Currently in the world we hear the word "Democracy" being cried out from all fronts. The self-appointed sheriff of the world, the US, has been pushing for democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea, to name the well-publicized few. However, some other places such as The Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Tonga, may not be getting as much publicity as the previous three are in North America, are non-the-less making huge strides towards democracy.
How does true democracy come about? We hear it being tossed around like its the best system in the world. Is it? A little known fact is that in the past 100 years, only six countries have remained democratic continuously. These are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada and Sweden. Countries such as Germany, France, Spain have all endured patches of dictatorship or fascism at one stage or another in the past hundred years, so is it really that correct for these countries to be joining in the forceful democratization of other nations? Granted, they are not as outspoken as the US and UK, but they still do it! If they were allowed to develop democracy slowly and "naturally", why can't other countries be allowed the same luxury?
So what about the US and UK? Their "rants" on the greatness of democracy are well publicized. In fact, I believe that in some cases, they are over-publicized, but that is not the point of this discussion. The point is, the US and UK have all made numerous mistakes in their past on their path towards democratization. The UK dominated the world with the creation of the British Empire, sometimes brutally, as the Indians can attest to. The US had a period of slavery and then social segregation. In fact in the US, it wasnt until a 1973 judgment by federal judge William C . Keady that ended the segregation of black and white Americans completely. Before the US had completely ended their own racial segregation, they imposed economic sanctions on Aprtheid South Africa in 1969 with UN resolution 1761 for being "a threat to international peace and security". Hypocritical? you tell me!
It is my belief that democracy is the way to go. You can never please everyone, so the best solution is to please the majority, isn't it? However, in order for democracy to function properly, it must be allowed to develop. Forcing something onto a country will always cause resentment, even if it is something that the country wants. No matter how desperate a country is, their autonomy is most important. Iraq is a perfect example. Did the Iraqis want Saddam Hussien to leave? Of course they did. The overwhelming support for his death sentence recently attests to that fact. However, 89% of Iraqis also believe the US led coalition should pull out of Iraq(source). The same source also shows that the Iraqis believe the US "liberation army" is an "occupying force." Evolution is an integral part of human nature. One cannot learn to run before one can walk. Having democracy forced onto them is not the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
History is written by victors; which is why we think democracy is great and all. For example, if you were born unto a society in which slavery was the norm, most people wouldn't think otherwise.
And America sux balls
When examining the concept of democracisation in the world today, i.e. the tendency of certain Western Nations to go about attempting to spread Democracy we shouldn't so much ask what "the price of democracy" is, as what the "value of democracy is."
In the Middle Ages Christendom lauched numerous crusades against the infidel East, to capture the holy land and to spread Christianity. It is somewhat ironic that the Middle East remains the battleground of idealogies. Now though, the Christian West has been replaced by the Democratic West.
When we talk of democracy, emancipation etc etc, we must consider where that ideology is coming from. Since the last rifles were laid down in 1945, the West decideed that Democracy was the "worst system, apart from all the others", and set about trying to spread this manner of enlightenment to the poor opressed masses the world over.
However, in doing so the West has shown the most arrogant attitute concievable. It talks about embracing foreign cultures on one hand, while on the other attempting to force democracy on people at gunpoint.
as we can see in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been a great deal of resistance to this. Is this because people resent chosing their own rules? No, it is because people resent being told what to do in their own country.. just as I would resent someone breaking into my house and rearranging the furniture. It may be true that the chairs and sofas are in better places now, but the places they were in before were my places. Maybe the armchair was a little bit hard to get to, but I put it there. People dislike being forced to change by others.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was definitely not popular, but people are similarly unhappy about a Regime and a system that was effectively created by Washington. It's not that the system is bad, but it isn't their system.
The West needs to take a big step back and allow Nations to forge their own destiny if we are to avoid more Iraqs. Maybe the West can give a subtle hint that the chair might look better under the window, and even give a hand moving it, but in the end, people need ownership of their systems of Government.
Post a Comment