Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

yolland

Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
7,471
Egypt’s parliament delays local elections; U.S. disapproves

The Associated Press
Feb. 14, 2006


CAIRO--The Egyptian parliament Tuesday postponed local elections for two years despite opposition from the United States and a leading fundamentalist group. A spokesman for the opposition Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Saeed el-Katatni, said the law was approved by 348 of parliament’s 454 lawmakers. "This is a sad day for Egypt. The dictatorship of majority again tried to exploit their numbers to prevent the voice of the people," el-Katatni said. The Brotherhood made a strong showing in legislative elections last year, and some saw the new law as an effort to block the group’s ascendance.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Bush administration supports Egypt’s progress toward democracy but opposed Mubarak’s decision to put off local elections. The council terms were due to have expired Tuesday, requiring elections within 60 days. But that schedule would have brought a new vote on the heels of parliament elections late last year that saw surprise victories by the Muslim Brotherhood — Egypt’s most powerful fundamentalist group, which increased its representation in the assembly from 15 to 88 seats.

Mubarak, a top ally of the United States, has come under pressure from Washington to increase democracy in a country where he has held near autocratic rule for 29 years. But U.S. officials have expressed concern his government is backing off the drive for reform. After praising Mubarak’s decision to hold the first multi-candidate presidential elections in September, Washington sharply criticized the parliament voting in November and December, which saw violence by police and government supporters trying to prevent Brotherhood and other opposition voters from casting ballots.

Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif acknowledged that government interference had prevented even greater Brotherhood gains. "It (the Brotherhood) could have gone up to 40 (more seats)," he told [/i]Newsweek[/i] in an interview published Jan. 30. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party still holds a 311-seat majority in parliament.

"After the victories of the Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas in Palestine, the NDP is afraid of the pro-Islamist atmosphere," Brotherhood MP Essam Mukhtar said, referring to Mubarak’s party.
U.S. and Israel Deny Plans to Drive Hamas From Power

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times, Feb. 15 2006


WASHINGTON—American and Israeli officials warned again Tuesday that they would cut off aid and transfers of tax receipts to a Hamas-led Palestinian government if it did not renounce violence and recognize Israel. They said, however, that they had no plans to oust such a government. "The bottom line is that there is no U.S.-Israeli plan, project, plot, conspiracy to destabilize or undermine a future Palestinian government," said Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman.

He spoke in response to an article in The New York Times on Tuesday in which American and Israeli officials and diplomats said they were discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government, with the intention of forcing new elections. Those officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, said the discussions were going on at the highest levels of the State Department and the Israeli government.

The article said that if Hamas did not alter its policy, the two governments would seek to bring about the Palestinian Authority's isolation and collapse by cutting payments and controlling entry and exits into the Palestinian areas. They would also try to stop money transfers through pressure on other governments and on the currency used in the Palestinian areas, the Israeli shekel. This warning was conveyed two weeks ago by the US, Europe, the UN secretary general and Russia, and it was repeated Tuesday by Israel.

In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Mushir al-Masri, said any effort to bring down a freely elected Hamas government would be "a rejection of the democratic process, which the Americans are calling for day and night."
Are free elections such an unassailable good in their own right, that we must support them always and everywhere--even when they mean the election of fundamentalist/extremist regimes, or regimes profoundly opposed to the many other aspects of political culture we identify with democracy-- freedom of speech, due process of law, etc.? (...think of how fascism came to power in 1930s Europe for example...)

Can we rightfully claim to recognize and respect the outcomes of free elections, if we then turn around and apply financial and policing pressures which leave *freely elected* extremists absolutely no breathing room?

On the other hand, would it be at all possible for us to support electoral obstructions "in the name of stability" like Mubarak's without laying the groundwork for yet another era of oppressive, rage-stoking rule by the "trustworthy" autocrats?
 
Nations have a right to pursue their national interests, that may include a foreign policy that promotes democracy over autocracy abroad but that does not mean that they must by definition give monetary support to terrorist regimes - even if they are elected.

The Hamas charter is a document that proscribes genocide and violent rejectionism, there is no obligation to support hamas in it's current iteration. Using financial aid as a carrot on a stick to moderate these governments is not the same as directly undermining and there is absolutely no obligation to give support when the government stands against your interests.
 
Democracy in some countries can lead to Islamic theocracies and not liberal democratic countries. This is the case in any country that is predominately Muslim. Right now no Middle Eastern country is really democratic. They have elections in Iran but the liberals aren't allowed to participate. Unstable Iraq is secular but it could still go the way of the mullahs. Pakistan? I hate to think what would happen if they become democratic. It would put a Taliban-type government in because so many of the people are that type Muslim.
 
The question is not "will democracy solve the problem?" but more "will democracy give society the best opportunity to solve the problem?"

If we conclude that the Palestinian election is an example of failure, we are using a far too narrow view.

A continuing democracy, even one that experiments and elects an Islamic theocracy, is a far better alternative to an established totalitarian regime that will not permit change.
 
nbcrusader said:
A continuing democracy, even one that experiments and elects an Islamic theocracy, is a far better alternative to an established totalitarian regime that will not permit change.



i can agree with the silver lining-theory of the Hamas election -- that when you turn mullahs into mayors, demands for, say, a working sewer system suddenly appear far more pressing than demands to push Israel into the sea. still, for the time being, democracy is bound to bring mullahs and religious parties to power in Kabul and Baghdad and Egypt. free elections are going to give us more theocratic parties, and the west has to accept it.

when we depart from Afghanistan and Iraq, Iranian-backed Shias will be dominant in both countries. this particular -- and bellicose -- brand of theocratic influence will be spread across the Middle East for decades to come.

here we have it, a clash of civilizations, with Iran at the center, nuclear programs in the works -- a kind of "Cold Jihad."

the current state of affairs begs the question, then, if we all agree that democracy and western "values" are not the same thing, does the manner in which democracy was implemented in the country matter? can democracy be brought with bombs? are there things we can do to win the "hearts and minds"? perhaps the collapse of the Arab-Israeli peace process, the war on terror, and the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq have all contributed to the idea that Islam is under siege -- and, thusly, more radical elements are going to be elected by Muslims who feel under siege. perhaps we would have benefited greatly from taking a little bit of time to understand a country like Iraq and planning for the aftermath instead of fabricating threats and a false sense of crisis -- democracy and freedom will not solve the Middle East's (often Western-induced) the problems of social disorder and government dysfuction.

also, are we to accept things like, say, the reversal of women's rights in many of these countries -- Iraq in particular -- where women are now held under lock and veil where 5 years ago they were doctors and scientists is "worth it" for democracy?

all hard questions. but, clearly, democracy is not the answer. it might be, at best, the beginning of a process that might lead to an answer.
 
A democracy fundamentally means a government of, by and for the people.

If for a group of citizens in an independent country that means the majority electing for an Islamic theocracy, so be it. That is for them to decide.

If you believe in democracy that is.
 
AliEnvy said:
A democracy fundamentally means a government of, by and for the people.

If for a group of citizens in an independent country that means the majority electing for an Islamic theocracy, so be it. That is for them to decide.

If you believe in democracy that is.



i understand what you are saying, but, the Bush "doctrine" for lack of a better word -- and this is a policy that is supported, mostly, by the rest of the West -- is that democracy in the Islamic world will make *us* safer, that it is in our national security interests.

if, as you rightly point out, that we must accept elected theocracies, does democritization remain in our best interests?
 
yolland said:

Can we rightfully claim to recognize and respect the outcomes of free elections, if we then turn around and apply financial and policing pressures which leave *freely elected* extremists absolutely no breathing room?

You can rightfully claim to recognize the process of free elections without respecting the outcome.
 
Irvine511 said:
i understand what you are saying, but, the Bush "doctrine" for lack of a better word -- and this is a policy that is supported, mostly, by the rest of the West -- is that democracy in the Islamic world will make *us* safer, that it is in our national security interests.

if, as you rightly point out, that we must accept elected theocracies, does democritization remain in our best interests?

The *us* is our nation, perhaps for future generations.

You said it best before with "the beginning of a process that might lead to an answer".

And till we find a better process than democracy, I think we should stick to democracy.
 
Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

AliEnvy said:


You can rightfully claim to recognize the process of free elections without respecting the outcome.



can you? is this, then, tantamount to disrespecting the desires of the citizens of any nation?
 
Irvine511 said:

if, as you rightly point out, that we must accept elected theocracies, does democritization remain in our best interests?

When the outcome of a democratic decision isn't in your favour, you don't have to accept it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

Irvine511 said:
can you? is this, then, tantamount to disrespecting the desires of the citizens of any nation?

How can the citizens of another nation bind you to something they chose for themselves? I would guess that you do not automatically acknowledge and accept every law that is adopted through our democratic process.
 
AliEnvy said:


When the outcome of a democratic decision isn't in your favour, you don't have to accept it.



isn't that Yolland's original question, then? isn't this sending the message, "we respect democracy when it works out in our best interests?"
 
Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

Irvine511 said:

can you? is this, then, tantamount to disrespecting the desires of the citizens of any nation?

I suppose that would depend on the manner in which you oppose those desires.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

nbcrusader said:


How can the citizens of another nation bind you to something they chose for themselves? I would guess that you do not automatically acknowledge and accept every law that is adopted through our democratic process.



but isn't this different than actively working to undermine a freely elected government? we can disagree with, say, Singapore's right to cane people who spit on sidewalks, but this is vastly different from working to undermine an entire government.
 
Irvine511 said:

isn't that Yolland's original question, then? isn't this sending the message, "we respect democracy when it works out in our best interests?"

I think there is a difference in respecting the process of democracy and the outcome.
 
AliEnvy said:


When the outcome of a democratic decision isn't in your favour, you don't have to accept it.

I'm not sure "in your favor" is the best measuring stick, but I certainly isn't binding on any other country.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

AliEnvy said:


I suppose that would depend on the manner in which you oppose those desires.



does it? no matter what you do, aren't you effectively saying, "you made the wrong choice"?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

Irvine511 said:

does it? no matter what you do, aren't you effectively saying, "you made the wrong choice"?

Well you can say, "you made the right choice for you" or "I don't agree with your choice".

If that choice infringes on you in any way, you can oppose it and fight for change....in a variety of ways.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

AliEnvy said:


Well you can say, "you made the right choice for you" or "I don't agree with your choice".

If that choice infringes on you in any way, you can oppose it and fight for change....in a variety of ways.



how so?

and isn't this different from what Yolland was originally suggesting?

simply because the whole world was aghast at the re-election of George Bush does not mean that anyone is going to seek to undermine him, nor not recoginze him, or refuse to meet with him.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

Irvine511 said:
simply because the whole world was aghast at the re-election of George Bush does not mean that anyone is going to seek to undermine him, nor not recoginze him, or refuse to meet with him.

Other countries acted in their own way to show disapproval over the GWB election.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

Irvine511 said:

If America sees an Islamic theocracy as a threat to national security, it will at the very least, impose sanctions. Is that wrong?

If that country poses no threat, it would be wrong.

There is a difference in respecting someone else's right to self-determination and seeking to either propogate your self-interest or protect yourself.

Am I making any sense? lol


Irvine511 said:

simply because the whole world was aghast at the re-election of George Bush does not mean that anyone is going to seek to undermine him, nor not recoginze him, or refuse to meet with him.

He has too much power to be ignored. But make no mistake, much of the world is seeking to undermine that power.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Democracy Always The Best Policy?

nbcrusader said:


Other countries acted in their own way to show disapproval over the GWB election.



but is this tantamount to the policies Yolland has pointed out?

are there official government-sanction statements of disapproval over the election (newspaper headlines about the stupidity of 60m Americans don't count)?
 
Irvine511 said:
we make a big mistake when we conflate democracy with an adoption of liberal Western values.
nbcrusader said:
A continuing democracy, even one that experiments and elects an Islamic theocracy, is a far better alternative to an established totalitarian regime that will not permit change.
I think these cut nicely to the heart of the dilemma, at least the form of it I was presenting.

The political scientist Samuel Huntington (ironically, he of Clash of Civilizations fame) was once known for the view that the essence of democracy is free elections, period--nothing more. Now, he has become a very reluctantly pro-democratization pessimist who emphasizes the role which individual freedoms, civic liberalism, a well-defined public/private sphere split, and the rule of (secular, rights-based) law have played in the development of democracy as the native political culture of the West. While recognizing the irony of supporting autocratic regimes which obstruct electoral freedom, he despairs of free elections ultimately leading to stability and a willingness to cooperate politically with the West (and Asia, whose breed of democracy he generally admires) on the part of countries who otherwise lack any apparent traditions of a "culture" of democracy. (Asia, he argues, shares many cultural parallels with the West in terms of traditional balance between political and non-political institutions, tolerance of multiple subcultures etc., which facilitated the spread of democracy there.)

And even from the beginning, Huntington fretted about what happened in 1930s Europe (weak and decidely-less-than-"free" democracies collapsing into fascism, which then shut down all traces of democratic process from the inside) as an ominous harbinger of what might result from a no-exceptions commitment to recognizing (appeasing?) the outcome of free elections anywhere and everywhere. Is carrot-and-stick encouragement of democratic statebuilding really an adequate response to such tendencies? he wondered.

verte cited Pakistan--another excellent example. Musharraf came to power in a coup, and routinely cancels elections--yet consider the alternatives, particularly given Pakistan's nuclearized status, disputed border with also-nuclearized India, and fertile soil for extremist madrassas in its poorly controlled (by the Pakistani Army and nothing more, really) northwestern territories. Damned if you do, damned if you don't: how can we support him without further encouraging the growth of seething reactionary movements from beneath? And yet, how prepared are we to deal with the potentially horrific costs of unleashing said reactionaries through free and democratic elections?
 
And speaking of carrots and sticks...

Rice Seeking Millions to Prod Changes in Iran

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times


WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 — The Bush administration, frustrated by Iranian defiance over its nuclear program, proposed Wednesday to spend $85 million to promote political change inside Iran by subsidizing dissident groups, unions, student fellowships and television and radio broadcasts.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, announcing a request for the money at a Senate hearing, said the administration had worked out a way to circumvent American laws barring financial relations with Iran to allow some money to go directly to groups promoting change inside the country. "We are going to begin a new effort to support the aspirations of the Iranian people," Ms. Rice said at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senior State Department officials said they did not intend to publicize recipients of the money in the future, for fear that they could be jailed or even killed. The administration's limited attempts to channel money to human rights groups, labor unions and political organizations in Iran have not achieved much success so far, and many experts fear that future efforts could aid the wrong people or backfire on them if the financing becomes public.

The scope of the administration's effort goes beyond the numbers. Until now, the United States has been cautious about supporting dissident groups, fearful that Iranians may view these efforts as an echo of past American meddling in Iran's affairs. Though no one uses the words "regime change" to describe the ultimate American goal, that term has been used by conservatives in Congress who have in the last few years pressed for aid to Iranian dissidents.

The administration will try to upgrade American broadcasts into Iran by Voice of America and Radio Farda, an American-sponsored station that mostly plays music. Ms. Rice's announcement said the administration would try to form partnerships with Farsi satellite television and radio stations in Los Angeles. But Iranian experts caution that the private American stations have content that may be viewed as unsuitable in Iran. In addition, American officials say the administration needs to be careful not to align itself with people in the Iranian diaspora who have political agendas that are unpopular in Iran. Among these are monarchists who support the family of the late shah of Iran.

Democratization agenda--or destabilization agenda? Can we really pursue both at once in good faith?
 
Last edited:
In the case of Iran I think that supporting the internal democratic revolution against the Mullahs is an infinitely better strategy than bombs and bullets (to those that may retort that the recent elections were democratic I would indicate the veto power over potential candidates and the boycott by many Iranians in protest).

In the case of North Korea nothing can be done that will not make the situation worse than it already is (and it is already a slave state with mass death and a future that promises either more of the same or the same problems with less to alleviate it).

A convergence of interests and means is what builds policy.
 
Last edited:
yolland said:
Democratization agenda--or destabilization agenda? Can we really pursue both at once in good faith?

When faced with a totalitarian regime, perhaps the destabilizations is needed to open up opportunity for democratization. I think it can be done in good faith once we look passed our own political suspisions.
 
Back
Top Bottom