This discussion is closed.
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 15 years ago
#21
(Original post by Will)
That only really works when the most powerful 'faction' in the country is willing to uphold the constitution. In Iraq at the moment, the Sunni and Shia muslims are a 60%-40% split, which isn't too good in itself, especially as the Shia majority seem to be less aggressive than their Sunni counterparts.
External powers could hold up the constitution though.
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 15 years ago
#22
(Original post by fishpaste)
Isn't that why you have constitutions though? To protect democracies once they're in place.
Yes, the constitution does protect democracy. However, if we have a counter-revolution and people whrilling bombs and such about I don't think there going to pay much attention to the constitution

spk : I agree with the fact that democracy should be a right, this is because on a issue of legitmacy, people deserve and should be governed legitmatly where they are directly accountable - obviously a dictorship doesn't allow this

However, I agree with Will that the dangers of imposing democracy in may circumstances are too great. The problem in many dictatorial countries is that the people that support the regime are often the ones with the most funds and weapons - which means even with the help of foreign forces we risk mass civil unrest that can cause huge problems. Indeed, although we may get a democracy are we willing to scarfice other concepts such as liberty, equality etc. that will ultimatly be eroded due to the civil unrest that would happen in the years after the imposition of democracy?

But, we still remain at a crossroads, all three of us agree that democracy is good for the people - but how we manage to get a 'gradual realisation' of it is very difficult. I can only see intensive diplomatic pressure to start the process of democracy off as the only way to realise this gradual realisation of it - but I am sceptical that it will get anywhere.

Perhaps we become left with the decision; are we willing to let dictaorship go on, and have people generation after generation be governed illegitamatly, have their own personal liberty infringed, not have a government seeking equality, nor security for its people? Maybe the only option is to scarfice these things of the present in protection of the future?
0
Sweyn Forkbeard
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 15 years ago
#23
Britain had a gradual realisation of democracy, but it took many many generations. I'm sure the same will happen in most nations, even dictatorships, given time.

The problem with today is that we think we can achieve something instantly, when in reality things like political change can take a long time.
0
KuinKra
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 15 years ago
#24
Forcing democracy on another country isn't necessarily wrong. What's wrong or not depends on your definition and morality... what it is is impractical and futile. There comes a point in every society's social development where a democracy is necessary and unavoidable. But the problem is that these social transitions must happen naturally; the only determining factor in a society's readiness for transition is how ready the people are.

Forcing a democracy on the people of Iraq is pointless, for example; they haven't reached that point in their social evolution yet.
0
Sweyn Forkbeard
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 15 years ago
#25
That's what I meant, only you phrased it better.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 15 years ago
#26
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Cuba is about the worst example I can think of. Why do you think so many people are desperate to leave that they'll build a shoddy raft and try to float to America? Because they like communism so much that they just want to spread the word?
Well, IMO it's one of the nicer totalitarian (communist or otherwise) countries in which to live. Cuba or N/Korea? Hmmmm......tough choices.
0
KuinKra
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 15 years ago
#27
(Original post by Will)
That's what I meant, only you phrased it better.
Ah, right. Sorry.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 15 years ago
#28
(Original post by Howard)
Well, IMO it's one of the nicer totalitarian (communist or otherwise) countries in which to live.
LOL great phrasing
0
gideon2000uk
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#29
Report 15 years ago
#29
My conservative instincts are against revolutionary change because it is shown by several Historical examples that these tend to be unstable. Indeed, in Revolutionary France whilst many liberals were getting all hot and sweaty about the new democracy as they saw it, the founder of modern Conservative Thought, Edmund Burke vehemently opposed the revolution and he was found to have been right after a long and bloody conflict that stretched across the continent of Europe.

HOWEVER, when the state is absolutely decimated, occupied and given the financial, military and diplomatic support of powerful countries (as was the case in Japan and Germany after WW2) revolutionary change can produce democracies.

It is therefore my view that any new elected government in Iraq will have to use an Iron fist to stamp out militant opposition, so that factions in Iraq do not sense a weak government to be deposed by 'coup after coup.'
0
canuck
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 15 years ago
#30
If you look at history, more dictators have been supported in the 3rd world than democracies. If anyone thinks The U.S. invaded Iraq to bring democracy to that country is all hyped up like the rest of the american nation. The main motives were

Saddam, ( a possible threat to a stable middle east)
oil
the potentail for him to produce weapons of mass destruction

Im sure the U.S. dosnt care all that much for human right, because it record over the past 50 years dosnt prove it. The U.S. didnt sign to the international court, didnt sign to a ban on land mines. Didnt sign a ban taped bullets.

No a foreign nation should over throw dictators, thats should be solved internally, that is how it works best.
0
Sam2k
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 15 years ago
#31
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Cuba is about the worst example I can think of. Why do you think so many people are desperate to leave that they'll build a shoddy raft and try to float to America? Because they like communism so much that they just want to spread the word?
And even the kids *cough*Elian Gonzalez */cough* know that they don't want to be there.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 15 years ago
#32
(Original post by canuck)
No a foreign nation should over throw dictators, thats should be solved internally, that is how it works best.
It may be how it works best, but it doesn't mean that your method is particularly realistic. Most dictators keep a very strong military, and can crush an attempt at rebellion.
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 15 years ago
#33
(Original post by psychic_satori)
It may be how it works best, but it doesn't mean that your method is particularly realistic. Most dictators keep a very strong military, and can crush an attempt at rebellion.
That's what Saddam did, time afer time. All opposition had either been murdered or exiled. How were the Iraqi people meant to overthrow the regime without external support?

It's a great pity we didn't provide any assistance during previous uprisings.
0
Imagashead
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 15 years ago
#34
(Original post by Minor_Deity)
why? (again,a genuine question, why is democracy better than dictatorship?)
Because some forms of democracy (representative democracy, liberal democracy, political democracy whatever you wish to call those forms) are an affective method of running a nation-state composed of disparate groups (i.e a pluralist society containing many different groups who have a variety of different interests) which allows them to 'thrash out their differences' and achieve compromises between their position without one having to impose their will on another. A dictator is literally someone who dictates in other words an absolute ruler who dictates their will on others. Under a true dictatorship (of course like a true democracy this would actually be impossible since in practice even a dictator needs 'cronies' around him whome he uses for advice and delegates decisions to) there would be no politics, since the dictator would make every decision.

(Original post by Minor_Deity)
My answer would have to be because having only democratic elements (please don't use democracy as a sweeping term for government, it's sloppy and unhelpful in the context of this debate ) means that while the people cannot make decisions for themselves they can chose who the decision makers are not, though often our choice of who the decision makers are is somewhat limited.

If we accept this (do we accept this?) then surely it is the Politics that is important. It is the discussion and debate, and the liberty to do this, that allows a government to rule over a content (though not necessarily happy) people. Thus surely a good dictator, who listens to his/her people, could be as good as a bad government democratically elected which ignore's people's views. Indeed, couldn't it be better?
Surely, in absolute terms a true dictator cannot 'listen' to their people (since they should dictate every decision themselves), and thus if you think (as I do) that a government listening to its people (at least to some extent) is an important part of governing and thus makes the governors 'good' as you suggest a dictator would be if he listened, then a dictator is by definition a 'bad' form of government because a true dictator cannot listen. In other words, I agree that it is the politics that is important, but surely a true dictartoship cannot be political (in fact Bernard Crick, who you previously referenced made this argument if i'm not mistaken)?
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 15 years ago
#35
It's worth pointing out that no two democracies have ever been at war against each other.
0
Sweyn Forkbeard
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 15 years ago
#36
(Original post by spk)
It's worth pointing out that no two democracies have ever been at war against each other.
War between Britain and America - 1812-1814

Napoleonic Wars 1793-???? (pre Napoleon's ascension to French head of state).

I'm sure there are others.
0
Sam2k
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 15 years ago
#37
(Original post by Will)
War between Britain and America - 1812-1814

Napoleonic Wars 1793-???? (pre Napoleon's ascension to French head of state).

I'm sure there are others.
Britian wasn't classified as a democracy at that time. Constitutional monarchy.
0
canuck
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 15 years ago
#38
(Original post by Mr Moncal)
Britian wasn't classified as a democracy at that time. Constitutional monarchy.

it dosnt matter what the hell you classsify it, Britain was a democracy. The yanks were stupid to try and invade Canada, they invaded during the revolution and lost.
0
Sam2k
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 15 years ago
#39
(Original post by canuck)
it dosnt matter what the hell you classsify it, Britain was a democracy. The yanks were stupid to try and invade Canada, they invaded during the revolution and lost.
We are studying this in American history right now. Attacking the border of canada was a smart strategic move because only a few thousand soldiers were defending the whole border. It's just our generals made it way too complicated.
0
oldthrashbarg
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#40
Report 15 years ago
#40
(Original post by Mr Moncal)
Britian wasn't classified as a democracy at that time. Constitutional monarchy.
Can't a constitutional monarchy be a democracy?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How many uni open days have you been to/did you go to?

0 (122)
27.85%
1 (67)
15.3%
2 (67)
15.3%
3 (70)
15.98%
4 (32)
7.31%
5 (30)
6.85%
6 (14)
3.2%
7+ (36)
8.22%

Watched Threads

View All