Smooth Running Democracies
 

Kenya death toll seen at 250

Pakistan decides "in principle" to delay poll

Democracy is not a panacea. Democracy is just one way that a stable society can govern itself. In unstable societies it is just another way to continue instability.

NOOOOOO!!!! It is the undemocracies that are the problem and I will not stop until every fascist, commie, monarch, and every other type of undemocrat is squashed beneath my feet.

Guys, the shittiest free-market Democracy in the world is

Albania

Featured in P.J. O'Rourke's book "Eat The Rich" which I highly recommend. It was his description of Albania that kind of opened my eyes that free-market Democracy is not the tonic UG thinks it is.

The nature of the people is the nature of the nation. O'Rourke offers free Albania and unfree Sweden and guess where we'd all prefer to live?

Well Albanian Bikini Team doesn't ring a bell, does it?

Great, what do you propose over our current system? Please be as specific as possible.

I believe he is saying that our national character is such that we'd be pretty stable no matter what our form of government. Democracy is fine and mostly workable for us. Others' mileage may vary.

We cherish the individual freedoms, autonomy, and privacy, this democracy called the USA, provides. Probably most of us take for granted, a great deal more than the criminals, illegal aliens, gang bangers and terrorists.

Why there ought to be a law.... but not one that applies to me.

There is no need for us to change.

For centuries and centuries, through biblical times, civilization's great question is, "What set of laws shall make us successful?"

If only we could stop certain behaviors and encourage others, we'd be golden!

In truth, Griff has it: in cultures that have mastered Democracy, the laws are just an extension of the people, and not the other way round.

Oh, I agree. The more lawless the people, the more laws are passed. But the lawless ignore them anyway, so they only oppress the rest.

Getting to the Kenya one. I don't think our set political boundaries are helping at all. Honestly, the only way Africa can get rid of the problems we gave them is to make their own boundaries. But that is only effective if we pull out from Africa, and by that I mean all influence and let them take care of their resources. Then, there will be many fights and genocides (see Europe 700-1950), and we will have relative peace afterwards.

Somehow I don't see that happening...

It will never happen, like the Middle East coruption in Africa is a part of the culture, as is peace through superior firepower.

But you could say that about 7th-21th century Europe too.

Exactly.

Agreed. That "mileage" may vary due to the example set by those countries that claim to be democratic but carry on as fascists.

Much of the Arab population of the world are anti-democratic because they see the treacherous deeds commited by the U.S. (self-proclaimed "leader of democracy") and they're left thinking ... "If that's what democracy is then I want nothing to do with it".

I think what you wrote about "democracy and unstable societies" applies very well here. The U.S. is such an extremely unstable democracy that its' democratic principles are dubious to say the least.

Nevertheless Dr, the US is an extremely stable nation. There are few riots, and crime is just that: crime; not the sectarian killing fields of less stable nations.

Y'know I'm rarely reluctant to have a pop at the American political zeitgeist....but 'carry on as fascists'? 'Violent, morally dubious, imperialists' I can see a case for, but fascists?

And I do not believe for one second that Arab populations are anti-democratic because of America's example. If they are voicing that then they are voicing it as an excuse. An excuse to adhere to socio-political systems which really do border on the fascistic (in some cases) albeit of a religious bent.

The arab nations have many genuine grievances, often against the US and the UK, but America is not to blame for their choice of political system. They may have provided a contributary factor in creating the landscape out of which those systems grow and in which the decisions are made, but that is all.

Sorry, DanaC, but I do not agree with you.

Note that my assessment of American instability is based upon its' record of "democratic" deeds. You may have misundestood me to have included it's economy, etc. I maintain that the U.S. is not up to international standards of carrying out the practices of democratic principles, therefore I consider it to be "unstable" in that regard.

As far as our differences in view on Arab opinion and American "fascism" - those differences stand. The U.S has actually destroyed democracy around the world rather than encourage it.

The definition of fascism is not that it destroys democracy around the world. I wholeheartedly agree that America's foreign policy has, for a very long time, been damaging to many other nations. I also agree that America has on many occassions subverted the actual democratic will of other nations in order to create or maintain conditions favourable to its own needs.

None of this shows instability in America, nor does it show instability within the American democratic system. It simply shows that America can and has, in many instances, had a damaging effect on other nations' attempts at democracy. That is not the same thing as them being an unstable democracy. They may cause instability, but they themselves are very stable.

America may well be a factor in the decisions made by other nations. Some Arab nations have chosen paths which, in my view, are entirely at odds with any real concept of human rights and individual freedoms. Saudi Arabia does not bar women from driving because they see American democracy rampaging about the Middle East. Iran does not sanction strange men hitting women because they dare to step into the street without covering their faces, on account of America's wars and international meddling. Nor can America be held accountable for systems which disallow female suffrage and count homosexuality as a capital offence. That hold the death penalty as an option for those who change their faith and consider Trade Unions a dangerous and unacceptable development.

America may be one of the factors which serve to deepen those trends, and drive those nations further into themselves. But they are not the cause.

Holy crap - are you serious??? Are you a sock puppet for Radar?

What exactly do you mean by democratic deeds? For discussion sake, please cite examples of democratic deeds.

Our form of democracy, and our foreign policy are two very different things. They are connected in a way, the guys who ultimately make our foreign policy are elected. If the people in these United States do not agree with those decisions it takes 2 to 4 years to make that change. The cool thing is this: we don't have to have an armed rebellion cause we don't like those decisions. We can vote them back to the house they came from.

Country's are like adults, there are very few victims in this world. We are all mostly volunteers. Blaming the U.S. for the internal problems of many of the country's problems in the world is a bit childish. As countries and individuals, we all make decisions based on self that put us where we are today, in bed with who ever we may be in bed with.

Fairly smart stuff going on in this thread. :corn:

You only see the real trouble coming out of the undemocracies, though. When was the last time a democratic nation fought a really bitter war with another democratic nation? Democracies are slow to start wars, while nondemocracies aren't. This is because of the relative degree of consensus required.

Personally I've got no problem at all with constitutional monarchies, even though I've not mentioned that much if at all. No crying need to dance on their scattered bones.

Internally, the United States is very stable and consistent. Its foreign policy is a bit different.

Define democratic principles? That is one of the many words (patriot, freedom) that gets thrown around without a solid definition and is abused often.

True, but internal and foreign policy do not have to be related and this is shown throughout history. Both the Athenians and Romans were imperialistic on foreign policy, but their internal policy was more or less tolerable.

I slightly disagree. With the recent outrage at Saudi Arabia about the girl being whipped when reporting being raped, there was a outburst of liberal arguments that said this is unacceptable and we have to change their actions. While I get queasy with the mindset behind it (I don't' think we should control other nations), in this case the United States can have tremendous control over how Arabs rulers under our control, Saudi Arabia for example, view unpopular laws within their own country. If we drop support, the regimes will change.

I don't know. We have people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe only because the US allows them to be in power. If someone who went against Western interests came to power, they will be overthrown very quickly.

That problem is not within the domain of America. That problem currently is and remains within the domain of neighboring nations - especially South Africa. Doing too much can be just as destructive as doing nothing. There exists a fine line between when to and when to not act. The world is still learning this skill - part of something called a new world order.

The Balkans is the perfect example of how to solve problems. US remained completely detached from a problem that was the domain of Europe. That July when Clinton finally decided Europe had failed is when the domain changed; when the US (NATO) took over. Suddenly British French Rapid Reaction Forces executed so viciously and effectively that the Serbs took losses. An American armor column entered with the attitude of being the "meanest dog in the neighborhood". It could not have worked better. A solution executed so politically smart (the military being only a lesser supporting function) that Milosevic even negotiated himself out of a job. Dayton was the most perfect example of how to solve such violence.

My post back then expressed a great fear that Clinton had acted prematurely - that the Balkans were not yet ready for a solution. But Clinton proved to be the master. Clinton's subordinates - especially Holbrook - proved to be most superb tacticians. In the past 50 years, the Balkan's remains a perfect example of how and when the world must solve local (national) problems.

Why were the Balkans solved so effectively? A problem must be left first to the locals - left to fester - before more exterior powers can or should be involved. It is an art that the world is still struggling to learn.

Mugabe has been a regional problem in Africa. He is also a Commonwealth problem. The US (for now) has no dog in this fight. National (local) powers, regional powers, and the world in general must learn where this fine line is between letting them solve their own problems AND 'forcing' assistance.

We (the world) are still struggling, like children, with this new concept - this new world order. How to be cooperative and helpful without acting as a colonial power - without making enemies of everyone (ie mistakes in Iraq, Lebanon, Somolia, Vietnam).

Rwanda and Brunei were a mistake - in hindsight. Darfur is where regional powers must learn to take responsibility. But it appears international powers remain too ignorant (intentionally for self serving reasons) to realize when it is time to take charge. Darfur may have festered for too long, in part, because the American president is that dumb, the administration has special interests tied to offending parties who easily play this dumb administration, and because European powers have not yet learned to act as one. But again, we the world have much to learn (especially those who attack the UN in the name of their political agendas and mental pettiness).

Africa is unique (from the Balkans) where too many nations have numerous internal problems - let alone deal with those of their neighbors. Where conditions can change suddenly - too quickly. We, as a world, are still struggling to learn when and how are the best times to intercede - or remain hands off. How many understand a pending disaster called Nigeria? Hands off? Yes. But different from staying ignorant.

Democracy, patriotism, and humanity have little relevance to these problems. Far more important is that these nations rise from crisis so as to never go there again. IOW how many must die gruesome deaths before that nation finally grasps what is significant? And yes, sometimes 10% or 20% of a nation’s population must be massacred because it takes that much pain to learn how to be a stable nation.

To appreciate why these nations are in trouble, well imagine too many Urbane Guerillas. Using his rationales to justify their reactions. Reactions because an agenda rather than logical through justified those actions. They feel rather than first learn what is more important. How many must die before others finally appreciate (learn from pain) how dangerous that UG type thinking is? Nations sometimes must massacre so many to gain a history they can learn from. Those lessons cannot be imposed.

In the case of Darfur, a wider solution (akin to the Balkans) is not possible due to (in part) mental incompetence within the American executive branch. Darfur being significantly different from Zimbabwe or Kenya.

Two final points. First, democracy is not the only possible solution. Some are so brainwashed by propaganda (political agendas) as to believe only democracy should be imposed everywhere. Whereas we believe it to be the best solution, it is only a belief. It does not apply to other peoples until those peoples want it. Democracy cannot be imposed. Imposed democracies don’t work. Democracy must be earned. Otherwise that democracy is unstable.

And finally the most succinct paragraph in this thread.

You've written so many interesting and thought-provoking points but I don't have the time to respond very well just now.

Anyway, I have sited America's fascism and its' record of destroying democracy aroung the world as two separate subjects - not using one to prove the other, so we're in agreement on that point - though it's growing fasicist behaviour must surely be proof of "unstable" democratic principles.

I would like to say that it's interesting that you bring up Iran however because the U.S. is certainly directly responsible for Iran's position today. To put it into your own words (though disagreeing) - America IS the cause for Iran's problems. All of them as far as I can see.

In the highest degree.

Joe. I have limited access to the internet until Monday so I can't satisfy your request (I'm sure) just now.

Just to whet your whistle though, here are a few "off the top of my head" examples, though perhaps not necessarily the most pertinent ones:

1). The invasion of Irak against the wishes of the U.N. - ignoring the democratic "majority" vote.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
3). Completely un-democratic practice of denying Americans citizens to visit certain countries, punishable by imprisonment - democratic freedom of movement/travel
4). The sanctioning of torture "under certain circumstances" - democratic "whatever that might be called in English"
5). Refusal to comply with international efforts of ecological concerns - democratic "majority vote"

These examples deal with the "now" - the "today". There are tons of additional examples to site within the last few years which still effect the situation today but were implemented during the previous decades.

Will that do 'till next week?

You do know radar, don't you? C'mon fess up - you're like his Canadian cousin or something right? Seperated at birth maybe? It's ok you can tell us - we're in the cellar after all.

Well ... the only thing I'm at liberty to say at this moment is that I inherited his glasses, whch was the only thing that survived the helicopter crash at the time of his ETS. Further information cannot be devulged untill the year 2087 when it will no longer be impeded by the official secret's act. Sorry.

AHA! I knew it! A conspiracy...

You mean the conspiracy you're carring out against the ransom of your own conscience? :rollanim:

Here are my "off the top of my head" responses. (pre coffee)

1) Invading Irak - Since when does the U.N. dictate what U.S. can and cannot do? If it was so bad was the U.S. sanctioned? Is there a U.N. force helping to defend Iraq from the evil American empire? I must have missed that.
2) no idea to what you are referring.
3) Completely intelligent policy. If you wanna go into a war zone or something do NOT expect us to come in and save your ass. Tell your family not to sue the U.S. Gov't. for your stupidity either.
4) Been done forever by virtually every country. Sad but true.
5) Comply with what? Be more specific and I'll address as best I can.

Please keep in mind here that I am, by no means, a scholor or formally educated in any of this.

It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.

(S)/he is talking about how we only allow for capitalistic political philosophies and how we isolate countries that go for socialist or communist ideals for the sole reason of their socio-economic stance. The cold war is over and we are still isolating Cuba (honestly, what have they done to deserve it?) and we are doing that to Venezuela right now and they are not immoral by any means. No matter what the Neocons say, we judge other countries on whether they are pro-western free market economies or not. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-democratic countries out there in the world today, and we support them while Venezuela is very democratic and we are isolating them because Chavez is a socialist and anti-imperialistic.

The US belongs to the UN voluntarily. At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests. Now we may debate what the best interests are (and I certainly won't argue the Iraq point), but the point is that allowing an outside organization to dictate our policies and actions is not a good course of action.

The sad truth is that this is not Star Trek, we do not have one government representing our planet in the federation. We are a bunch of nations each jockeying for our perceived national interests. They will not always be in alignment with each other. The UN is simply a marketplace for maneuvering. When it works in our favor great. When it isn't working in our favor - screw it. You may not like it but that is the truth for all the large nations.

ROTFLMAO... you have to be kidding? Where do you live?

The UN is a joke and should be abolished.

Precisely.

The UN was created out of international concern for the ill-effects of war. In any case, it is not called "dictating" when a majority vote of any organization has had its' vote. As we should all realize this is called democratic principle, and as you say, Dana, America is (was?) committed to the international concept of a such a democratic body. Those who do not adhere to democratic principles cannot really be considered democratic themselves.

This is a contradiction in it's own terms. Considering that the fundamental dispute (on this particular point) is the U.S. invasion of Irak, then I wonder if you really know what planet you're on.

Well then it has failed its charter and should be abolished.
Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.
The majority of us want to know.

(Edit: confirm it's France, via your attitude towards your immigrants.)

Actually, in a democracy one normally puts it to the vote - and normally the majority vote opts for improvement rather than abolishment. If it weren't so then the U.S. would have been abolished when it was decided that "all men are not created equal" by way of racist, American laws. But I'm sure this is all way above your head.

First, I was against the Iraq War, mostly because I believed it would turn into, well, what it is today. Thomas Friedman anticipated civil war as the outcome 2 months before we invaded. However, with that said, I have to side with lookout123 Every nation in the UN follows its national interests first. Look at France and nuclear testing in the Pacific... their non ratification of the Partial Test Ban Treaty... what about the nations (Germany, France, Russia) that went against the UN mandated sanctions against exporting arms to Iraq? How about China's support for the government of Sudan? China is the reason there will not be any UN mandate on Darfur. They have several oil contracts with Sudan, and do not want to jeopardize their ability to get oil. Its easy to point at the USA and say "bad America, you don't follow the UN", but geez... not many other nations do either. We're not the only nation to not ratify environmental treaties. Were not the only one that uses military power. Were just the easiest to pick on.

The UN was created to keep smaller nations in line. The UN was created to give the appearance that we can all "just get along". The UN was created as a place to negotiate and maneuver the interests of nations with the goal of keeping the world order in the same basic order it was at the time the UN was founded. Lots of pretty flowery words were used to talk about the commitment to international peace and goodwill - but in the end the UN was and is just a tool.

The UN is not effectively stopping war and human misery caused by international non-cooperation. It may be limiting these ills a little but isn't doing a very good job.

But why do people therefore conclude it should be abolished or abandoned?

My tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should turn it off and give up.
No, my tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should try turning it on harder, and if that doesn't work, get a new and bigger pipe put in and use that.

Having an effective planetary government would, I believe, be a good thing if it were done right, for the same reasons local and national governments are in general good things. True, the UN isn't delivering what we want from a global government. So what we need to do is make it work better. It might take substantial reform. It might take starting over from scratch. There are many issues and problems and dangers. But I can think of few things more important for human civilization than this.

OK, think this one through rationally. If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically? A large centralized government cannot not work in the best interests of everyone at everytime. There will be compromises and tradeoffs that cannot possibly work in my favor.

In order for something like that we would have to all be of one utopian mind where we all agree that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. No dice, we're human.

Lookout, yes, very true, that is one of the (many) problems to be dealt with.

The best solution is to persuade you that although you will take an occasional loss, in the long run you'll be on a nett gain from yielding some of your national sovereignty to a global government. Selfishness is not always rational, especially if you think long term.

There is also something like conscience or altruism. In most countries where women have the vote, they got it only after a referendum in which only men voted. Why would this group throw away such a position of privilege? Why did many white people in the US stand up for black rights? Why did 90% of (white) Australians vote to abolish the racist sections of our constitution? I don't think that these were from immediate self interest, but because it was somehow right. I have SOME hope for human goodness.

The uniting of Europe is a very interesting example of the process we will most likely have to follow if we are to create a working world government. Slow, torturously difficult negotiations, bureaucrats, local losses, some old traditions fading out ... but new growth, a new way of resolving disputes without the human and economic cost of major war, and new opportunities both at the personal level and at the super-national level.

I do not think that the time is ripe for a world government. While much of Europe lost its taste for war in the last century, the US didn't suffer so badly, and has not yet had the "never again" moment. I don't think there will be the real motivation for a genuine world government without another world war. The obvious candidate is USA Vs China, but not for several decades yet.

So in the meantime, we'll have to get by with the hamstrung, ineffective UN. It's shortcomings are no reason to abolish it, but rather to try to improve it.

Amen!

Improve it all you want but always with the knowledge that the participants who are strong enough to stand on their own can walk away from the table anytime they please.

Women and Black votes? That came through a lot of fighting but in the end succeeded because it was undeniable to enough people that they were people too, and as such should have the same rights and privileges extended to them under the constitution.

You are asking that someone here in the US sacrifice sovereignty in exchange for...what? What tangible benefit can be given? What must be given in exchange? Certainly some form of international taxation - the smaller poorer nations will certainly expect to be brought up to the standards of the first world. Government organizations only know how to solve problems through one route, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. That just won't fly when it comes to the vote.

There are many people in Government who know how to solve problems with more then just "throwing money at it", and hoping the problems go away. Many, many care about people and finding solutions in their particular field of endeavor.

This way that I see the term government used, I don't like it. The government is a large corporation, full of people. Some are honest, selfless servants, others are not. Most of the people toiling away on our behalf deserve our respect. The government in our country is not out to get us, it's out to serve us...collectively.

Is it perfect? No. Is it possible to be perfect? No. Can we serve and please all people at all times? No. This whole idea that "the government" is bad, only spends money, doesn't know what is going on, this huge intangible thing that is out to get us; it's a little off track.

It's probably a lot off track, but there has been so much "abuse" reported. Rather there has been so much "abuse" reported ad nauseum, that the perception seemingly has become the reality. At least at the top.

Yea, I suppose perception is reality. At least in many instances I could think of. I just wanted to interject some perspective. Well, at least my perspective, which is always worth about $.02.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it. Non-abuse doesn't get reported. If all we go on is what gets reported we have a skewed view of things indeed.

And thats the problem. I mean think about it. How many Americans go home after work and watch network tv shows straight thru till bedtime. All they see is Entertainment Tonight then some lame-ass sitcoms followed by the evening news. Of course the news is filled with rape, murder, fire, rape, murder, fire then the sports followed by the weather and a lil feel good 30 second spot at the end. Ugghh What brain rot that causes.
Think about it - they could be here on the cellar learning from AD and Radar instead. Wait I um ....

Bravo!

Because balance and self-discipline are both part of what democracy stands for.

First of all you must agree that democracy is there for ALL THE PEOPLE (one man-one vote) to have their say and then "the majority" will have a voice in the power to "do the right thing" for the benefit of its' people. If you don't agree with that then you can just as well ignore the rest of this post.

Secondly, it is very well understood that what we do (as any one nation) actually affects the world, i.e. every nation - in one way or another. Some of our national actions affect the world more than other actions - such as war and the invironment (air, water, ozone, etc) with respects to the economy, global warming, ethnic preservation, etc. etc. etc. In the same way that a proper democratic nation solves its' national problems in a constructive, meaningful manner - so too do international bodies of government. The word "government" means just that. To oversee the real-life situation for the benefit of the human race. Therefore, international organizations must eventually become the most important governing body on this earth - or we will perish. This ought to be clear to everyone and I'm surprised that it is not so.

The U.N. (as we will all agree) is lacking the right grit. This problem is partly due to one of the strongest members sabotaging the U.N.'s international efforts by doing exactly what "LOOKOUT" considers to be correct behaviour.

If I ignore your advice to "put the gun back in the holster", and shoot my brother dead anyway, should I claim that you are to blame for my brother's death? That is (more or less) what the U.S. is doing. The U.N. forbade the Americans to invade Irak - on false pretenses. The Amercians invaded Irak anyway and then critisized the U.N. for being an inadequate organization.

The Americans talk of leaving the U.N. and I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be a good thing for the rest of the world. Any thoughts on that, anyone? What would be the advantages versus the disadvantages for the rest of the world?

What you fail to understand, AD, is...

Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world, except that the rest of the world is where all their shit comes from.
As long as vietnam keeps makin' cheap t-shirts, as long as china keeps making cheap gadgets, as long as germany keeps making really fucking expensive cars, as long as japan keeps making video games... Americans dont give a shit.

Thank you Ibram!

I'm finally starting to learn something! :)

Hopefully that will never happen!

Who cares? If we are such a bad place, filled with all these bad people, doing bad things to the rest of the world, and we have such a poor set of standards of democracy, why would the world care if we left the UN. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect us to continue to pour our tax dollars into that Hell Hole {UN} and expect us not to have a say in how things are done and how money is spent. You don't want to tell us how to do things in your country but you turn right around and try to tell us how to do business. If I had my way I would cut off the UN completely and then kick their HQ out of New York and let them trundle off to Europa to find a new home. We really need to start to cut of much of our international funding and bring that money home to fix our own problems.

Then why did you post this rubbish in this thread? I think that you are a very confused person.

Close your eyes and repeat after me ....... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ...

Not rubbish, and not confused. I think people who live in other countries find it very easy to trash people and places that they don't understand. We do it all the time, just look at the French. :D

That wasn't my intention at all. I fully agree with your analysis of the situation. I was merely pointing out that it's not a case of the UN as some external body, imposing its will on America. America is a part of the UN and was instrumental in its founding, along with the concept of international law by which (in theory) all signatories abide.

I am in no doubt that in practice it is deeply flawed. I am in no doubt that countries act first and foremost with their own nationa interest as their paramount consideration.