04-09-2003, 03:40 PM
Hi,
I doubt that Jester means to imply that a democratic form can replace a non-democratic form without some force being applied. However, a big question is whether that force is applied from the inside or the out. Now, sometimes when the force is being applied from the inside, a little external help is needed (most people have either never heard of or forgotten the help some North American colonies received from France (which was, ironically enough, a monarchy at the time :) )), but that does not change the situation.
Unless a *people* is ready to form a democratic union, forcing it on a *country* fails. The result is what we've seen over and over in Asia, in South America, in Central Europe, in Africa. What we are seeing in Afghanistan. Perhaps "democracy at the point of a bayonet" sets up conditions so that in three or so generations real democracy can thrive. Not enough cases yet to make that a safe statement, but there is a growing body of observational evidence.
Are the Iraqi people ready for democracy? That I don't know. Invariably social change occurs because a group (usually a minority) works for it and convinces a large enough percentage of the population to follow them. That that group exists in Iraq is pretty clear from the history of that country in the last dozen years ago. Whether that group is large enough, committed enough, and charismatic enough to get a popular following remains to be seen. Whether the USA gives that group the right amount of support also remains to be seen. Too little, and the group might get swamped by others wanting a more "traditional" government. Too much, and they'll be perceived as the lackeys of the USA and fail to get the popular support. The diplomatic game is finely balanced, it requires the leadership of someone that knows there are more options than "for us or against us".
--Pete
I doubt that Jester means to imply that a democratic form can replace a non-democratic form without some force being applied. However, a big question is whether that force is applied from the inside or the out. Now, sometimes when the force is being applied from the inside, a little external help is needed (most people have either never heard of or forgotten the help some North American colonies received from France (which was, ironically enough, a monarchy at the time :) )), but that does not change the situation.
Unless a *people* is ready to form a democratic union, forcing it on a *country* fails. The result is what we've seen over and over in Asia, in South America, in Central Europe, in Africa. What we are seeing in Afghanistan. Perhaps "democracy at the point of a bayonet" sets up conditions so that in three or so generations real democracy can thrive. Not enough cases yet to make that a safe statement, but there is a growing body of observational evidence.
Are the Iraqi people ready for democracy? That I don't know. Invariably social change occurs because a group (usually a minority) works for it and convinces a large enough percentage of the population to follow them. That that group exists in Iraq is pretty clear from the history of that country in the last dozen years ago. Whether that group is large enough, committed enough, and charismatic enough to get a popular following remains to be seen. Whether the USA gives that group the right amount of support also remains to be seen. Too little, and the group might get swamped by others wanting a more "traditional" government. Too much, and they'll be perceived as the lackeys of the USA and fail to get the popular support. The diplomatic game is finely balanced, it requires the leadership of someone that knows there are more options than "for us or against us".
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?