In the US we have regular regime changes, even our Constitution demands it Presidents are limited to two four-years terms. But while the regime changes, the ideological-political foundation is not.
What you outline has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. That is a style of political operation.
Wrong...What I said has everything to do with being a functional democracy. A 'regime', as far as politics goes, is (or should be) a temporary body of governance. Peaceful regime changes is a sign of a society willing to exercise restraints, amenable to debates and ideas, and finally open to concessions if necessary. If what the people elected became unpalatable, the regime has a finite period of existence before being peacefully rejected and a new regime installed. The 'style of political operation' is representative of the political foundation.
When the Soviet Union ignobly and spectacularly collapsed, not only the regime changed but also the ideological-political foundation that once supported that regime. So when the Russians decided to give 'democracy' and 'capitalism' a try, tell the forum who shoved democracy down the Russian's throats? When Red China decided to abandon communist style 'economics', a joke if there ever was one, who shoved capitalism down the Chinese's throats? Nature abhors a vacuum, as the old saying goes, so when communism was removed from Russia, something must take its place. When communist style economics was removed from Red China, something must take its place. And the world see success in China and failure in Russia. In both situations, no external forces were involved. Internal rot was the catalyst for change.
I think you missed the point about this. Though I can understand you approach.
Besides I never said who was doing the shoving nor imply any particular nation. You did via you highly touchy approach.
Come now...Do not be so disingenuous. When you said this...
You can shove democracy down people's throats till they choke but is real democracy that you are pushing or some half cocked version.
...And then throw in Iraq who do you think you are fooling? Who is the most prominent foreigner and to date has the most impact in Iraq? We can certainly rule out that next to worthless UN.
What, if you care to read, is that I am pointing out that people talk about democracy and how nations should have it for their governance but really have no understanding of what they are really talking about for that specific nation.
On the surface, your argument does have merits. However, when the argument is about principles there are little, as we say, 'wiggle room' for criticisms. On principles, it is quite indisputable that everyone in a society should have a say about his government. The 'how' to have his say contains the mechanics of governance, and that is where deviations can be most drastic from principles.
Elsewhere on this forum I pointed out some differences between the US, a confederation of distinct political entities -- states, and Switzerland, also a confederation of distinct political entities -- cantons. The President of the Swiss confederation is not popularly elected but the office is a rotating one-year term among the representatives of the leaderships of the cantons. It is said that 9 out of 10 Swiss would not recognize their President even if the person take the train at peak morning commuting hours. But in the US, we can have nearly a cultish atmosphere around a US President, look at John F Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or currently Barack Obama. And yet no one really dispute that despite all the mechanical differences betwen the US and Switzerland, both are functional democracies. Some have even argued (shallowly) that the Swiss are more 'democratic' than the US despite the fact that the Swiss President is not popularly elected.
So when someone said something about the promotion of democracy and basic human rights and freedoms, he is not talking about exporting
EVERYTHING he knows about the mechanics of governance into another society but about introducing high level principles and let the indigenous population create the mechanics of governance for themselves. Some deviations will be necessary, as the US-Switzerland differences illustrated, and it is those deviations that will tell observers if that society is comparably 'democratic' or not.
Firstly democracy does not demand compromise. Governance implements levels of compromise.
Nonsense...Democratic principles indeed demand compromise down to the most local level of governance, which would be something as simple as the county dog catcher if the position is an elected one. If I voted Joe Schmoe for the position but Jim Nobody received more votes, I have to swallow the loss and that is a compromise.
As far as Iran goes do they actually have democracy? Take a look on how nominations for president are made. Look at where the power comes from and it is not the position of president.
How nominees became so is a separate issue, so if the Iranians decide for themselves, at this time or for the next one hundred years, that all nominees should come from a theocratic foundation, that is within their perceived need to create a mechanism to vet the candidates, much like how candidates in other societies must pass through ideological filters. War is the only time a leader is elected for his foreign policy, else leaders from any country are usually stressed about domestic issues such as taxes, education, or the economy. So while we can throw some legitimate criticisms at Iran on how much deviations there are from general principles, what we must acknowledge and applaud to some degrees is the fact that there are competing nominees for the people to chose as their next leader. The current crisis in Iran is indicative that regardless of how foreigners view the nominees, Iranians feel sufficiently passionate about them that the general populace is willing commit massive public dissent when they perceived that this nominally 'democratic' mechanism have been discarded by the government.
Again if you bother to actually read I did not blame anyone for the state of Iraq. Again I will excuse your approach due to your very touchy approach to your nationalism.
Why the lack of courage? Again...Who is the most prominent foreigner in Iraq? We can rule out the ineffective UN.
What I did ask, is does Iraq have real democracy? This also applies to most western nations as well. Are we really running under real democracy or in essence a hybrid?
If we in fact have a hybrid system, how then can we call for democracy in other nations?
A hybrid? In order to call something a 'hybrid' there has to be distinct
FOUNDATIONAL elements, like gasoline and electrical motors in a car and that
BOTH must be the motivational factors to drive that car. I cannot see how democracy can peacefully coexist with tyranny in the same political environment.
As far as democracy goes I can not think of anyone who has real democracy. Some may come close.
Also of note not even ancient Athens had true democracy. Though we all say that is the foundation of the concept.
Basically, what you are saying is that because I am an imperfect father I have no right to express moral outrage or even mild criticisms at a convicted child molester. By the way, I am single and have no children.
Because of our individual fickle natures, something like 'democracy' must be created lest either anarchy or tyranny remain as unsavory options. It does not take much to rapidly move a society from stability to anarchy, look at Germany near the end of WW II, for example. Neither does it take much for a society to have a dictator at the helm, North Korea at the end of the Korean War is another example. But precisely because of our individual fickle natures, democracy comes in fits and starts. What you miss is that democracy is
BOTH a goal and a process. Those fits and starts are when the people realize the flaws in their political institutions, the ones that are supposed to preserve and promote their 'democratic' ideals, and proceed to make changes or even eliminate some institutions. The US Civil War is a major event in US political history where divergent viewpoints had so much passionate support that to this day, that war remain the costliest for the US in human lives. But a major stumbling block -- slavery -- to create a more 'democratic' society was removed.
American War Deaths Throughout History
Civil War (1861-1865) 623,026
World War 2 (1941-1945) 407,316
Say there are three countries:
Country A of one million is a dictatorship, benevolent or malevolent is not the point for now.
Country B of one million has a council of leaders where elected members must be males and right-handed.
Country C of one million has a council of leaders where elected members must be males.
The number of exclusions from the political process is clearly obvious with Country C having the least. However, the differences between B and C is nowhere as great as when either is compared against A. History proved that more often than not dictatorships are of the malevolent kind and for the last one hundred years when not-so-tru democracies are bordered against dictatorships, those dictatorships became even more oppressive. Why? Because that if given a chance, people, males or females, will migrate from A to either B or C. For the females, even though they will have no representations in either B or C, at least the governments are composed of elected officials hence the
ODDS of reforms where females can participate in governments would be greater. What if some people from B and C decide to move elsewhere and create Country D where men and women, right- or left-handed, are equal? Would B and C, in trying to preserve their existences, became dictatorial in nature? More likely both would evolve, perhaps painfully, but they would change their ways.
I have been to East Berlin when it existed. Even if West Berlin was half as 'democratic' as current unified Germany, East German guards still would have shot anyone who try to 'migrate' to West Berlin. I lived in Florida for several years. Many people love to criticize US via Cuba's universal health care or higher literacy rates. And yet, no news exists for Americans in rickety homemade rafts floating themselves to Cuba for the health care and education. What you questioned as 'true democracy' is very true and real even for those who never experience this not-so-true democracy. Those who managed to migrate to any of these not-so-true democracies, many of them returned to their oppressive native lands to try to give their people a taste of this not-so-true democracy. Not-so-true democracies, like South Korea or Taiwan for many years, have proven to be economically prosperous, scientifically innovative, and intellectually and culturally more vibrant.
As the critic proclaim that practice should be as 'true' as possible with regard to theory and that this is a desirable condition, the critic actually misses the point that while people are fully capable of critical analyses from a principled stance they are also realists and moralists. Majority rule, one of the foundational elements of the democratic process, is actually less popular in democratic practice than in democratic theory. The moralist in all of us demands that we question
WHY exclusions exists in the democratic process. Parallel to that is
SHOULD exclusions exists. The realist in all of us then attempts to balance all arguments. The willingness to counter majority rule when morals demands it, such as institutionalized slavery or women's rights issues, the fact that we make changes even though those changes required time, is what give functional democracies the right to call ourselves 'democratic' societies. That is why democracy is
BOTH goal and process.
how then can we call for democracy in other nations?
It is then clear that there really is no intention other than attempting to defend odious ideologies and regimes in an oblique way by questioning if any country can rightly call itself a 'democratic' society when there are institutional flaws in those countries. Political dissidents wisely do not focus on low level mechanistic flaws or even higher level institutional flaws of democratic societies. They focus on ideological flaws and pointing out ideological differences have been the justification for many deaths and imprisonments. Low level mechanistic flaws can come from simple personal incompetence that hinder effective administration of an office. Institutional flaws are exposed in any discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of a bicameral legislature, or the percentage threshold in parliamentary seat allocation, or on the pros and cons of elected over appointed judges. I will take a flawed democracy over a true dictatorship any day and so do many Cubans who floated to Florida in their rickety homemade rafts.