| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Adopting western democracy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Adopting western democracy

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Adopting western democracy
    Posted: 05 Nov 2013 at 18:35
The main goal of this thread is to come up with new ideas to how adopt western democracy and freedom values while keeping your own cultural values and tradition. 

I have a positive view toward many western democracy values, but implementing them on conservative society sometimes bring strong backlashes and finally rejection.

My own suggestion is to find a common ground and building on that foundation. This way people accept them easier and get used to more changes. Simply mimicking western democracy values and discarding the old traditional ones will make a country (society) shallow and distasteful. I am referring to countries such as South Korea that is going to be a huge materialistic society. It has had superb technological advances but at some costs. I think adopting should be taken seriously and in several stages to minimize the side effects and avoid the negativities. This way a combination of compatible Western and the local values will shape the future values that are unique to that country and may work better for all citizens.

What are you ideas about this matter?


Edited by Harburs - 08 Nov 2013 at 14:29
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2013 at 00:41
Well, let's start from the origin of "western democracy". As you know, the first fully functioning democracy in the "West" was the Iroquois confederacy. After all, at the time of the U.S. Constitution not a single country in Europe was a democracy at all. They were all tyrannies ruled by kings. So, with this is mind, I don't see the problem for so called "non-western" peoples to adopt the values of democracy.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2013 at 19:57
Here is question, what are the democratic "values" you are talking about?

Democracy is a system of government, amoral and abstract. The only "Freedom" carried by the Democratic system is the Freedom of Political choice through the mechanism of absolute majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

This means that democracy can be paradoxical and it should. When a majority of people vote to deny the minority rights of free political choice (like the banning of Nazi and other racist parties) is as democratic as the sky is blue. Yet it gives the rise to a paradox which is that the free democratic choice was banned by democratic practice.

This is why it is wrong to describe western countries as democratic. They are indeed as democratic as Iran the only difference is that in Iran the ban is on secularists while in Europe it is on the Nazis.

Those countries are constitutional republics\monarchies nothing more nothing less. Their Freedoms are guaranteed against democratic practice , which is against democracy in its purest form, by constitutional guarantees that are above popular sentiment (see the US for abortion, gun control etc.).

Freedoms in Europe began well before modern, or even ancient, democratic practice commenced. What distinguished Europe from other countries and helped its future expansion was one thing, total submission to law. It was because of that that a culture or peaceful transmission of power existed whereby the army stood by the side-lines during succession and this nurtured the ascent of weak monarchs dependent on a nascent and soon to be fully independent civil service that would nurture freedom of speech, encourage innovation and by force limit the monarch's power. In the case of countries where there was a history of representation power devolved fully to parliaments and the monarch became a figure nothing more nothing less. This respect of law, not freedom of speech itself, lead to democracy.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2013 at 21:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Here is question, what are the democratic "values" you are talking about?

Democracy is a system of government, amoral and abstract. The only "Freedom" carried by the Democratic system is the Freedom of Political choice through the mechanism of absolute majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

This means that democracy can be paradoxical and it should. When a majority of people vote to deny the minority rights of free political choice (like the banning of Nazi and other racist parties) is as democratic as the sky is blue. Yet it gives the rise to a paradox which is that the free democratic choice was banned by democratic practice.

This is why it is wrong to describe western countries as democratic. They are indeed as democratic as Iran the only difference is that in Iran the ban is on secularists while in Europe it is on the Nazis.

Those countries are constitutional republics\monarchies nothing more nothing less. Their Freedoms are guaranteed against democratic practice , which is against democracy in its purest form, by constitutional guarantees that are above popular sentiment (see the US for abortion, gun control etc.).

Freedoms in Europe began well before modern, or even ancient, democratic practice commenced. What distinguished Europe from other countries and helped its future expansion was one thing, total submission to law. It was because of that that a culture or peaceful transmission of power existed whereby the army stood by the side-lines during succession and this nurtured the ascent of weak monarchs dependent on a nascent and soon to be fully independent civil service that would nurture freedom of speech, encourage innovation and by force limit the monarch's power. In the case of countries where there was a history of representation power devolved fully to parliaments and the monarch became a figure nothing more nothing less. This respect of law, not freedom of speech itself, lead to democracy.

Al-Jassas
Are You fully aware there are different european countries and different laws?
Some places parties are forbidden that in others are not. And that is by judges, not by popular vote. And in the same way the staus and power of monarchs -where there was monarchs - differed in the past, from almost unlimited power to some forms of restriction, to absence of monarchy.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2013 at 22:17
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Here is question, what are the democratic "values" you are talking about?

Democracy is a system of government, amoral and abstract. The only "Freedom" carried by the Democratic system is the Freedom of Political choice through the mechanism of absolute majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

This means that democracy can be paradoxical and it should. When a majority of people vote to deny the minority rights of free political choice (like the banning of Nazi and other racist parties) is as democratic as the sky is blue. Yet it gives the rise to a paradox which is that the free democratic choice was banned by democratic practice.

This is why it is wrong to describe western countries as democratic. They are indeed as democratic as Iran the only difference is that in Iran the ban is on secularists while in Europe it is on the Nazis.

Those countries are constitutional republics\monarchies nothing more nothing less. Their Freedoms are guaranteed against democratic practice , which is against democracy in its purest form, by constitutional guarantees that are above popular sentiment (see the US for abortion, gun control etc.).
 
A interesting post here AJ. Some additonal thoughts:
 
All societies, as far as I am aware, have sanctions against those who engage in interpersonal violence (outside of war of course- state sanctioned violence). So it's not surprising that a group that has caused some of the greatest violence in history hits a raw nerve in some European countries. If a political group that called itself the CIA Covert Action Party attempted to form in Iran, how would it fair legally?
 
There is a large gap though between those that advocate toxic hate and violence, and what I think you mean by "secularists" in Iran. If you mean atheists, non-moslems, and those generally cavalier about religion, then it is hard to see any rationale that they could be damaging to society, or to individuals, in any meaningful sense. Any "damage" would be of a different order of magnitude from the damage a Jew might meet in a back alley with a neo-nazi group. I'd further speculate that if you expand the definition of secular to include those that see religion as merely a component of life, along with other important aspects, then you would be talking about a large segment of the population indeed, much larger than any skinhead factions in Europe.
 
Proportional representation, within a parliamentary system, is I'd say the closest we can come to democracy. At least all have a chance for some representation. However, all is not bleak for minorities even in less effective systems. Aboriginals in Canada, for example, though a tiny proportion of the population, have generally wide support from all political factions. And constitutional guarantees are not carved in stone. They can be, and have been, changed with shifting politcal winds. What counts is the consensus a population feels at any one time, tenuous though that might be.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Freedoms in Europe began well before modern, or even ancient, democratic practice commenced. What distinguished Europe from other countries and helped its future expansion was one thing, total submission to law. It was because of that that a culture or peaceful transmission of power existed whereby the army stood by the side-lines during succession and this nurtured the ascent of weak monarchs dependent on a nascent and soon to be fully independent civil service that would nurture freedom of speech, encourage innovation and by force limit the monarch's power. In the case of countries where there was a history of representation power devolved fully to parliaments and the monarch became a figure nothing more nothing less. This respect of law, not freedom of speech itself, lead to democracy.

Al-Jassas
 
I'll just add here that I think it was the rise of an educated middle class, and working class, that most affected democracy. Change is unlikely when people don't know anything, and when their access to information and education is very limited. It was the rise in consciousness that followed those that gained the material wherewithall to become educated, to communicate ideas, and to affect political change, that really propelled democracy. And we can still see this today- it's not a European phenomenon. China is increasingly roiling in discontent today in proportion to the rise in awarness in the population.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2013 at 21:28
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Here is question, what are the democratic "values" you are talking about?
Freedom of speech and preaching your ideas, freedom of religion or belief, having equal rights by law (being from different race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation (this one is not same in all countries but much much better than in conservative countries)), right of demonstration, getting elected, having education, public job opportunities, freedom of press, better election choices and much much more freedom of political choice as you mentioned (conservative countries are plagued with dictatorship), proportional representation in parliament or other elective or selective public offices, personal rights while in trouble (to remain silent, to not consent a search of your property, have a lawyer, have juries, phone call, to know why have been arrested, not guilty unless proven...) and a lot more.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Freedoms in Europe began well before modern, or even ancient, democratic practice commenced. What distinguished Europe from other countries and helped its future expansion was one thing, total submission to law. It was because of that that a culture or peaceful transmission of power existed whereby the army stood by the side-lines during succession and this nurtured the ascent of weak monarchs dependent on a nascent and soon to be fully independent civil service that would nurture freedom of speech, encourage innovation and by force limit the monarch's power. In the case of countries where there was a history of representation power devolved fully to parliaments and the monarch became a figure nothing more nothing less. This respect of law, not freedom of speech itself, lead to democracy.
Al-Jassas

I agree with some of your ideas specially about the culture of law obeying and an educated middle class. Western democracy is not flawless but much more convenient than the old traditional ways of conservative countries. When I started this thread I was not referring to Iran or Middle east but it can be said about them as well. If you ask me, I think Islamic world needs a Renaissance first and then we can talk about the rest!


Edited by Harburs - 11 Nov 2013 at 01:32
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 19:53
Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


Freedom of speech and <span style="line-height: 1.4;">preaching your ideas, freedom of religion or belief, Having equal rights by law (being from different race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation (this one is not same in all countries but much much better than in conservative countries)). Right of demonstration, getting elected, having education, public job </span>opportunities<span style="line-height: 1.4;">. Freedom of press. Better election choices and much much more freedom of political choice as you mention (Conservative countries are </span>plagued<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> with dictatorship.) </span>Proportional<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> representation in parliament or other elective or selective public offices. Personal rights while in trouble (to remain silent, to not consent a search of your property, have a lawyer, have juries, phone call, to know why have been arrested, not guilty unless proven...) and a lot more.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">


Here is where we disagree. No two countries in the world grant those ""rights" the same way. Indeed some are banned in some countries where as they are encouraged in others and here is the funny thing.

When a European country basically trashed a right you quote above it doesn't lessen its "democratic" credentials. However when another country does the exact same thing, even a lesser version of that thing people cry foul and that country isn't democratic anymore.

Democracy is a system of government nothing more nothing less. An amoral mechanism to chose representatives. The only "right" associated with it is the right to have a free election without it you cannot operate the mechanism.

The "rights" you quote above have nothing to do with democracy. They are a rouse to exclude certain countries (that is none western countries) from the club when it suits them. Democracy can survive without them and those values can be instituted through democracy. It is through the democratic mechanism that the values you consider part of democracy, which they are definitely not, were instituted after they gained popular support.


Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


I agree with some of your ideas specially about the culture of law obeying and an </span>educated <span style="line-height: 1.4;">the middle class. Western democracy is not flawless but much more </span>convenient<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> than the old traditional ways of conservative countries. When I started this thread I was not </span>referring<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> to Iran or Middle east but it can be said about them as well. If you ask me Islamic world needs a Renaissance first and then we can talk about the rest!</span>


No it doesn't. It already experienced its "renaissance" and it failed. You will never beat Islam in an Islamic society. Enver Xoca, Mustafa Kemal and Bourgiba all tried that and all failed and in the case of Turkey it was 70 years of militant secularism that sent thousands to their deaths early on.

What you need to do is leave society alone to deal with its problems. It will make poor choices but will always chose the right one. In 10 years of Islamist rule in Turkey the country didn't turn into a theocracy. Indeed when Erdogan praised secularism in Egypt people egged and booed him and no one reported that. In Pakistan the Taliban actually won elections in 2004 but they don't exist as a political force now because people voted them out.

Once this has been accepted then people should start caring for what really matters, the 20% infant mortality rates, the 50% malnutrition rates, the 30% unemployment rates etc. Wasting time on sophistries of free speech when people don't even have enough to eat is basically stupid and counter productive. The Brotherhood won in Egypt because they gave free medicine to the poor in their free hospitals while Egyptian liberals concerned themselves with the issue Alcohol for Christians which licences were extended by Morsi longer than at any time during the "secular" Mubarak regime.

Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 00:25
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


Freedom of speech and <span style="line-height: 1.4;">preaching your ideas, freedom of religion or belief, Having equal rights by law (being from different race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation (this one is not same in all countries but much much better than in conservative countries)). Right of demonstration, getting elected, having education, public job </span>opportunities<span style="line-height: 1.4;">. Freedom of press. Better election choices and much much more freedom of political choice as you mention (Conservative countries are </span>plagued<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> with dictatorship.) </span>Proportional<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> representation in parliament or other elective or selective public offices. Personal rights while in trouble (to remain silent, to not consent a search of your property, have a lawyer, have juries, phone call, to know why have been arrested, not guilty unless proven...) and a lot more.</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">


Here is where we disagree. No two countries in the world grant those ""rights" the same way. Indeed some are banned in some countries where as they are encouraged in others and here is the funny thing.

When a European country basically trashed a right you quote above it doesn't lessen its "democratic" credentials. However when another country does the exact same thing, even a lesser version of that thing people cry foul and that country isn't democratic anymore.
 
Can you give us another example of equivalent rights being banned? Earlier you seemed to equate Nazism in Europe, and secularism in Iran, which to my mind are quite different things.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Democracy is a system of government nothing more nothing less. An amoral mechanism to chose representatives. The only "right" associated with it is the right to have a free election without it you cannot operate the mechanism.

The "rights" you quote above have nothing to do with democracy. They are a rouse to exclude certain countries (that is none western countries) from the club when it suits them. Democracy can survive without them and those values can be instituted through democracy. It is through the democratic mechanism that the values you consider part of democracy, which they are definitely not, were instituted after they gained popular support.
 
It depends on how you define the word, but in it's broadest sense, democracy does include many of the things listed above. Elections are only one facet of democracy, and often don't work all that well (look at the US today), but they are a safeguard that usually helps to ensure other aspects of a relatively free society are retained.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Originally posted by Harburs Harburs wrote:


I agree with some of your ideas specially about the culture of law obeying and an </span>educated <span style="line-height: 1.4;">the middle class. Western democracy is not flawless but much more </span>convenient<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> than the old traditional ways of conservative countries. When I started this thread I was not </span>referring<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> to Iran or Middle east but it can be said about them as well. If you ask me Islamic world needs a Renaissance first and then we can talk about the rest!</span>


No it doesn't. It already experienced its "renaissance" and it failed. You will never beat Islam in an Islamic society. Enver Xoca, Mustafa Kemal and Bourgiba all tried that and all failed and in the case of Turkey it was 70 years of militant secularism that sent thousands to their deaths early on.
 
Not sure what you mean by "beat" Islam, but the general trend of societies has been to rally to fantastic and magical solutions when conditions are tough, and then to discard them, or at least move them to abstract philosophical discussion, when conditions are more assured. At one time I sure, Christianity could not have been beat in the west, but it eventually languished when it was no longer needed.
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

What you need to do is leave society alone to deal with its problems. It will make poor choices but will always chose the right one. In 10 years of Islamist rule in Turkey the country didn't turn into a theocracy. Indeed when Erdogan praised secularism in Egypt people egged and booed him and no one reported that. In Pakistan the Taliban actually won elections in 2004 but they don't exist as a political force now because people voted them out.
 
Authoritarian states have a way of lasting a long time. Russia is today still trying to shake off its last "czar". North Korea is three generations in, and no sign of a ballot box yet. I'd say waiting for those in authority to make the right move is not a reliable formula.
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Once this has been accepted then people should start caring for what really matters, the 20% infant mortality rates, the 50% malnutrition rates, the 30% unemployment rates etc. Wasting time on sophistries of free speech when people don't even have enough to eat is basically stupid and counter productive. The Brotherhood won in Egypt because they gave free medicine to the poor in their free hospitals while Egyptian liberals concerned themselves with the issue Alcohol for Christians which licences were extended by Morsi longer than at any time during the "secular" Mubarak regime.

Al-Jassas
 
Yes, no doubt. Democracy is quite fragile, and only works with an informed and engaged electorit, and one with the time to think about more than survival.
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 02:01
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

No it doesn't. It already experienced its "renaissance" and it failed. You will never beat Islam in an Islamic society. Enver Xoca, Mustafa Kemal and Bourgiba all tried that and all failed and in the case of Turkey it was 70 years of militant secularism that sent thousands to their deaths early on.

What you need to do is leave society alone to deal with its problems. It will make poor choices but will always chose the right one. In 10 years of Islamist rule in Turkey the country didn't turn into a theocracy. Indeed when Erdogan praised secularism in Egypt people egged and booed him and no one reported that. In Pakistan the Taliban actually won elections in 2004 but they don't exist as a political force now because people voted them out. 
 
I am not familiar with Bourgiba and I assume Enver Xoca was a Turkish state man or early young Turk advocate. About Kemal Ataturk I have a different view. I have seen people who really saw him as their father. He did many positive and some negative things. He modernized his country and defended it against aggressors. He indeed did brushed Islamists to the side and his successors kept them under control with iron feast. When I visited Turkey last time Islamists had not much power as they do now. The eastern towns and poor neighborhoods were predominately religious, but the western cities and middle or upper class were nationalists or liberals. I didn't like their iron feast policy or some ultra nationalistic views they had, but overall I enjoyed my time. The problem was they got rid of the old and backward tradition but resort to despotic rule and ultra nationalistic views instead of educating the working and middle class all together. Turkey won't go the path of theocracy because the large percentage of its population are Secular/nationalist/liberal/leftist and not Islamist and not because Erdogan doesn't want too.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Once this has been accepted then people should start caring for what really matters, the 20% infant mortality rates, the 50% malnutrition rates, the 30% unemployment rates etc. Wasting time on sophistries of free speech when people don't even have enough to eat is basically stupid and counter productive. The Brotherhood won in Egypt because they gave free medicine to the poor in their free hospitals while Egyptian liberals concerned themselves with the issue Alcohol for Christians which licences were extended by Morsi longer than at any time during the "secular" Mubarak regime.
Al-Jassas
 
This is your fundamental error. Many Middle Eastern countries have a lot of wealth but many people live in poor condition. why? because the the despotic rulers don't want to share it with people and only give crumbs to those who support them and have the same mentality. Any opposite view will be crushed. The problem is indeed among the ruling elites. Democracy will challenge the way the wealth and power have been divided and will force the ruling class to share them with ordinary citizens. This will make the overall condition of the citizen much better. When the democracy gain momentum and grow roots in society it will be the time to reclaim more rights and freedoms. With a better health and educational system and more educated people who can manage their economy and institution, the country can progress in the right direction.

Can you show me a ME country that truly have practiced democracy but found it useless and rejected it completely? We did not gave it a good chance ever. All the times it has been disrupted by a coup, despotic rulers, corrupted officials, foreign agents or backward thinking religious thugs (Iran, Afghanistan,...)


Edited by Harburs - 11 Nov 2013 at 03:10
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2013 at 15:25
I wrote two replies that were lost in cyber space so here is the main points:

Enver Hoxha is Albanian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

Only two Arab countries have any kind of Potential and your theory is correct about them, the rest are overpopulated and without resources.

Finally the Arab Spring was all about human decency not economics. People were basically slaves of the state and the people who rule it. All the events that triggered the revolts involved the state, police and Syrian intelligence services, humiliating (Tunisia), raping (Syria and Egypt where it was simulated rape) defenceless people (street vendor in Tunisia and elementary schoolboys in Syria).

Al-Jassas

Edited by Al Jassas - 11 Nov 2013 at 15:28
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2013 at 11:27
Democracy is merely a vehicle for the majority (or significant minority) to have their wishes acted upon. If the majority are too busy making silly demands and are not interested in what has been described previously as "democratic values" then they will not be implemented.

Perhaps the most interesting countries to consider for this thread are Malaysia and Singapore (where I happen to be right now). They are parliamentary democracies who have free elections but they always elect the same parties, UMNO and PAP. So are they democratic? Why are they different from the multi party system in Indonesia which is a far less educated country?
Back to Top
Bearskin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bearskin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 01:12
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, let's start from the origin of "western democracy". As you know, the first fully functioning democracy in the "West" was the Iroquois confederacy. After all, at the time of the U.S. Constitution not a single country in Europe was a democracy at all. They were all tyrannies ruled by kings. So, with this is mind, I don't see the problem for so called "non-western" peoples to adopt the values of democracy.


Doesn't the etymology of the word democracy - demos (people) kratos (power) - suggest a Greek origin to you? The best-known example of direct democracy flourished in ancient Athens over 2,500 years ago – long before the Iroquois confederacy.

Britain has a far older claim to democracy then the USA, the difference being that America had a republican democracy instead of a constitutional monarchy.

None of America's democratic ideals were American in origin. All of it was British, from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights. Even the Declaration of Independence used John Locke's 'Second Treatise' almost verbatim. Neither nation, however, fully represented the people. But the USA was probably the last western nation to embrace universal suffrage in a true representational democracy. Apartheid in America such as the Jim Crow Laws were only repealed in the 1960s.


Edited by Bearskin - 24 Nov 2013 at 01:15
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 09:13
Quote
Doesn't the etymology of the word democracy - demos (people) kratos (power) - suggest a Greek origin to you?

No. Unless we're going to prescribe a 2500 year old history to the telephone
Quote Britain has a far older claim to democracy then the USA, the difference being that America had a republican democracy instead of a constitutional monarchy.

The Americans, being rebellious Brits, have every right to claim everything that happened in Britain before 1776 as their own history. Because it was. So Britain and America's historical claim to democracy is identical.

Suggesting Greek or Iroquois ties to existing Parliamentary or Republican democracies lacks rigour and accuracy.
Back to Top
Bearskin View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bearskin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Nov 2013 at 13:16
"No. Unless we're going to prescribe a 2500 year old history to the telephone."

Very witty, but the feminine 'noundemokratia' is traceable as far back as the Mycenean period of the late Bronze Age, some 1,500 BC. That Greek letters differ from Latin letters might explain your confusion over the antiquity of the word in question.

"Suggesting Greek or Iroquois ties to existing Parliamentary or Republican democracies lacks rigour and accuracy."

Agreed. Now read through my post again, carefully this time, and explain where any such suggestion is made.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.