Professional Soldiers ® - America's Got To End Its Deadly Devotion To Democracy

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - America's Got To End Its Deadly Devotion To Democracy (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25037)

America's Got To End Its Deadly Devotion To Democracy

Some interesting thoughts on how our idea that all nations are capable of becoming instantly sustainable democracies may - in fact - be flawed. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

America's Got To End Its Deadly Devotion To Democracy
Gerard DeGroot, CS Monitor, 15 Sep 2009

Usama Rehda is a photographer who lives in Baghdad. Crossing his city to ply his trade means running a gantlet of bandits, extortionists, and snipers, not to mention suicide bombers. While he once despised Saddam Hussein, he admits that life was easier under the dictator. "You know what they say," he remarked to a colleague bitterly. "Be nice to the Americans or they'll punish you with democracy."

America needs to rid itself of the hopelessly naive attitude that all nations are capable of becoming sustainable democracies.

"What's so good about having the vote?" veteran BBC foreign correspondent Humphrey Hawksley asks in his new book, "Democracy Kills." In Britain, Japan, and the United States, the answer is easy. In the developing world, however, identifying the benefits of democracy can be anything but.

In the Ivory Coast, for instance, democracy and its sidekick – free market economics – have brought political instability and economic ruin. Cocoa producers are paid the same for a kilo of beans as 30 years ago, even though the price of a chocolate bar has risen fourfold. Adults have the vote, but their children are essentially slaves.

Mr. Hawksley's book is a chronicle of how economic despair leads to political alienation and often violence. There's nothing new to that story, but what is surprising – uncomfortably so – is this: Evidence shows that attempts to democratize the developed world have made internal tensions much worse. Often, as in Iraq, voting actually offers a new forum for acting out ancient animosities.

During the cold war, the US supported brutal dictators overseas in the interest of political stability. In contrast, since 1989, Americans have tried to stabilize developing nations by creating governments similar to their own. Ballots have become a substitute for aid, a policy the foreign correspondent Misha Glenny calls "kumbaya politics." The theory seems noble, but the practice often facilitates poverty, disease, exploitation, and murder.

When democracy mixes with poverty the result is often explosive – literally. The Oxford academic Paul Collier proposed in "Wars, Guns and Votes" a formula to explain this volatile chemistry. He believes that the critical point lies at a per capita income of $2,700 per year. Below that level, democracy has a difficult time taking root.

The destitute blame the government for their plight and, since voting alone does not bring improvement, they inevitably see violence as a better way to make a point. In contrast, in societies above that level, citizens have a stake in the system and are therefore much more determined that it should succeed. The voter with a stable job and a secure place to live is a signatory to the social contract understood by Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose political philosophy underlay the French Revolution.

The possibility that "democracy kills" should not come as a surprise to anyone who has paid attention to events in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Zimbabwe. It should, nevertheless, be stressed that the fault lies not with the idea but with its implementation. Democracy, unlike cake and coffee, does not come in "instant." Success should not be measured by the speed with which elections are arranged.

A lesson lies in the experience of Germany and Japan after World War II. The US began planning reconstruction well before the war was over, and accepted that political reform would have to be accompanied by comprehensive economic development. Yet if that sort of slow mentoring and management (not to mention money) seemed essential back then, why has a much more impatient, poorly planned approach been taken to the infinitely more complex problems of Africa and the Middle East?

Anastasio Somoza, the brutal Nicaraguan dictator deposed in 1979, once told a reporter: "I would like nothing better than to give Nicaraguans the same kind of freedom as that of the United States. But it is like what you do with a baby. First you give it milk by drops, then more and more, then a little piece of pig, and finally it can eat everything ... You have to teach them to use freedom." Somoza was a vile character, worthy of derision. Yet on that point he was probably right. Democracy is a culture; it has to be learned. Europeans, remember, took centuries to get it right.

We need to rid ourselves of the politically correct attitude that all people are capable of immediately becoming good democrats, or at least should be allowed to make their own mistakes. As the experience in Germany and Japan demonstrated, building democracy cannot be rushed. It must be accompanied by sustained economic development. And, most of all, it cannot be achieved at the point of a gun.

To be sure, helping facilitate a new democracy is tricky business. Development, or teaching people democracy, can look suspiciously like neo-colonialism. There's a fine line between husbandry and hegemony – those at the sharp end cannot always tell the difference. What is clear, however, is that ballots by themselves are not a panacea. Unless the job is done well, it should not be done at all.

Gerard DeGroot teaches 20th century British and American history at St. Andrews University, and has published 11 books on its various aspects. He is currently writing an international history of the 1970s.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0915/p09s02-coop.html

I have harbored this notion that there is a problem with democracy. Not really with the notion,, it's the people that are responsible for it's perseverance and sustainability.

Much like we have found that there are groups pf people in this world that tend to be better warriors and have a history of leadership & aggression.

There may also be peoples in this world that are not democratically inclined, but are true sheeple. They need to be lead,, maybe dominated by a ruling class.

They do not want or have need of the mental hazards associated with making decisions, but would rather abdicate the responsibility to whoever want it.

My real quandary is that it appears that Democracy as we know it,, is not fit for even 50% of the world,, maybe not 30%..

If true,, this world has a long way to go before James Kirk will invite us to join the United Federation of Planets...

Quote:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation

My $00.0002

A dilemma.
How does one invade a country and leave something behind that will be favorable to further contact and political support.
If we leave/support a strong man then we get beat up politically as we did in South America (The US does not support Democracy etc.)
If we attempt a shot at Democracy, we are imposing our system on another (Bad US)...there seems to be no middle ground.
OTOH introducing a form of public participation in societies that have no history of this is so fraught with problems it becomes the main problem.
Our English western history of this goes back to the Magna Carta and beyond, this tradition took hundreds of years to develop into our form of government that is a Republic and not true Democracy.
I also agree that Republics/Democracy only work with a historical tradition and a bedrock of values similar to the Judeo/Christian values that underwrite the concepts put forth in our documents.

The DeGroot article makes some decent points. I spent some time in Poland for a wedding a few years back.The folks I met had strong views on democracy as it was still relatively fresh and new to them. Some folks saw the freedom to vote, and self determination as an incredible privilege and took the right to vote very seriously. It seemed the right to vote meant more to them than many Americans I’ve met. On the other end of the spectrum there were folks who said they flat out preferred communism; they felt they were better off. They attributed this to democracy, though it seemed to me they were being more critical of the accompanying free market environment. As an American I am biased but talking to both groups of people it seemed to me the ones who bashed democracy would have bashed anything as they on the whole seemed less motivated, with lower work ethic, and initiative. It seemed to me they didn’t mind being abused if they were taken care of, and things were predictable. So while comfort with the transition to democracy taking time makes sense in regions with a totalitarian tradition, perhaps it is more a function of the pecking order or lack of equality in nature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRB

I also agree that Republics/Democracy only work with a historical tradition and a bedrock of values similar to the Judeo/Christian values that underwrite the concepts put forth in our documents.

PRB,

The historical tradition makes sense, but respectfully are a bedrock of values similar to Judeo/Christian also a prerequisite for democracy? The reason I ask is the roots of western democracy are attributed to the ancient Greek city-states. The Athenians for example were certainly not Judeo/Christian back then, they had a pantheon and would be considered pagans today. You could also make a similar argument for the Romans, I believe Constantine was the first Roman Christian emperor and their republic was established well before he came around. Finally there is the modern example of India, the world's largest democracy since 1947. You can make the argument they certainly inherited the democratic tradition as a by product of English rule. However, they have been and remain predominantly Hindu.

I was using our experience as an example only.

“A study by the American Political Science Review on the political documents of the founding era (1760-1805), [reported] that 94 percent of the period’s documents were based on the Bible, with 34 percent of the contents being direct citations from the Bible. The Scripture was the bedrock and blueprint of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, academic arenas and heritage until the last quarter of a century.”
(http://www.apsanet.org/section_327.cfmon

The above organization is not a religious organization but an organization of lawyers that debate jurisprudence.

My point is that a Republic/Democracy needs a tradition/history of past freedoms and a moral compass to succeed.