An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Could the U.S. see a Military Coup?

Has Malaysia Gone Islamic? »

Is Democracy Always The Best Option ?

Posted by PATRICK EDABURN in Politics, Society.
Oct 26th, 2009 | Comments

This stems from a discussion I was having with a friend of mine.

Obviously the ideal concept is for all people to live in free and democratic societies. But we have enough trouble managing one here, where we’ve had centuries of democratic concepts both in the US and in the UK. Even there it took centuries of effort to transition from the absolute monarchy system to various forms of representative government.

But some places (yes I am mostly thinking of the Middle East) have no such traditions and efforts to create democracies there don’t always work out very well (see Iraq and Afghanistan). I’m certainly not trying to blame the people, they’ve simply never had any opportunity to learn and no real cultural foundation for these concepts.

So how does this conflict sometimes play out ?

Looking back to history we could consider Iran.

Clearly the Shah was a certainly a top grade SOB but he was relatively progressive on womans rights and modernizing his nation. Given the current regime, we have an equally repressive system politically and human rights wise, plus even more repression of women and much more danger to world stability. Might things have gone a little better if we had sought to support a continued monarchist type regime ?

Japan after WW2 on the other hand was a society with minimal experience but they have managed to create something of a representative democracy. However in that case we had the Emperor basically ordering everyone to participate, so in an odd way it was an absolutist system ordering the creating of a freer society. This is not the most common pattern, indeed I can only think of a few other examples.

Looking now to Iraq and Afghanistan, might we have a better and more stable society if there was a strongman in charge as the people worked their way to some more open system ?

It’s a tough issue because obviously we had decades of supporting nasty regimes, but is a strong central leader sometimes a better option than a chaotic democracy ?

I’m not entirely certain of my own position on this just looking for some debate and discussion on the topic.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Don Quijote

Assuming a basic level of literacy, some reasonable standard of living and a not insane distribution of wealth Democracy is better, and far more stable, see Taiwan & South Korea as examples.

The problem with getting Democracy in the Middle East is three fold:
A) The borders were imposed by outsiders and don't make an incredible amount of sense.
B) All the left wingers (would be Socialist & Communist) have been killed at our urging, therefor the only meaningful resistance to the state left are the Religious Nut Jobs.
C) Were the Middle East a Democracy, a permanent state of war would exist with Israel until it was kicked out of the Middle East. (which is pretty much where we stand today without Democracy)

TheMagicalSkyFather

Iran had a very nice democracy until we overthrew the democratically elected gov and installed the Shah, thanks Eisenhower for that 40 year time bomb. The question in the middle east is not if they can handle democracy its if we in the west can accept their choices which has little to do with democracy and a great deal to do with imperialism. Much like Chavez whether other nations like him, or Bush, a lot has little to do with whether or not the people of that nation should be allowed to make their own choices. They should and its none of our business but we can stomach dictators but not leftists which makes our "democracy spreading" look exactly like the hypocrisy it is.

DaGoat

Interesting question, Patrick. I have a vague theory that societies have to mature just as individuals do, possibly having to achieve certain steps and mind sets before going on to the next one. To use the example of Afghanistan, maybe it's unreasonable to expect a population used to tribal warlords to go directly to Democracy. The old saying "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" comes to mind - possibly the success of a form of government depends mostly on how receptive the populace is to it.

There will be exceptions. A good imperialistic government is probably better than a bad Democracy, and so on.

VeratheGun

I agree. The most important thing to most people is to have their basic needs met: food, shelter, freedom from violence, stability, etc. Only then can they focus on the higher ideas of political freedom, democracy, etc.

Many people in the world are simply not concerned with political machinations, because they are too focused on merely SURVIVING. Intellectual awakening will come in time, as living standards improve. This WILL happen, though perhaps not in our lifetimes.

And as an aside, no culture that effectively enslaves half of its population will change easily or painlessly. Over time, it will change, but not without much turmoil. The Ismamic mores on women and society are doing more to hold back their people than anything the West could ever do.

JeffersonDavis

I tend to agree with at least a portion of every comment above.
Iran, however, has a much longer and richer history with both monarchial and democratic governments. The Persians were trading when European ancestry was still living in caves.

But we have to be careful how we define a successful democracy. An Iraqi democracy, an Afghani democracy, or an Iranian democracy will not resemble OUR brand of democracy. I think, however, the biggest portion of our government expects it to - and they shouldn't.

AustinRoth

Churchill put it best - "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

DLS

1. We have to be honest about what we say is "democracy." (Democratic socialism, "democratic totalitarianism," even, are far from alien in our own experience.)

2. I've always believed that the western model that would be applied in the Middle East would be some form of fascism (collectivist and highly authoritarian, with a good deal of dictatorship included -- which is to say, much like what has been true there for ages, simply with modern Western technical means and concepts). Related to this has been the "Latin American model" of authoritarianism (more generally).

Don Quijote

. Related to this has been the "Latin American model" of authoritarianism (more generally).

That's what happens when the top 3% of the population own 90% of everything and the other 97% own nothing... It's really hard to prevent someone in that bottom 90% from deciding to take a gun and getting some of the stuff that is owned by that top 3% especially if they have seen a few members of their family die of starvation or other easily preventable diseases...

Don Quijote

A good imperialistic government is probably better than a bad Democracy, and so on.

Unless you happen to be one of the suckers who will be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the empire, or you happen to be the poor schmucks who lives in the area said empire is expending into...

Michael Merritt

I think it depends on both the social and economic situation in the country. You can't have a centrally planned economy without having a high degree of authoritarianism, people to enforce this planning, and maybe even a dictatorship.

Just as much you can't have an extremely socially conservative country like Saudi Arabia without the moral police to enforce the social mores. You're more likely to have also dictatorship or monarchy in this kind of situation.

Patrick: For your question about Iraq and Afghanistan, I think there's a case to be made for a strongman or a democracy. Without knowing more about the exact social situation in both, it's hard to tell. But generally, if the government is expecting an extreme following of a strict social code (such as sharia), only a strongman would be able to effectively enforce this.

I do know that for Afghanistan, anyway, an already rather conservative society was made even more conservative when the Taliban come along. They were good at what they did while in power, even if not necessarily accepted. In a country embracing a more liberal social culture, the Taliban would have no power.

Look at Iran. We know for a fact that the younger generation at the very least is looking for some sort of change. If the Mullahs are not worried now, they should be. When the generation leading this summer's rebellion starts to gain power of their own, the Mullahs will lose power, and perhaps the theocracy will become a democracy of some flavor.

blog comments powered by Disqus