Printable View
In light of what is going on in Kenya, plus ongoing troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the assassination in Pakistan....(etc)...
...is there a case for letting people live in tyranny until they can choose democracy of their own accord? In most western nations we've had periods of bloody violence, often lasting many years, before the people themselves chose to end it. Maybe that is the way to tackle the issues other people have got around the world.
Thoughts?
I think one of the problems is that people who live in a (primitive) tribal society find it much easier to kill others using an AK47 than with a bow and arrow.
I'm saying that in this day and age problems escalate more easily than when us Europeans were swinging swords.
I absolutely think there are countries which should be left under the control of dictators, I don't think there are countries that should be left under tyrants... I suppose it depends on where you draw the line between dictator and tyrant.
Having said that, I also cannot think of a circumstance where a country should be forced to go with a democracy. I don't think it's a system that can be force implemented. If you're going to topple a tyrant, it would be better to put a dictator in place who can still do what has to be done, but doesn't massacre millions of his people in the process.
Look at Pakistan. It tried democracy and got corrupt official after corrupt official. It's neighbour India, went through exactly the same process and got successive good leaders. Pakistan is now in the toilet economically and India is prospering. Most of the Pakistanis I know (and I know a lot), actually think that Gen. Mushariff was one of the best things to happen to country. He's facing a lot of backlash because he is trying to remove power from the tribal leaders (who consider themselves judge and executioner in all local legal cases). Strangely, they are ready for democracy, but first they have to break the strangle hold that the tribal leaders have and stamp out the rampant corruption that cripples business within the country - and no democratically elected person is ever going to be able to do that.
As for when a country is ready for democracy. I believe it must first have a couple of fundamental things.
1) Food on the table of almost every citizen. Whats the point in being able to vote when there isn't food on the table - they will simply vote for whoever promises to bring them food.
2) Freedom of the press.
3) Free access to the press - e.g. Wireless etc. One of the problems in Pakistan is that the tribal locals are instructed who to vote for by the local leader. They have no other source to make their own minds up.
4) Seperation of religion from Politics. Much like Ireland 100 years ago, the local priest/mullah/rabbi will simply tell the congregation how to vote, and the faithfull will do so.....
Now, I've probably missed a few, but there is one other important situation which trumps all of those. When it is throwing off an "invading country". I'm thinking of the likes of Poland here, which was ostensibly going for democracy but in reality was throwing off the yoke of the USSR (Poland was a democracy before the Russian/German invasions). But with regards to the middle-east and Africa, few of those countries where ever a democracy. So I would argue that the initial 4 factors have to be met by any middle eastern/african country looking for democracy.
As for whether democracy is the right choice for a country.... look at South Africa. Has the pendulum of power swung too far, the majority now seem to be picking on the mniority...
Look at the US. One of the most violently aggressive nations on the planet..... yet a democracy.
Look at Canada. Political corruption abounds - especially with respects to lobbyists.
Don't get me wrong. I believe democracy is the best choices for all three countries, but at the end of the day, you vote a party and leader (President/Prime Minister) in for a selected term, and they are then free to wield the baton of power as they see fit, and as benefits them (and their financial backers) best.
Ruling hierarchies usually evolve in regions of their own accord. Well, not their own accord, but they are symbiotic with the nature of the society in which they exist. So China became a communist regime while the US went democratic and Syria had a dictatorship. For the most part (some examples may be off), each of these systems complements the nature of the society in each of these places. Just like among friends, when one party attempts to impose a certain way of thinking upon another party, the results are never what you expect.
So the problem isn't democracy and it certainly isn't that democracy is the "best" (that's what we've been led to believe), the problem is forcing your beliefs upon others. Crusades, anyone?
Is forcing democracy not the same as forcing tyranny on a nation. Every system we have is flawed in its own ways. For instance there is a huge hospital crisis in ireland at the moment, they are filthy, under staffed and there are even cases of people been treated on trollies. There are lots of cases now of people dying of infection and misdiagnosys because of this situation.
I see this as a form of genocide because the goverment are unwilling to fund the HSE effectivly but can afford to put more money in their own pockets by increasing their wages to an average of 100k.
How can anyone say this is not the same as starving citizens. the difference is that one his hidden under the viel of beuacracy. So back to the original point. Can we force democracy on "tryants"? No, because are system is no better.
No it's not the same as forcing tyranny.
And I cannot think of many dictators that are (or weren't) tyrannical (sp?) as well...
It's so easy for non-democratic rule to survive in poor ecomonic countries. Why should the people of Cuba rise up against Castro's regime? They got it bad now - and no hope of better just because they get to choose the leader. Probably more corruption in freedom of these people I would guess.
And nationalized health is just insane - you just pointed out the reasons clearly. If the ecomonic wealth - gross national product - however you want to measure it - cannot sustain the health care of all it's people then it certainly doesn't matter who's in charge of administering the lack of services!
Its a defunct goverment running a defunct service. If you ask me its on purpose. Are "old age" population far outweighs are "Working" population. I hate to say it but you know what im getting at here.....
That's what the Democratic party (not to be confused with DEMOCRACY) in the US is always pushing - bigger government running more expensive government programs. And they always fail in the long run...
There is truth, in my opinion, to the fact that the capitalist notions of supply and demand will always offer better options then government mandates.
Clinton and the rest of the democratic party keep promosing fixes to things like health care - but the funding for those programs simply does not exist.
Back to my feeling that the ecomony of a country dictates the possibilities of type of rule...
Who in Saudi Arabia really cares if they are a monarchy? They are all filty rich - so much cash to throw around that elections are the last thing on peoples minds...
Perhaps the capitalist notions do offer better options, but it also requires the country to have resources aplenty. Perhaps we could look at it in a way similar to Maslow's Hierarchy. If you're a poor, developing nation then you're more concerned with the immediate needs of food and so someone can have absolute rule as long as they provide something. A step up and you've got the food you need, so now you can be concerned with what everyone else is doing and getting jealous - that's democracy (equal rights for all (most)). One step up and you're filthy rich and you just stop caring. I'm just thinking as I type so I won't stand behind my statements.
In fairness it sounds more or less correct.
"Democracy is the worst form of goverment... except for all the others which have been tried" - Winston Churchill.
I think he got that about right. Democracy is probably the fairest (and therefore best) form of government we currently have available to us, but if you start from the assumption that it is a perfect form of government you find holes starting to appear in your arguments pretty damn quick. Democracies can be just as corrupt as any Dictatorship and a Dictatorship can be just as representative of it's people's desires. Either system is merely a mechanism for deciding whose in charge and if the wrong conclusion is reached then what you get is bad government.
Indeed, the entire history of monarchy is effectively one of tyranny, and if you can find me a Scotsman who says that The Bruce was a bad king, I'll eat a haggis. A more contemporary example would be the military junta that took over power in Nigeria in 83, don't get me wrong, they were extremeley harsh (they had many representatives of the old regime executed, for example) but they relaced an extremely corrupt system that saw people klling each other in the streets before every election. They were generally motivated by the good of the nigerian people and there were definite improvements in security and infrastucture. They seemed to have a genuine desire to return power to a democratic system once things had settled down. Sadly they got replaced by a further, and far more self interested military coup just one year later so it's impossible to know whether this state of affairs could have continued.
Incidentally, Milosavitch and Hitler both rose to power through the legal democratic process, in both cases by appealing to nationalistic pride in a time of hardship. Hamas were, whether we like it or not, legally elected by the Palestine people, again because they are able to appeal to the sense of wounded nationalism held by most palestinians in a time of hardship. It's just such times that the Middle East and Africa have been facing and it should therefore come as no surprise that tyrannical parties tend to come to power in that enviroment, either by usurping the legal process or by more direct means (e.g. military coup).
What Democracy really offers over a Dictatorship is a natural break in that a bad leader can be removed by legal process. But that break only has value where certain criteria are met. SurfDemon touched on some of those criteria but I'd like to add a couple more:-
5) A standard of education sufficient for the electorate to understand what they are voting for
6) A sense of national identity that surpasses either tribal or religious identities.
At the end of the day I'd prefer to live in a democracy that a dictatorship, but I'd prefer to live in a functional dictatorship than a disfunctional democracy.
Is that the Bruce from Braveheart?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
He probably means the actual guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
It's just that they didn't show the Bruce become king in Braveheart, so it may be an urban legend. Or rather, a rural legend since it's Scottish. :afrog:
That is the Bruce from Braveheart and he did become King following his defeat of the Anglish at Bannockburn. Actually, we know alot more about his life then we do about Wallace's and he's portrayed particularly unfairly in that film.
As an interesting aside, the Scots declaration of independence from that time contains a fairly profound statement of the principles of democracy if not a legal framework. I can't remember the exact wording off the top of my head but it says something along the lines of "We'll take for ourselves a King until he displeases us and then we'll sack him and take for ourselves another". I seem to remember it makes particular reference to submitting to the English as reasons for dismissal. The Scots have hated us Sassenachs for an awful long time.
As another interesting aside, I went to college with Catherine McCormick (Wallace's wife in Braveheart who gets her throat cut). We did drama together and I taught her how to do a Southern Irish Accent... which probably explains why she ended up playing a Scot :rolleyes: .
Much as I like the film Braveheart, it's not to be taken in any shape or form as fact (infact quite the opposite). Many scots where annoyed at the way The Bruce was portrayed. A quote from wikipedia certainly sums up Braveheart... :)
Quote:
Braveheart has been described as a film which "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure"
We did, right up until you gave us Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett. Since then, I'd say we are very happy with the English and their contribution to the world :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
[QUOTE=szlamany]Eventually, people who state that will have to wake up to the fact that the two largest increases in the federal government in the last three decades came under Reagan and W. Both parties, if given the opportunity, will shoulder up to the trough with the best of them for reasons that I have stated many times before: They are democratically elected, and will do what they need to do to get elected, and what they need to do is follow the old adage that "he who pays the piper calls the tune."Quote:
That's what the Democratic party (not to be confused with DEMOCRACY) in the US is always pushing - bigger government running more expensive government programs. And they always fail in the long run...
And those cases where its not true will never get any press if conservatives have their way, such as the rural electrification project, interstate highways, and numerous other projects that probably couldn't ever be accomplished without a government mandate. The internet is probably one of those, too, since it started out as a defense measure.Quote:
There is truth, in my opinion, to the fact that the capitalist notions of supply and demand will always offer better options then government mandates.
I strongly disagree. Private insurance wasn't in health care until they saw some federal projects actually working, at which point they realized that profit existed in taking on healthy people and leaving the sick to public health care. There's a growing body of literature on this by historians and economists (two economists who agree on anything is a state that may not exist in the real world, so I'm not claiming that any of them have the same view).Quote:
Clinton and the rest of the democratic party keep promosing fixes to things like health care - but the funding for those programs simply does not exist.
Then why were the majority of the 9/11 hijackers Saudi? Why is Osama Saudi?Quote:
Who in Saudi Arabia really cares if they are a monarchy? They are all filty rich - so much cash to throw around that elections are the last thing on peoples minds..
And I didn't cover this last quote from you thoroughly, though you clearly stated it. Do you seriously suggest that it is the end of everything? The end of speach? The end of discourse? Why would you discriminate against the question mark and the exclamation point? They are both perfectly good pieces of punctuation!!!Quote:
.
@ Funky Dexter: I would love to hear your take of an irish accent!
Feck Eff
Actually, half my family's Irish, from Limerick. My natural accent's basically English because I've been in Hampshire most of my life, but I've mixed with my family and visited them enough to be able to pull off a pretty good South East accent. I can do a pretty good Ian Paisly too.
Ah Stab City! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
As for Ian paisley, doesn't that just involve shouting a lot in an angry voice?
Very good and id say south east would be the hardest to pull off too, it can sound really good or really fake. I can do a really good dublin accent (because i grew up there wayhay!) I laugh though every time i hear an american actor do an irish accent the only decent one was julia roberts cork accent in micheal collins!
Yeah. It;'s worth Watching that Tom Cruise/Nichol Kidman movie where they play irish folk (can't remember what it's called) just for the hillariously over the top accents. It's a riot! :D
I lived in Dublin for 5 years, and I've never ever ever heard anyone speak with that sort of accent. A good irish accent is soft and understated. Not harsh and "Ay! Eyl always luv ya Shannon!" over the top sort of thing. If it's any consolation, we Scots get the same treatment (Scotty from Star Trek!), though I have to say that Shrek's (Mike Myers) Scottish Accent is spot on!
Accents are very hard to do without sounding stupid or comical; most people are far too unsubtle with them. You really need to spend a fair amount of time with some people who naturally have a particular accent to pick it up properly.
"Captain Corelli's Mandolin" was particularly good in that area. They got all the Greeks to speak English... in a Greek accent. The Germans spoke English too, in a German accent. And then there were the Italians.
My Fave movie for that was Oliver Stone's Alexander the Great. I can just imagine the meetings before they made it:-
Oliver Stone: Who have we cast as Alexander?
Colin Farell: Ah, Tis OI
Stone: Can you do a Greek Accent?
Farell: Eh, No... BiGorah
Stone: What accents can you do?
Farell: Err, that'd be Oirish.
Stone: Hmm, nobody really knows what the ancient Greeks really sounded like anyway, lets just get everyone else to do Irish accents and hope nobody notices. Can everyone else here do an Irish Accent?
Rest of the predominantly American Cast: YeeHah, err, no.
Stone: Sod it, let's just go with it anyway.
Ive never heard an irish person say BiGorah!!! (although ive been galled a wee gassan well to many times) I do love being irish though! Everyone things were are these harmless wee fellows who want nutting more than to buy you a drink!
It such a pity the current goverment is a bunch of moneygrabing ****ers. I mean its got so bad that the trail against them is even a sham!
Actually do you know what is really funny, when you are talking to say polish people, because they learned american english they havent a clue what we are saying for instance i would great them with whats the craic and they would look very strangely at me. Its funny because the goverment complain that we don't use our native language as much as we should but its actually mingled in our day to day conversation alot more that you would think!
To be fair, neither have I, I was playing to stereotypes. I've never actually heard an Amrican say YeeHah either... but then I've never been to Texas.Quote:
Ive never heard an irish person say BiGorah!!!
We've probably derailed this trhead enough though. Back on Topic, where will the US be exporting democracy to next? My prediction is France.
Is that a way of saying "Your jeans are too low"?Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
My guess would be Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
By the way, I have said YeeHah. It's hard to distinguish between sincerity, mockery, and mockery of mockery with that word, though.
One of my Pakistani friends is convinced that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was part of an American plot to go in with the tanks and kill the Muslims.
Although there are often conspiracy theories abounding regardless of circumstance, there are increasingly large numbers of people belonging to a particular religion who honestly believe that the West is attempting genocide, particularly America. Most do distinguish between, say, Americans and the American govt (although some don't, and perhaps that's where we get our bombers) but they have managed to get that belief into their heads and are able to find/twist evidence to support it.
By blaming their own problems upon the west, it gives them hope, purpose and all that other Disney crap. That's how any society, small to large, works.
@ Mendhak: No craic is means fun taking litrally so i suppose it doesnt really make sense
@Zaza: Sorry for knocking the theard off the rails, back to the real issue at had, although i dont belive you friend i do wonder if the whole west v muslim think is going to end peacfullly. Personally i have no issues with muslims as i really dont think their religion makes as big an impact on their lives as some people suggest. I often get muslims into the store and the ladies are curtious and pollite, it is not like they are not allowed to talk to people, also the men do not have a gruge against me as i should be led to belive. If anything i find that most people here in ireland are worried about them more because their curiosity and thirst for knowledge makes the vast majority of irish native look dumb and lazy. (which is probably true)!
Especially when you say it that way;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CodedFire
Heck, is it going to end at all? What are we at now, 1000 years and counting?Quote:
@Zaza: Sorry for knocking the theard off the rails, back to the real issue at had, although i dont belive you friend i do wonder if the whole west v muslim think is going to end peacfullly.
@SH: I know i really need to watch what i type!
Yes... but only when we find life on Mars so we can all join together in hating those bloody Martians, coming over here stealing our Oxygen, they'll all want free council houses and health care...Quote:
Heck, is it going to end at all?
Although I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins, part of the problem with religion is that a fundamental part of it generally involves believing in something better happening to you after you die. When you've got some poverty-stricken mountain man with no education and his kids dying of disease / malnourishment / war and some mullah says "All you have to do is kill these people in defense of our religion and it's heaven all the way for you", what is he going to think?
I disagree with Dawkins' ideas about abolishing religion, but it does definitely get abused by its custodians.
My point is that there are a lot of poor people across the world, and religion is sometimes all that they have left to believe in. And when you have a group who wish to obtain / maintain power in that religion, it can prompt a lot of otherwise bizarre actions, even over the course of hundreds of years.
It's always the poor ecomony of the people that allows something absurd to enter - over the top religion - coups - dictators - whatever flavor cult of personality fits - it doesn't really matter which one.
And economy is objective anyway. Tribal people in New Guinea certainly aren't unhappy with the "economy" they have. Others can look at it and feel it's below standards...
Ok, square that with the education and accomplishments of the 9/11 hijackers. They weren't poor derelicts being mislead by manipulative mullahs.
But they aren't a country or a people or a government...
They are fringe dwellers exploiting a situation.
How they justify suicide missions themselves is way beyond me - personally I'm into self-preservation as like one of my key values.
You didn't see binladen himself flying into a building - I'm guessing his self-preservation requirements don't match what he preaches to his brain washed followers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Nobody said that everybody who wants to kill themselves and others around them has to be poor and ill-educated. But consider the baying mobs one sees on one's nightly news programme; can it really be the case that there are so many people hell-bent on killing infidels? Or is it more likely that there are a few hard-core types and a lot of people who are easily led?
After all, one might say that in the West there could be a few hard-core media types who decide what to show us on TV, and the rest of us are easily led into believing that a billion barbaric Muslims want to rampage across America.
Or millions of baying "Christians" protesting abortion clinics, the teaching of evolution etc. Or millions of citizens celebrating the war against Iraq - how must that look in the middle east - much the same as it looks from ourside looking at them.....
At one point, somebody criticized Falwells Moral Majority by calling them "Poor, uneducated, and easily led." Those morons put the phrase on buttons and wore it proudly. Some people are immune to insult.
This is much like that test that was preformed to show how easy it was for the nazi's to commit genocide. They made a person ask another a series of questions. If they got a question wrong the asker would eletrocute the subject in increassing voltages. If they were unhappy with what they were doing they were simple told to carry on.... and they did. The test showed that 50% of people would administer a lethal dose of electricity simply because they were asked to by someone they belived to be in a position of power and/or authority. This is no different to suicide bombers. It is irrelivent to speak about the fact that they may or may not be educated. They are simply following orders much like he nazi's did.
I am aware of that study, but it is my understanding that the Israelis have studied suicide bombings, and their results don't agree with your statements. I have heard that their findings were that the bombers were not just following orders, but were ideologically motivated, with the exact ideology not being ignorant brainwashing, but a far more complicated societal expectation.
Interestingly, you can find the same motivation in American literature, so as much as we reject what we see in palestinian suicide bombers, we also celebrate the exact same motivation in our own culture. One example would be the ending of Steven King's Marathon Man. The movie was a typical Hollywood bastardization, but in the original story, the protaganist, legally hunted as a form of sport combined with death sentence, kills himself by deliberately flying a plane into the office of the head of the agency that administers the hunt. Since the agency head is acting legally at the behest of society, the protaganist becomes the same as the 911 hijackers. He felt that he was doing the right thing for good reasons. Not brainwashed, just willing to give his life for a cause that involved the deliberate killing of a law abiding citizen.
There are plenty more examples of this view in literature (not so many in movies, as the happy ending isn't there). As a culture, we actually understand what would motivate a person to give their lives to hurt an enemy, we just have a hard time seeing how we could be cast in the role of the enemy. Another example would be the movie Unforgiven, where the protaganist rides into town to kill the sheriff and all the lawmen in town. Of course, we have seen the world from his eyes, and believe the lawmen have done bad things, but what did the law do that provoked such a reaction? They killed a man who had taken cash to murder two people, one of whom was involved with an assualt. Furthermore, the man died inadvertently during a harsh interrogation.
It's not just that we understand the terrorists, we celebrate the concepts behind their actions, but we feel indignant when the actions are taken against us.