistakes, all the while making some kind of progress towards a more civil society qwhile not looking like arrogant jerks imposing our way of life on someone else...

 

[puglover]

I voted, "yes, by force," because I want America to not shy from a war when it will save innocent lives. War is a tool, and a last resort, and sometimes it is direly needed.

 

[MamboJoel]

"Encouraging democracy by force"

Sounds antinomic to me.

 

[Bill3000]

No. Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government for a country, as it completely depends on the mindset and culture of the people. This includes a liberal democracy or otherwise, though it is immoral to enforce western idealism in a country where it is not the foundation of the society.

 

[Uiler]

The level of anti-Americanism in the ME is so high that any American supported democracy movement is doomed to failure because the people involved will be seen as sell-outs and traitors. And I'm including non-military help too like funding for political groups.

The only possible way for American involvement to not doom a democracy movement is if America redeems itself in the eyes of the ME which means to be more even-handed in the Palestine-Israel issue. Until this is resolved America's backing of Israel will taint any American backed anything in the ME. Even after it is resolved it will still take many years for trust of the US to be restored.

Similarly in places like China American backed democracy movements will be seen as traitors and sell-outs.

Foreign backing to movements only work if they are (1) hidden or (2) the foreign country is trusted and respected by the native people. I mean it's fairly obvious. American's don't like foreign interference in *their* domestic affairs, even if they are allies. They might tolerate allies but if it was say someone like China it will turn into outright paranoia, Congressional Hearings, front-page news e.g. witness the furor and almost hysteria over when China tried to buy a US oil company a while back. I don't understand why so many Americans think that American involvement is somehow exempt from the same reaction in other countries. It's just basic plain logic. American involvement of any type is like the kiss of death for the credibility of democracy movements in many countries.

Personally I think the democracy movement is pretty much in its last gasp. America is the only country powerful enough to actually push democracy. However, amongst the countries which are least democratic, America is either hated so much or people just plain don't trust America further then they can throw it that any American support for democracy will doom said democracy movement. However the reasons for this distrust/hatred are due to rather dirty actions that America took to gain its present position of power or things that America simply will never do e.g. push Israel to settle with Palestine fairly for cultural/domestic political reasons so it is likely that the reasons for the hatred/distrust will not get resolved in any real forseeable future. In fact in a way that America's pushing of democracy hastens this process along because people start to connect democracy with America and it just makes things worse. Yet, America is the only power with enough strength to push democracy. And there are attractive alternatives - Islamic politics and Han nationalism. It's one of those situations in history where everything is kindof self-reinforcing, pushing to a single conclusion.

 

[Atlas14]

No. Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government for a country, as it completely depends on the mindset and culture of the people. This includes a liberal democracy or otherwise, though it is immoral to enforce western idealism in a country where it is not the foundation of the society.

How do you know they would not support western idealism? They are humans just like us. It is their dictatoral theocratic government that censors their ideas and oppresses any hint of freedom or liberalism. You are basing your opinion off of the radical political/religious leaders that rule in the ME, not the region as a whole.

 

[Bill3000]

How do you know they would not support western idealism? They are humans just like us. It is their dictatoral theocratic government that censors their ideas and oppresses any hint of freedom or liberalism. You are basing your opinion off of the radical political/religious leaders that rule in the ME, not the region as a whole.

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that it is not a neccessary condition for a human, or the majority of humans in a country, to believe in western idealism. The universal declaration of human rights isn't a given to a human. I'm not basing my opinion from radical leaders, but from the fact that it isn't a necessary condition for human idealism. More important is the fact that you offer no evidence for the matter if the people of various middle eastern countries want a western liberal democracy; this is an unjustified assumption.

Besides, not all democracies in the world are liberal democracies. Neither Russia and Belarus are liberal democracies, yet are classified as having democratic governments.

 

[amadeus]

are you serious?

Yes.

What would happen if they voted for somebody like al-Sadr?

 

[Atlas14]

No, I'm not. I'm just saying that it is not a neccessary condition for a human, or the majority of humans in a country, to believe in western idealism. The universal declaration of human rights isn't a given to a human. I'm not basing my opinion from radical leaders, but from the fact that it isn't a necessary condition for human idealism. More important is the fact that you offer no evidence for the matter if the people of various middle eastern countries want a western liberal democracy; this is an unjustified assumption.

Besides, not all democracies in the world are liberal democracies. Neither Russia and Belarus are liberal democracies, yet are classified as having democratic governments.

True. Though I still think the average Muslim would favor any sort of democracy
over their current repressive theocratic government. I highly doubt the women like wearing veils nor do it out of love for their religion.

 

[Uiler]

Yes.

What would happen if they voted for somebody like al-Sadr?

They already did (al-Sadr's political party did well in the Iraqi elections and in fact their votes were vital to put the current Iraqi PM into power).

 

[MamboJoel]

Yes.

What would happen if they voted for somebody like al-Sadr?

Well, the people you want to take their votes away will answer that the americans voted twice for GW Bush... And if you want to decide for them, they definitely will want to have a word of the one the americans choose next time.

 

[CartesianFart]

We cant be the Jehovas Witnesses of democracy. Banging on peoples doors, and then breaking it down and performing home invasions at gunpoint, to make them accept the Good News of democracy.

That sounds like a good idea being forced by gunpoint to accept God as Jehova.

 

[Uiler]

True. Though I still think the average Muslim would favor any sort of democracy
over their current repressive theocratic government. I highly doubt the women like wearing veils nor do it out of love for their religion.

Actually some do. Now one could argue it's just brainwashing, but there are plenty of Christian women who like wearing nun clothes, vow to never marry, eat plain frugal food for most of their lives, live in poverty etc. Not as much as there used to be but there have always been plenty of people who feel deeply about their religion, whatever it is and are willing to make sacrifices for it. Of course one can argue about the % of those who are forced vs those who are willing (you could also say that about Christian nuns in the past too since a lot of them weren't particularly willing...though some were truly religious) but to just dismiss the possibility that at least some of the women are doing it out of true love for their religion is a bit blind.

I also know plenty of very religious Christian women who find Christ in their daily life all the time and make what non-religious folk would consider to be "sacrifices" for their religion. In fact some of my very Christian friends say things like "The Bible says that the husband has the final word in the marriage." or "The Bible says my husband has authority over me." But I would not in any way class them as browbeatened or unhappy. Also if you grow up in the environment where everyone is doing it it is just normal. Practically everyone wears a suit and tie to office work so it's "normal". Practically all women around you wear a head scarf so it's just "normal". Suits and ties aren't particularly comfortable either but people still wear them all the time because it is what is considered "normal" under certain circumstances (and you can get fired if you don't).