Exporting Democracy

[Jimbo]

Every few weeks some of my collegues and I get together to hash out an issue. A discussion leader is chosen who is responsible for selecting the topic, finding appropriate readings and coming up with some discussion themes to guide the conversation. Last time we discussed Turkey's future. This time, we are discussing the title of this thread. I have attached the discussion themes and the readings.

Let's see what you think.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Very interesting topic. I look forward to reading what people have to say. I doubt I can read the materials and participate meaningfully given my schedule this week and next, but I will follow along.

[Solid]

Jimbo,
I gave the packet a quick read through last night, and realised that there was a potentially more thorough version of the first paper. I've been looking for it, it's on Nation Building and Democracy, I'm pretty sure it was a Rockefeller research paper... However, I can't find it.

Does anyone here, by any long shot, know what I am talking about and where I can get it?

Thanks,

Solid

[Sacamuelas]

Ha Ha ! Nice try Jimbo. You going to pay Solid and NDD when they do your work for you. ;)

Good read... glanced through it but don't have time to get in depth enough to comment on your level. Will follow along like RL though. Good thread

[Roguish Lawyer]

I will make one comment, which may be a bit of a tangent:

Democracy isn't all that. In our system, the principles of individual rights and limited government are, IMO, much more important than democracy. You can have a completely tyrranical democratic government IMO.

[Solid]

Vaguely on the subject-

I think that classifying ANY political system as 'absolutely ideal' or as an 'end state' (Communism, for example) is a bad idea. The one constant in existence is change, and as the world changes the political systems should and must evolve to reflect this.

While I would say that enlightened liberal democracy is probably the best contemporary political system, it is in my eyes by no means perfect. History tells us that stagnant political systems are often classed as 'perfect' right before a revoltion.

I therefore suggest we are careful to look at liberal democracy as a step in human development, not as an end.

A question that therefore arises, however, is: is liberal democracy a necessary 'step' for South West Asian countries to take in their political development?

Furthermore, assuming that it is, do we need to install our form of democracy fully, or should we allow/plan for an indigenous form of democracy to take root?

Just questions that I'd like to debate, my own views aren't decided (I don't think I'm allowed to have concrete views on this until I've lived a lot more).

Thanks for reading,

Solid

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I will make one comment, which may be a bit of a tangent:

Democracy isn't all that. In our system, the principles of individual rights and limited government are, IMO, much more important than democracy. You can have a completely tyrranical democratic government IMO.

Mmmm. First of all, I don't think we have a democracy, I think we have a republic. Not that its a bad thing. If we had a true democracy, a porn star could be governor of California.

The question here appears to be can any representative form of government be exported to a place such as Iraq. And I think its an excellent question.

Has it ever worked and then be exported? Where? Are the Iraqis capable of managing the individual responsibility that goes along with choosing leaders, given their past history and current culture?

I'm not sure that totalitarian dictatoship to democratic republic in one step will work. We prepare our citizens from about age 6 to vote. Civics and history classes, open access to the internet where every topic is dicussed in detail, etc. And there are still people that vote for the likes of Howard Dean.

Another question - what's the literacy rate among the majority in Iraq? If they can't read, how are they going to grasp an abstract concept like democracy? A constitution? IMO, the reasons the recent referendum in Colombia were voted down were: Too many complicated points to understand, there were 14 in all. Most of the people in the rural areas can't read at a level sufficient enough to cut through the legalese in a bill written by constitutional lawyers in the capital.

So if the vast majority can't read or understand it, how can it represent them? Isn't it the duty of the leaders to either raise them to the level of sophistication they can understand it as well as the lawyers or to write the bill in language simple enough for the average citizen to understand?

To me, not understanding what one if voting for (through no fault of the voter) is worse than not being allowed to vote.

In order to participate in as complicated a process as governing a nation, I think people have to be prepared, their tool boxes filled with tools as it were. To me, this is one of the greatest failings of the US education system and a disaster waiting to happen in Iraq. One man one vote is a noble idea, but it rarely means one educated man one good vote. For example, a lot of dems now seem to be chossing their candidate on who has the best chance to beat POTUS - not what they stand for, who the best man is, etc. If that's the case in the US, what can we expect in Iraq with all the factors and factions there?

I would say no, in this case. Democracy cannot be exported to Iraq in the near term and maybe never. Perhaps what we should look for is something more repsentative than what they had and be happy with getting them to not sponsor terrorism.

[Solid]

I also think the economy plays a key factor. A poverty-struck nation tends towards extremism, which in this case would probably an Islamic totalitarian government.

Would you agree that both Democracy and Republic can only be stable in Most Developed Nations? It seems that most of the criteria for successful implementation and stability are related to Standards of Living, which tend to be high(er) in MDCs.

Solid

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally posted by Solid
I also think the economy plays a key factor. A poverty-struck nation tends towards extremism, which in this case would probably an Islamic totalitarian government.

Would you agree that both Democracy and Republic can only be stable in Most Developed Nations? It seems that most of the criteria for successful implementation and stability are related to Standards of Living, which tend to be high(er) in MDCs.

Solid

I'm not so sure I agree. It seems that the countries in the middle, neither very poor nor very successful, tend to be the most succeptable to things like insurgencies, coups, etc. One thing to look at is the level of professionals that cannot find work in their chosen profession or that feel marginlized. There seems to be a greater correlation there than in simple economics.

In the ME, I would look more at religious factors first. How does democracy fit with Islamic beliefs, including those that have been corrupted by the major influencers? In LATAM, the US is still relatively well thought of. Therefore, we can use the US as an example of why "democracy" works. In the ME, can we do this considering that the US has been held up as the great Satan? What other examples of democracy working can they look to? Israel? Turkey? Where's the example that will work for all of the different groups in Iraq?

The question to me is, if I'm an Arab, "What benefit is democracy going to have for me?" In other words, "Why should I change everything I believe in, thousands of years of traditions, because you say so?"

[Solid]

One thing to look at is the level of professionals that cannot find work in their chosen profession or that feel marginlized. There seems to be a greater correlation there than in simple economics.

It seems to me that the better-functioning the economy, the lower the unemployment of professional labour.

The question to me is, if I'm an Arab, "What benefit is democracy going to have for me?" In other words, "Why should I change everything I believe in, thousands of years of traditions, because you say so?"

I absolutely agree (typical!), and this is why I think that Standard of Living in the ME will play an important role in the success of Democracy.

Solid

[NousDefionsDoc]

1. Not necessarily

2. Do you think shifting to a democracy is going to make the average Iraqi better off financially?

[Solid]

Do you think shifting to a democracy is going to make the average Iraqi better off financially?

Not necessarily, but I do think that to institute a stable Democracy, the Standard of Living has to first increase, and continue to increase after it has been implemented. As you said (or I think you said), for a democracy to be stable, people need to be secure and well educated, both conditions I associate with increased living standards.

I'm probably taking a drastically western approach to this, but I think money is an opiate of the masses- if people are living well, they are less likely to fight the government (as long as the government isn't acting drastically or attempting to infringe on this wealth).

What other areas do you think must be altered for Arabs to see the benefits of Democracy?

Solid