07-20-2006, 05:02 PM
Hi,
To change the form of government, first you must change the population. The English used to say it took three generations to make a gentleman. And all that involved was getting used to be waited on hand and foot without ever noticing those doing the waiting. I doubt that a population as a whole would change that fast. So while it may be necessary to try to 'export' democracy, I think anyone who expects it to be easy, or fast (i.e., within our lifetime) is a fool. As to the advisability of exporting democracy, that is something that I'm not fully convinced of. First, in an ignorant population, democracy can very much be a failure because opinions are counted rather than weighted. The useless prejudice of the majority trumps the valid opinions of the educated. Only if there is a certain basic level of education will this not be as much of a problem. And in a greatly polarized population, democracy can very rapidly become the tyranny of the majority. Where education is lacking and the concept of fair play is unknown, democracy is chancy. Rather than trying to export democracy, it may be better to export Eaton and its renown athletic fields and let democracy evolve from that;).
--Pete
Quote:I believe that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk provides a strong counterexample to this statement. It can be pointed out that he was still an authoritarian when he died, but the direction he set resulted in a secular state populated by Muslims.There are often leaders of wisdom who transcend the cultural prejudices of their followers. These leaders can often bring their country to a point where there seems to be a hope of progress. But the underlying culture remains mostly the same even under these leaders, the population just acts a little bit better for a while (usually until some reactionary assassinates that leader) because they have a better example in front of them. When that example no longer exists, the vast majority of the population slides back into their ignorance, superstition, prejudice and fattening foods. The progress toward any type of enlightenment is slow. Which is why democracy, freedom, religious tolerance, respect for other's beliefs and opinions, etc., all take about five centuries to achieve (say Magna Carta to glorious revolution).
To change the form of government, first you must change the population. The English used to say it took three generations to make a gentleman. And all that involved was getting used to be waited on hand and foot without ever noticing those doing the waiting. I doubt that a population as a whole would change that fast. So while it may be necessary to try to 'export' democracy, I think anyone who expects it to be easy, or fast (i.e., within our lifetime) is a fool. As to the advisability of exporting democracy, that is something that I'm not fully convinced of. First, in an ignorant population, democracy can very much be a failure because opinions are counted rather than weighted. The useless prejudice of the majority trumps the valid opinions of the educated. Only if there is a certain basic level of education will this not be as much of a problem. And in a greatly polarized population, democracy can very rapidly become the tyranny of the majority. Where education is lacking and the concept of fair play is unknown, democracy is chancy. Rather than trying to export democracy, it may be better to export Eaton and its renown athletic fields and let democracy evolve from that;).
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?