Again this is a spin-off from a reply to an ongoing discussion. My point is that it is not in the interests of powers for certain countries to have democracy, because democracy in “Muslim” countries works against the western powers because these countries will not become “westernised”.
lets take the example of Iran, the others Saudi and Syria are basically very totalitarian regimes. In 1979 the Islamic revolution in Iran was a popular one meaning it was endorsed and supported by the Public. This popular revolution led to the downfall of the Shah and his dictatorial rule, who incidentally was backed by the US. No amount of screaming fundamentalist and extremist by the media and world leaders would ever disguise the fact that this was what the people wanted. The people had spoken loud and clear. Whether it was for the better or the worse in my or your view is of no consequence because the majority had decided for themselves and in that end that is what democracy is about. Believe it or not, Iran is a democratic country. Its parliamentary constitution or the constitution of Majlis is moulded on the US’. The only unelected body but still answerable committee is akin to House of Lords in the UK. The very fact there is open debate and there are active opposition parties in the country and people feel able to criticise and influence the governing bodies (one recent example would be the overturning of the academic’s sentence) proves beyond doubt its democratic nature. But why is this not palatable for the US? Why the differences and animosity between the two countries? Surely it can’t be because the leaders of that country have a different dress code! Why doesn’t the US accept and respect the choice of the people at face value?
The biggest lie being perpetrated today is that Israel is the only democracy in the Mid-East. Another example of democracy although limited is in Lebanon. Limited because of colonial hangovers in their constitution, similar to that in Bahrain in which is representation is divided on the basis of religious sect with Christian priority, followed by Sunni and then Shia or something like that. Yet despite these parliamentary limitations, in 1996 elections Hizbollah (yes, that supposed “terrorist” group) achieved a land-slide victory and remains one of the most influential political parties with an active social development programme that goes beyond ethnicity and sectarian divides. A Coptic Christian or Druze will just as likely tell you how proud he is of Hizbollah as will a Lebanese Shia. For the Lebanese the party is somewhat a national treasure. Again, the US endorses and accepts the leadership of an indicted war criminal, Sharon because he is the “choice of the people” but doesn’t extend the same courtesy to Hizbollah? Why not?
With respect to Saudi Arabia, I believe had Mr Bin Laden the chance of democracy of some sort he would be making full use of it and I am sure you would agree if given the chance in SA, with full free transparent election according to will of the public the results would be shocking for the US. Again although not in the Mid-East, another example with a very limited style and notion of Democracy and democratic ideal is Pakistan, a country riddled with dictatorship for most of its just over 50 years of existence. Yet elections produced a huge victory for religious parties. Again, for better for worse, the people’s choice and you have to respect that if nothing else. Another example is of Algeria and the fiasco created there by the French.
As Huntingdon would say, the Muslim world especially in the ME seeks modernity but without Westernisation. So no, self-perpetuating freedom does not take a long time. It does not take any time in fact except in US deciding whether this freedom is within our interest or against our interests. In the end, nothing matters, neither the little facts of freedom nor the will of the people when it comes to “you’re either with US or against US”. That’s when we end up with a little more than a clash of interest.
What do you think, the US is pro democracy or not?
Rhia democracy is not just about ruling people. It also about adaptive change and man made legislations that can keep up with the changing times.
Iran was a failed democracy until the last few years, when the young population who has little memory of the islamic revolution, demanded social changes.
What happened in Iran is a travesty. While the intentions were good, the mullahs, ended up being dictators in their own right. THat is not democracy.
well it all comes down to who i like and who i don't. USA never was and never will be a pro-democracy. they don't democracy in any of ME countries. Democracy means people's will and USA know very well that people of ME don't trust USA because of its direct support to israel. further democracy in these countries will hamper its efforts to extract as much oil as possible. what else these ME countries have for USA except OIL?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Rhia democracy is not just about ruling people. It also about adaptive change and man made legislations that can keep up with the changing times.
Iran was a failed democracy until the last few years, when the young population who has little memory of the islamic revolution, demanded social changes.
What happened in Iran is a travesty. While the intentions were good, the mullahs, ended up being dictators in their own right. THat is not democracy.
[/QUOTE]
so a few jokers make the legislature according to their own liking and rest are then forced to follow it. thats not democracy, thats dictatorship.
iran being a failed democracy, can you tell me who was behind this failed democracy? USA ofcourse. people were ok with it but USA was not ok with it. a strong iran was a threat to USA interests in ME and so they injected those young people into it to spread its propoganda just to corrupt the minds of people. who are these young people? most are from these western countries where they learn western values and principles which are deemed to fail in islamic countries but USA label it as freedom of speech but only if you use it out of USA. :-)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Rhia democracy is not just about ruling people. It also about adaptive change and man made legislations that can keep up with the changing times.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. But ultimately it is about choice. My view is that powers will and do have a hard time grasping the concept, especially if it goes against their interest. These are the very same powers that in the end will lose out despite their "export" of their own concept of democracy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Iran was a failed democracy until the last few years, when the young population who has little memory of the islamic revolution, demanded social changes.
What happened in Iran is a travesty. While the intentions were good, the mullahs, ended up being dictators in their own right. THat is not democracy.
[/QUOTE]
The fact social changes may be occuring is evidence enough to prove that Iran is fundamentally a democracy. You disagreement is of no value and you can't discredit a people's choice, the people put the Mullah's there in the first instance and continue to keep them there as can be seen every four years. That is democracy.
No on eis disputing that Iranians should be free to choose who they want. They tried an autocrat, who was booted out through a religiously inspired revolution. Whose leaders inturn became autocrats. Now Iran has tried both a monarchy and a theocracy...time fo rit to give western democracy a chance. And it will happen.....the young peolpe want it.
When the US was formed there were no other democracies. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were only a handful. Today there are over 100 democracies. If the US is against the spread of democracy, why is it that there are so many democratic nations today following a century which was domintated by the Americans? Was that just another American failure?
"The young people want it" That is the only mantra? I agree if you say enough times you will possibly end up believing it. But this is not what I'm on about. What happens or what we would like to happen in the future remains to be seen. The present fact is, even at this very moment the people sitting in Majlis are the represntatives of the people, they have been elected by them and so we should respect that at the very least and in true democratic spirit not call them autocratic or dictators etc just because they are not following our rule books. Wouldn't you agree?
EntityParadigm, everyone has their version of history and they r all good i think as long as they r not believed to the letter.
Seminole, I don't believe Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite were coined by the Americans but nevertheless I agree Democracy is a western export. I'm not saying the US is against the spread of democracy on the contrary i think it will be up for spreading its own brand of democracy however what i am saying is that the US wont and doesn't like the outcome of that export of democracy when it becomes clear that democracy is not in the interest or working in favour of the US.
Whether or not the US was the world's first modern democracy is not the point. Neither is my brainwashed status or the accuracy of the history I read.
The question remains, if the US was the world's most influential and powerful country of the past 100 years, why was there the proliferation of democracy during the same period?
It was facism, nazism, Japanese Imperialsm and Communism the US fought against in the 20th Century. It is religous extremism in the 21st. In other words, the US fought off all of the world movements that were against Democrazcy.
I wasn't aware that Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite were democracies in 1776.
Democracy is more than giving people the right to vote. It means having things like the Bill of Rights that guarantee the rights of its people even if a majority vote fundamentalists (that want to restrict freedoms) into power. In theory, and in practice, a democracy has to be secular.
I wasn't aware that Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite were democracies in 1776.<
The concept was there.
Democracy is more than giving people the right to vote. It means having things like the Bill of Rights that guarantee the rights of its people even if a majority vote fundamentalists (that want to restrict freedoms) into power. In theory, and in practice, a democracy has to be secular.<
Why do you think fundamentalist restrict freedoms? Isn't that an example of your own "fundamentalist" thought? What in its most basic form do you think freedom is about if it isn't about the freedom to choose? For example if the people choose fundos, its their choice they are expressing their freedom of choice. You have to give them that. And most importantly why do you believe a democracy has to be secular? We have already had one explanation of democracy as being necessarily "adaptive to change". Isn't the whole essence of democracy for the people to have the choice on what kind of system they choose to implement?
Being Secular will end religious disagreements and make the mullahs less effective as a destructive force, thus helping create a civil society that will be relatively tolerant and peaceful.
Regardless of their theology or level of "fundamentalism", if a religious group directs a nation's policy it is a theocracy and not a democracy. It doesn't matter if it was based on an election or not. Democracy and elections are not one and the same. A few years after Hitler was elected, no one was calling Germany a democracy anymore.
The greater difference between democracies and theocracies is not so much who rules but how they rule. Laws of the land are supposedly divine. There is not judicial review possibilty to make a law unconstitutional. If god said forty lashes for adultery and beharding for apostacy than there is not much men can do. democracy is rule by the people according to laws made by the people. These laws supercede divine judgements. therin lies the rub charlie.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by punjab da sher: *
Being Secular will end religious disagreements and make the mullahs less effective as a destructive force, thus helping create a civil society that will be relatively tolerant and peaceful.
[/QUOTE]
Thats why we are having 2 Wars in about 5 years and all inflicted by the peace loving and very secular country America!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
The greater difference between democracies and theocracies is not so much who rules but how they rule. Laws of the land are supposedly divine. There is not judicial review possibilty to make a law unconstitutional. If god said forty lashes for adultery and beharding for apostacy than there is not much men can do. democracy is rule by the people according to laws made by the people. These laws supercede divine judgements. therin lies the rub charlie.
[/QUOTE]
A democracy is more than just apply those laws you prefer to!
If the democractic system really works why did then USA need to attack Iraq without UN mandate?
No, these are not two different issue!