Is Democracy Over-rated?

[buffnut453]

So...we've taken 12 pages allegedly talking about whether democracy has a pulse when, in reality, we've mostly been talking about cars (again!). Does that mean democracy is dead?

(Did you see how I did that? Segued right back onto topic! Is there no end to my talents?...On second thoughts, don't answer that last question!!!)

 

[Njaco]

So...we've taken 12 pages allegedly talking about whether democracy has a pulse when, in reality, we've mostly been talking about cars (again!). Does that mean democracy is dead?

(Did you see how I did that? Segued right back onto topic! Is there no end to my talents?...On second thoughts, don't answer that last question!!!)

I guess that answers the question. DEmocracy is not dead as it wouldn't have allowed us to discuss the last 12 pages the way we did if it was.

 

[parsifal]

Democracy is a Chev Corvette on Route 66 with the top down and the engine purring.

Its very much alive

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Segued right back onto topic!"

Wow - you own a Segue

MM

 

[michaelmaltby]

But .... in all honesty -- I'm disappointed with the response ... This thread was posed as a serious question - factoring in various ethnic, geographic and tribal "differences".

I had hoped that some pure soul, likely a Nordic, 'Lucky' comes to mind actually, would leap to the debate in defense of tribal inclusiveness and hedonism in response to genetic solidarity.

Sadly, it hasn't hit its mark. But the thread demonstrates that 'cars' like 'water' always seeks its/their own level.

Personally, from a human-management perspective (delivery of services) and a health-happiness perspective (contentedness), GOOD government doesn't have to be democratic to be GOOD (as in honest and effective). But it is damn hard to pull this off without the luxury of free speech, free association, ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY. We in Canada are wrestling with this challenge as we try to come to terms with our First Nations Peoples and the rules and laws that govern their daily lives and inter-action with ours. (For example: Tribe members don't know what their are Chiefs paid)

I think we over sell democracy when we enter into arenas like Afghanistan or Iraq. The very most we can hope for when we 'insert ourselves' is that we refuse to knowingly participate in CORRUPTION. Corruption is the enemy of democratic process -- a far larger threat to democracy than communism ever was - INHO.

Competent democracies are to be cherished.

MM

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Democracy is a Chev Corvette on Route 66 with the top down and the engine purring. "

In June, 1971, for me (solo), it was a new red Datsun 2000 sportster with just a tonneau cover and Pirellis . Ottawa-New Orleans- Monterey Mex-Mazatlan Mex- Nogales AZ-Ottawa ..... in 14 days. Great, long stroke, push-rod 2 liter iron block motor - Datsun built, German-inspired, IIFC. I learned later that these were quite common in Oz, Parsifal. The platform was common with the Datsun pick-up of the time ... with radial tires it handled like a rail-car .

MM

 

[buffnut453]

I think we over sell democracy when we enter into arenas like Afghanistan or Iraq. The very most we can hope for when we 'insert ourselves' is that we refuse to knowingly participate in CORRUPTION. Corruption is the enemy of democratic process -- a far larger threat to democracy than communism ever was - INHO.

I thought some of my responses were really quite good (which, being a humble Brit, roughly translates into "Bloody brilliant!").

However, I agree with the West overselling democracy...or at least our version(s) of it. I'd far rather nations decide for themselves how to institute honest, representative governance so that it meets their needs. Western imperialism is long-dead, but we still think we have a right to tell other countries how to govern themselves. If anything, the recent uprisings in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere have shown that even hostile dictatorial regimes can be undone by the will of the people...and that HAS to be a good thing for the future of global democracy!

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... the recent uprisings in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere have shown that even hostile dictatorial regimes can be undone by the will of the people...and that HAS to be a good thing for the future of global democracy!"

I agree. It is far more important that people involve themselves in some form of government - than that it be 'western approved' government.

MM

 

[buffnut453]

That's the whole problem with democratic government - too much bluddy politics. It's not enough that nations decide for themselves how they should be governed...it also has to agree with OUR sense of what's democratic, preferably in such a way that we can self-righteously proclaim that we saved the poor people from themselves and hence delude ourselves that they'll forever be in our debt.

 

[nuuumannn]

Unfortunately for those countries that wish to impose their democratic will on others, no country that has had democracy thrust upon it by the West has actually survived and continued as a democracy. With countries like Afganistan and Iraq, there has been so much foreign intervention in their past that the people have never really had the chance to decide for themselves.

But .... in all honesty -- I'm disappointed with the response ... This thread was posed as a serious question - factoring in various ethnic, geographic and tribal "differences".

Mike, I disagree, I think this thread has been quite successful and I think all of us have enjoyed throwing in our two cents, pence, pesetas etc on the subject. In terms of the latter, ethnic and tribal democracy doesn't exist. By nature, tribal societies operate in a strict feudal hierarchy. The trick is to incorporate their needs into government. Personally, I would have liked to have seen more discussions about what democratic system of government works in what environment, but that's just me.

Toyota Camry and Hilux... Democracy at work. Just turn a blind eye to scenes of rebels in far off civil war stricken Third World nations driving about in Hiluxes carrying RPG-7s in the back...

 

[wuzak]

I think we over sell democracy when we enter into arenas like Afghanistan or Iraq. The very most we can hope for when we 'insert ourselves' is that we refuse to knowingly participate in CORRUPTION. Corruption is the enemy of democratic process -- a far larger threat to democracy than communism ever was - INHO.

Competent democracies are to be cherished.

Corruption is an issue in democracies now. Let's face it, governments have huge contracts to give out, and with that amount of money on the line corruption will inevitably rear its ugly head.

The problem I see with a lot of politicians is that they only ever seem to set policy for near term goals - ie getting themselves or their party re-elected to power.

Corruption was also an issue in Communist countries, and is partly why those systems didn't work.

The uprisings in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia show that when the people want change they will attempt to do somethiong about it.

 

[parsifal]

I agree with Churchill in his address to the comons in 1947, when he said:

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.
Speech in the House of Commons (1947-11-11)
The Official Report, House of Commons (5th Series), 11 November 1947, vol. 444, cc. 206–07

The alternatives are pretty terrible, On fascism he said in 1938

People say we ought not to allow ourselves to be drawn into a theoretical antagonism between Nazidom and democracy; but the antagonism is here now. It is this very conflict of spiritual and moral ideas which gives the free countries a great part of their strength. You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like — they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words; they are afraid of the workings of the human mind. Cannons, airplanes, they can manufacture in large quantities; but how are they to quell the natural promptings of human nature, which after all these centuries of trial and progress has inherited a whole armoury of potent and indestructible knowledge?

Winston Churchill, in "The Defence of Freedom and Peace (The Lights are Going Out)", radio broadcast to the United States and to London (16 October 1938)

I cannot express my position better than the great man himself. And these wordws are as true in out time as they were in his

 

[tyrodtom]

I can think of two countries that had democracy ( of a sort ) thrust upon them by the west, and they still survive. Germany and Japan.

But they had to be almost destroyed to do it.

Can anyone think of a benevolent dictatorship ?

 

[nuuumannn]

I can think of two countries that had democracy ( of a sort ) thrust upon them by the west, and they still survive. Germany and Japan. But they had to be almost destroyed to do it.

Good point tyrodtom, but not really the same. The Allies did not go to war with a specific mandate to impose democracy on either Japan or Germany. Also, neither Germany nor Japan had a choice. Between 1945 and 1989 Germany was simultaneously governed by a socialist dictatorship.

 

[wuzak]

I can think of two countries that had democracy ( of a sort ) thrust upon them by the west, and they still survive. Germany and Japan.

But they had to be almost destroyed to do it.

Can anyone think of a benevolent dictatorship ?

Germany had a democracy before 1933. Hitler came to power as a result of the failure to form a majority government during elections in 1932.

Can't get more democratic than a hung parliament!

 

[wuzak]

I can think of two countries that had democracy ( of a sort ) thrust upon them by the west, and they still survive. Germany and Japan. But they had to be almost destroyed to do it.

Good point tyrodtom, but not really the same. The Allies did not go to war with a specific mandate to impose democracy on either Japan or Germany. Also, neither Germany nor Japan had a choice. Between 1945 and 1989 Germany was simultaneously governed by a socialist dictatorship.

It would be fair to say that neither the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war were started with the goal of imposing democracy or freeing the people. If that was the stated aim of the wars it would create a difficult precedent - there other dictators around the world that could do with being removed.

 

[Readie]

It would be fair to say that neither the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war were started with the goal of imposing democracy or freeing the people. If that was the stated aim of the wars it would create a difficult precedent - there other dictators around the world that could do with being removed.

Yes, and before Iraq etc we ignored and even encouraged quite a few dictatorships around the world for our own ends.
Western Polices are usually rather cynical.
John

 

[nuuumannn]

It would be fair to say that neither the Iraq war or the Afghanistan war were started with the goal of imposing democracy or freeing the people. If that was the stated aim of the wars it would create a difficult precedent - there other dictators around the world that could do with being removed.

I would have to argue that point. The USA went to war in Iraq and Afganistan to find the fabled WMD and to rid these countries of Al Qaeda and Taleban influence, so we have been told, thus freeing the population from the tyranny that these organisations imposed. Obviously there was no link to Al Qaeda in Iraq, nor was there any WMD, therefore the (real) reason was to depose Saddam Hussain. Do you think that the USA intended on putting in another dictatorship in his regime's place, or a democratically elected government?

Yes, there most certainly are other dictators the US and its allies would like to take a pop at, but its not that simple; in Iraq and Afganistan there was a UN resolution that supported an invasion.

John, I cynically agree with you; Saddam was one of these dictators. Arguably his existence created an element of stability to the region and provided an antagonist to Iran, which gave the US something to smile about after the failure of Eagle Claw and the Iran Contra scandal.

 

[wuzak]

I would have to argue that point. The USA went to war in Iraq and Afganistan to find the fabled WMD and to rid these countries of Al Qaeda and Taleban influence, so we have been told, thus freeing the population from the tyranny that these organisations imposed. Obviously there was no link to Al Qaeda in Iraq, nor was there any WMD, therefore the (real) reason was to depose Saddam Hussain. Do you think that the USA intended on putting in another dictatorship in his regime's place, or a democratically elected government?

Yes, there most certainly are other dictators the US and its allies would like to take a pop at, but its not that simple; in Iraq and Afganistan there was a UN resolution that supported an invasion.

John, I cynically agree with you; Saddam was one of these dictators. Arguably his existence created an element of stability to the region and provided an antagonist to Iran, which gave the US something to smile about after the failure of Eagle Claw and the Iran Contra scandal.

I don't think that Afghanistan was to depose the Taliban. Rather it was a reponse to 9/11 and aimed at detroying Al Qaeda and capturing Bin Laden.

Wiki Says:

The stated objectives of the invasion were; end the Hussein regime; eliminate whatever weapons of mass destruction could be found; eliminate whatever Islamist militants could be found; obtain intelligence on militant networks; distribute humanitarian aid; secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure; and assist in creating a representative but compliant government as a model for other Middle East nations.

I think the main objective was the petroleum infrastructure. Interesting that they used the word "compliant" when referring to the government they wanted to create.

There was no UN resolution to invade Iraq. That would need the Security Council to agree, and with China and Russia opposed that could not occur. In fact the UN has labelled the Iraq invasion as illegal.

I also don't think that the war planners thought very far ahead.


So, it was partly to do with ending Hussein's reign.

 

[Readie]

Back to Jeeps for a mo...

I have been wondering why I don't see too many on the roads here.


I reckon its the road tax (emission based) that penalises big low tech engines that are great..but not 'green'.

A Jeep will cost £460 per year in the UK which equals :-
$740 Canadian dollars
$720 USA dollars
E536 Euros.

Then you put the fuel in...
The UK has the seventh highest petrol price in Europe and the second highest diesel price.

Does Canada / USA Germany have such 'road tax' costs?

John