Iran - Foward to the Past?

mike65

So then the least likely candidate (for most observers) wins by a big margin as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeats Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Is this a return to full control by the clerics or might the new man be best placed to seperate the day to day running of Iran from the religious?

He won by appealing to the massed poor so they'll be expecting to see economic reform and if his words about creating a "modern, advanced and Islamic" Iran can be trusted he may well find to two former conditions can't be achived without ditching the latter at a formal state level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4621249.stm

Mike.

murphaph

Hmmm,
Methinks the 'democracy' the western (including China and India!!) governmented fronted capitalists want to see in Iran is just more capitalism (trade) than exists at present. They are afraid of regimes that don't play the 'international' game because they can't control their citizens through average paying jobs and 300k mortgages round their necks.

It used to be communism, now that's been broken the only bastion of globalisation freedom is in some of the insular Islamic states and a few commies left over in North Korea.

I'm glad the Iranians got what they want. They want this guy who doesn't want to play the game? fine. Good for them-they're clever folks.

Give it 200 years and the ordinary plebs will start revolting again. The power brokers won't be able to balance the world's scales and it's all kick off with the ever improving communications we're witnessing.

mike65

murphaph wrote:

Hmmm,
Give it 200 years and the ordinary plebs will start revolting again. The power brokers won't be able to balance the world's scales and it's all kick off with the ever improving communications we're witnessing.

Funny you should mention that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4123788.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3677984.stm

Mike.

AmenToThat

What Iv found funny about some of the debate in recent days is that America has declared that the elections were a sham. But yet seem to think that the elections in Iraq were free and fair.
Its my opinion that neither were, then again most seem to think that the elections that first brought GWB to power werent fair either!
There have also been claims within some the American press core and on Capital Hill that large sections of the population boycotted the elections as a protest yet there was a 10% higher turnout than last years American presidential elections which were viewed as the most important in a generation.

mike65

The turn out was higher.

What did changed in Iran from the first round is the type of voter, many of the liberals/reformers went missing as they could'nt quite bring themselves to back Rafsanjani (who after all is hardly a progressive just the least worst option), while Ahmadinejad inspired those who normally don't bother voting.

Mike.

m1ke

Any election in Iran was purely superficial. Any future election there will also be a superficial sham as long as they remain a theocracy with a supreme leader along lines similar to the Vatican. People who identity elections in non-democratic countries such as Iran as providing a possibility of progress or a mode of peaceful reform have proven to be mistaken up until this point in time. In other words, non-democratic countries, from time to time, seem to the rest of the world that they're improving and reforming and slowly introducing democracy and eventually it gets to a point where everything is reversed. These systemic issues mean it is impossible for countries such as Iran to change without a) outside intervention b) 1789 like revolution. I'm fine with either one.

This pattern of liberalizing-returning to authoritarianism-liberalizing has been happening in many countries in the middle east for decades. This is really run-of-the-mill stuff, like the farcical elections in Saudi Arabia. The elections in Iraq were free and fair and judged to be so by the international community. Whether or not democracy will stand the test of time in Iraq is another question... of course circumstances can be improved to aid that transition but that is going off topic slightly.

Victor

I thought I had posted on this already.

---

What about the nearest theocracy to ourselves - the UK, when did they last have free elections to head of state?

Yes, Iran has a huge democratic deficit, however it is making at least some of the right noises, e.g. suggestions from on high that the religious police types shouldn't be so vigourous in their jobs and that police excesses shouldn't be tolerated.

Screwdriver

The whole of the islamic world is a mess but what do you expect when it's full of nutters!

Son_of_Belial

Screwdriver wrote:

The whole of the islamic world is a mess but what do you expect when it's full of nutters!

That's a bit of a generalisation. Have you ever been to the middle-East Screwdriver? They are in fact some of the most hospitable and generous people you could meet. That's tantamount to saying that all Irish people are violent terrorists in some form or another connected with the IRA or the INLA.

M1ke wrote:

Any election in Iran was purely superficial. Any future election there will also be a superficial sham as long as they remain a theocracy with a supreme leader along lines similar to the Vatican.

There are other forms of government you know other than democracy, that work just as well in theory. Even good old Democracy isn't infallible. That's what I hate about the mentality in the west. Everything has to be done our way or the high way. By such a high turnout the Iranians have shown that Ahmedinejad is their choice of premier. It never ceases to amaze me how quick people are to start hurling accusations of gerrymandering and corruption at a country just because that country elected someone they don't like. AmentoThat has hit the nail squarely on the head. To be honest I don't blame the Iranians for electing Ahmedinejad, if I was an Iranian I'd probably vote for him too. He's prepared to extend the middle finger of each hand to growing US Imperialism and I say more power to him. If they want to have a nuclear program, let them. I'm much more concerned about the thought of GWB with a nuclear arsenal (come on, he can't even pronounce the word!) then Ahmedinejad to be honest. The US don't like people who don't agree with them to have the capability to stand up to them. We don't see them yelling at India or Pakistan because they have nuclear ordnance now do we? Mark my words, I will not be at all surprised if Bush finds some excuse to invade Iran in the next couple of years once Iraq is stabilised. Iraq and Afghanistan would be the perfect lauching platforms for a large-scale invasion. The first step would be the demonising of the Iranian regime. In fact, a bilateral US-Israeli attack on Iran appears to be in the pipeline as the linked article pretty conclusively (for me) outlines. The countdown seems to have already begun.

Kare Bear

Im not surprised that Ahmadinejad won.The other more liberal guy was way out of touch with wat hes people would vote for.

gandalf

Screwdriver wrote:

The whole of the islamic world is a mess but what do you expect when it's full of nutters!

Well thats a really useful contribution, how about you take a break and learn how not to make generalisations.

A weeks ban.

Gurgle

Son_of_Belial wrote:

Even good old Democracy isn't infallible.

Its been proven statistically that 50% of all voters in any given democracy are of below average intelligence.

bonkey

Actually, 50% are below the mean intelligence, but there isn't that big a difference

Sand

There are other forms of government you know other than democracy, that work just as well in theory. Even good old Democracy isn't infallible. That's what I hate about the mentality in the west. Everything has to be done our way or the high way.

I really hate the mentality that were helping people in the middle east by wishing repressive regimes upon them. I really hate the mentality that liberal democracy isnt the best thing going - somehow the West must labour on under the evils of freedom of exspression, religion, private property, equality before the law, one man one vote and a whole raft of rights and laws to protect them. God what a terrible system. Arent we such heros to survive with it?

Arent the Iranians so lucky they have man in charge whose concerned with forcing every male employee of the state to grow a beard, banning David Beckham posters - I mean seriously, he and Ashcroft have got to join up and think up more pointless gestures in the kulturkampf - and arresting students who dare to actually demand democracy.

Have you actually listened to what the Iranian reformers are saying? Theyre appalled at this guy running the show. Freedoms you take for granted are under threat from this fanatic. Actually, its not even those freedoms, its the prospect of those freedoms being attained. Its the equivalent of the Pope running Ireland - Homesexuality criminalised, divorce banned, abortion viewed as murder, political representives taking orders from the Clerics....the 1950s in Ireland werent some golden paradise you know!

Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world. If you disagree, thats your right. Treasure it because you dont have that right under any other system of government in the world.

if I was an Iranian I'd probably vote for him too. He's prepared to extend the middle finger of each hand to growing US Imperialism and I say more power to him.

Ah see - when it comes down to it your support is not based on what you feel is best for Iran, or even what youd be willing to accept as a government yourself - nah, the freedoms of Iranians - as pathetic as they currently are - are merely casualties of the hatred for George Bush. A hatred so irrational that youll support a guy who makes Bush look like Danny the Red to express it.

m1ke

There are other forms of government you know other than democracy, that work just as well in theory. Even good old Democracy isn't infallible. That's what I hate about the mentality in the west. Everything has to be done our way or the high way.

This is also simply not true. There are many successful bureaucratic authoritarian states particularly in the far east. While they're definitely not ideal, no one can deny that they aren't successful in that they materially provide enough resources and adequate security for their citizens. Also they don't blame us for their problems but instead choose to do business with us and coexist peacefully and even work together. I'm willing to put aside my dislike of some political systems such as these in recognition that they have a different way of doing business to us, they're peaceful and have strong work ethics.

However, Iran are fair game for invasion, regime change etc... They've brought it on themselves by their aggressiveness, rhetoric and dangerous nuclear plans. I know it's attractive to support Iran as the underdog and paint the US as the oppressor. It's a natural inclination for many people to want to teach those who they think are in power, a lesson, or to simplify the situation to 'the bully GWB vs all these small poor states'. However, leadership in Iran brought this on themselves, it's not a matter of becoming the US's lap-dog... it's just a matter of them acting normally towards others. This means not threatening your neighbours with nuclear weapons, friendly dialogue, normal diplomatic relations, not repressing women, publically executing people, using the language of fire and brimstone to condemn us in the West who just want to cooperate not agitate.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

God what a terrible system. Arent we such heros to survive with it?

Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world.

For westerners and western culture. At least...thats as far as the available evidence would seem to show.

jc

Ancient1

mike65 wrote:

He won by appealing to the massed poor so they'll be expecting to see economic reform and if his words about creating a "modern, advanced and Islamic" Iran can be trusted he may well find to two former conditions can't be achived without ditching the latter at a formal state level.

He's inheriting a handful alright. Economic reform hasn't proven easy over the past 8 years or so and it'll be interesting to see if he can bring a fresh approach or if the mammoth task will put him off. It was after all promises of economic reform (yet again), rather than foreign policy overtures, that won him the election.

Good read here: http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=8208

mr_angry

bonkey wrote:

For westerners and western culture. At least...thats as far as the available evidence would seem to show.

jc

The available evidence would appear to show that alternative cultures at work within western civilisation also seem to flourish under this system of government. The Muslim population in the UK and Ireland seem to have very little problem practicing their faith and way of life, at least until they started being demonised by the US anyway.

Of course, I'm generalising here. There have been racist attacks on Muslims, and the odd mosque desecrated, but then again, there's been one or two Catholic churches desecrated in Ireland and yet we can generalise and say that Irish culture has flourished.

As far as I can see, while the population of any country remains largely poor and uneducated, there is very little chance of them challenging the mantra of their elders - in this case the mullahs and ayatollahs. Educating the people will require the government to start programs to do so which will require political willpower, and that will mean the people in charge will be effectively weakening their own position. I'm not one to preach any form of violence, but frankly, I think only a revolution will accomplish anything like this.

Victor

Sand, I imagine landing western style democracy in Iran would only make things worse, simply by handing power to the wrong kind of people.

Sand wrote:

Arent the Iranians so lucky they have man in charge whose concerned with forcing every male employee of the state to grow a beard

Are you sure you aren't mistaking them for their sworn enemy the Taliban?

Also, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4517119.stm

Von

Sand wrote:

I really hate the mentality that liberal democracy isnt the best thing going - somehow the West must labour on under the evils of freedom of exspression, religion, private property, equality before the law, one man one vote and a whole raft of rights and laws to protect them. God what a terrible system. Arent we such heros to survive with it?.

Sand wrote:

These guys are threats to civillisation- and need to be eliminated. If their rights are infringed to protect civillisation , I wont lose any sleep at night - posting about a terrorists rights being broken is pretty pointless cause I honestly dont care .

Sand on Gitmo.

Doesn't sound like very liberal or democratic to me.

Wibbs

Originally Posted by bonkey
Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

Quote:
Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world.

For westerners and western culture. At least...thats as far as the available evidence would seem to show.

Forgive me if I have picked you up wrongly , but are you suggesting that these other cultures that you speak of don't want free democratic elections, sexual equality, access to the law, a free press, freedom of religion and thought and freedom to protest? All because of their culture and the fact that not westerners? Why not? That strikes me as rascist/culturalist in itself, as it suggests that these people in Iran and elsewhere are somehow inherently different to westerners. It's akin to saying "ah the poor Africans aren't very industrious, but sure isn't it their culture".

Originally Posted by Sand
If you disagree, thats your right. Treasure it because you dont have that right under any other system of government in the world.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Victor
Are you sure you aren't mistaking them for their sworn enemy the Taliban?

Possibly he is, but under Islam a man is required to sport a beard.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=9037&dgn=4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4517119.stm

Yes fair play to him for standing up to the police. To be fair to Islam it is very specific how prisoners in general and especially other Muslims are to be treated. Sharia law is quite specific in this respect and torture is quite out of the question. In fact Islam in this was far ahead of Christianity and the west in the past. I would much rather have been a prisoner under Islam in the 12th century than stuck, rotting and tortured in a Christian jail.

That said it is now quite a ways behind what we would call a tolerant system, especially in regard to women's rights under law. EG a woman's testimony is lesser than a mans and of course the whole veil issue. So sadly this brave bloke's stance is held back in many respects by the very laws he upholds. His final words in that article point that out.

"Bad veiling will not be fixed by detention," he said.

"There are tens of civil ways to combat such corruption."

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Actually, 50% are below the mean intelligence, but there isn't that big a difference

Actually, just under 50% as there will be some who are of mean intelligence

Sand wrote:

Western liberal democracy is actually the best system of government in the whole world. If you disagree, thats your right. Treasure it because you dont have that right under any other system of government in the world.

That’s not exactly correct. Western liberal democracy does not actually give its citizens the right to reject it. We cannot actually ‘vote’ ourselves into a dictatorship for example - any move by one Western liberal democracy to break from democratic orthodoxy is generally met with hostility by other the Western liberal democracies (e.g. Austria) while happily ignoring the suspension of democratic rights if it protects the said democratic orthodoxy (e.g. Algeria in 1991). Indeed, in many countries some of the parties that even disagree with Western liberal democracy are illegal to begin with.

So no, we don’t really have the right you speak of. Only the illusion of that right.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote:

So no, we don’t really have the right you speak of. Only the illusion of that right.

Very fair point, but I think most would agree that as a political system western liberal democracy is by far the best of an imperfect lot. When a better alternative comes a long I for one will be all for it.

Edit. Now that I think of it a benign dictatorship with me in the driving seat holds some appeal. I'm off to design the uniforms now. Lots of gold braid and big hats obviously. I'll head on over to the fashion forum to finalise the details....

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

Actually, 50% are below the mean intelligence, but there isn't that big a difference

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, just under 50% as there will be some who are of mean intelligence

Is IQ defined in integers ?

Sand

Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

Ah, I didnt realise that some people arent entitled to the same rights as us. Theyre from the wrong culture. Now we just need to invent a philosophy to justify their lack of freedom - well call it respect for their culture of having a mullah approved culutre *imposed* on them by religious police. Yes, respect - thats what well call it. Much as I respect the SFIRAs right to break the legs of 14 year old kids in alleys. Normal policing standards and human rights arent culturally appropriate for SFIRA controlled estates and the 14 year old kids who live in them.

If the Iranian theocracy was such a reflection of Iranian culture then why does it need the secret police? The candidates approved by the clerics? What are they so afraid of?

To be honest Bonkey - that whole cultural argument is just cover for the local thugs oppressing the local victims. Because its all local its all okay.

Sand, I imagine landing western style democracy in Iran would only make things worse, simply by handing power to the wrong kind of people.

You misunderstand Victor - I dont propose holding an election tommorrow, and calling it democracy. Elections are populist, leading to the "tyranny of the majority". So it would be a disaster to give the populist nationalist xenophobic and reactionary forces in any unfree society democractic legitmacy. Bascially the stabilisers that keep democracy on the road, minimising the populist trampling of the minority need to be built first.

Are you sure you aren't mistaking them for their sworn enemy the Taliban?

Sadly no;

From the link

The mayor shut down fast-food restaurants and required male city employees to have beards and long sleeves.

And he took down an advertising campaign showing UK footballer David Beckham - the first Western celebrity used to promote a product in the country since Iran's 1979 revolution.

Doesn't sound like very liberal or democratic to me.

Liberal democracy is an exceptional system - it is not a natural state of events. Quite simply, as history has demonstrated with tragic consequences, anti-liberal forces represent a real threat to the freedoms we hold and liberal democracies are often unable to properly defend themselves from the threat they pose until it is far too late. Often the means of defending democracy and rule of law bend or even break the standards of the system. Like internment of the IRA in 1930s and 1940s Ireland. I view Gitmo in the same light as that internment. If anything Gitmo is far more progressive in that the rule of law remains paramount, as demonstrated by interventions of the US Supreme Court.

Western liberal democracy does not actually give its citizens the right to reject it. We cannot actually ‘vote’ ourselves into a dictatorship for example

European countries have voted themselves into dictatorships. If anything its a damn shame that the parties concerned werent simply locked up on a military base in Cuba and forgotten about and screw their rights.

Europeans continue to attempt to vote in subversive anti-liberal forces to this day. Le Pen nearly became the Prez of France last time around, let alone the whats occuring in Irish politics. If the resistance you mention of neighbouring liberal democracies to anti-liberal forces gaining power in other liberal democracies is a problem, I fail to see why.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Ah, I didnt realise that some people arent entitled to the same rights as us.

I haven't suggested that at all Sand.

You've flat-out said it, and defended it, with regards to the like of how our established free societies can occasionally change/bend/break the rules to remove freedoms from others as we see fit, but I've only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal for everyone.

Interestingly, after rubbishing my suggestion, you then go on to respond to Victor, explaining that democracy right now for everyone wouldn't work either. Which is a polite way of saying that some people shouldn't have democracy right now, as it wouldn't be the best thing for them.

Now we just need to invent a philosophy to justify their lack of freedom

I'd look at your response to Victor and your comments regarding the righteousness of Gitmo and suggest that you already have a philosophy to justify people's lack of freedom Sand. It just has to be the right lack of freedom.

jc

SkepticOne

Should Arabs have democracy?

Hobbes

SkepticOne wrote:

Should Arabs have democracy?

What does that have to do with Iran?

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

What does that have to do with Iran?

Nothing. I got caught up with the discussion on democracy in general. Ignore.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

European countries have voted themselves into dictatorships.

Seventy-five odd years ago that may have been true, but it’s not now. I’m talking about what is true now, and frankly has been for quite a while, which is that we do not, for good or ill, have the right to question orthodox democracy.

If anything its a damn shame that the parties concerned werent simply locked up on a military base in Cuba and forgotten about and screw their rights.

An sentiment that illustrates my point, TBH.

If the resistance you mention of neighbouring liberal democracies to anti-liberal forces gaining power in other liberal democracies is a problem, I fail to see why.

If democracy cannot fundamentally change because to even suggest to do so is anti-democratic or unpatriotic what do you think will happen?

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

I haven't suggested that at all Sand.

You've flat-out said it, and defended it, with regards to the like of how our established free societies can occasionally change/bend/break the rules to remove freedoms from others as we see fit, but I've only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal for everyone.

Ok so maybe sand flat out said it and defended it, but at least he did defend his point. You may have only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal, but you have certainly not defended that viewpoint in any meaningful way. A further discussion on that would be welcome.

Interestingly, after rubbishing my suggestion, you then go on to respond to Victor, explaining that democracy right now for everyone wouldn't work either. Which is a polite way of saying that some people shouldn't have democracy right now, as it wouldn't be the best thing for them.

No I think he was suggesting that other safeguards would have to be in place before you could call it democracy. Independant police force judiciary and press, controls on armed forces, church and state separation and a constitution to name a few.

You have also not responded to sand's point that the new regime in Iran has more in common with the taliban(on religious grounds) than is comfortable. Both his and my links have backed that contention. The only link you provided was an admittedly brave Muslim cleric speaking out against torture in police custody. Sadly the same cleric supports policies and punishments against what he sees as "corruptions" such non compliance of veil wearing. If that's an example of a progression to a modern inclusive and tolerant state, it's a weak one.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

You may have only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal, but you have certainly not defended that viewpoint in any meaningful way.

My stance is that I disagree with the notion that democracy is some sort of ultimate system of governance for everyone. I don't believe that this has been presented as anything other than a logical fait accompli, and is then used as a basis for many other lines of reasoning. I believe that it is so central a concept to so many of the arguments here that its not something we should just take on faith.

Democracy is not some form of panacea. It is a system of governance which - like any other system of governance - can be abused and can fail. It has many strengths and can be more resilient than other forms of governance in terms of resisting abuse/corruption. Like any other system, however, it requires certain factors to be in place in order for it to be possible to succeed. (This is, I believe, unquestionable, as no-one is going to suggest that democracy cannot fail.)

Lets consider those factors briefly. Is it possible, for example, to have a meaningful democracy in a highly theistic culture? Ireland is not what I would call highly theistic, and even here we've had many decisions decried by their opponents as being little more than the will of the Catholic Church being imposed on the people through the church sticking its nose in by telling its followers how to vote. So what about more theistic nations? Is there a point where we must define religion (regardless of which religion) as a limiting factor / enemy of democracy? What then, if a country is at - or beyond - that point? Do we work to remove religion from the people in order to give them democracy?

Are we not then really saying that democracy is not the right system for such people, but that the solution is to change the people to fit the system. Maybe we're right...but how is that line of reasoning different to that employed by people who believe in other systems? They too believe that their system is the right one, and that what needs to be done is that the people who's ways of life are incompatible with the system need to change so as to become compatible, at which point they can properly embrace the system.

Independant police force judiciary and press, controls on armed forces, church and state separation and a constitution to name a few.

And if any of these few - or any from the full list - require a cultural change....we're back to the same basic principle that democracy is the best system when you change the people to fit it well enough. This, to me, is still a tacit admission that democracy is not the best system for everyone....its just coupled with a rider which says that the people (who its not the best system for) need to change.

Maybe they do, but I haven't seen that argued in more specifics then a basic stance of "they're wrong, and cannot be right unless they change to X", where X is very directly tied to our belief of whats right. I'm unconvinced that its a binary option.

You have also not responded to sand's point that the new regime in Iran has more in common with the taliban(on religious grounds) than is comfortable.

I haven't responded because I didn't take issue with that point.

Boggle

Are we not then really saying that democracy is not the right system for such people, but that the solution is to change the people to fit the system.

Its a good point but I would ask why did democracy work here in Ireland when people here followed the church like sheep?
Further more, if you think back to how much influence the catholic church had over the country, would it not at least be plausible that the people gradually changed to fit the free system that we now operate? (now my history isn't great so this is just an assumption based on fractured info)

Wibbs

First off bonkey, appreciate the comprehensive response and the well thought way you put it.

Originally Posted by bonkey
Democracy is not some form of panacea. It is a system of governance which - like any other system of governance - can be abused and can fail. It has many strengths and can be more resilient than other forms of governance in terms of resisting abuse/corruption. Like any other system, however, it requires certain factors to be in place in order for it to be possible to succeed. (This is, I believe, unquestionable, as no-one is going to suggest that democracy cannot fail.)

Can't agree with you more there, but...... .

Is it possible, for example, to have a meaningful democracy in a highly theistic culture?

I would have to say no. Church and state need to be separate for any system of government to be fair to opposing views and minorities in said state as religion(all religions) tend towards the absolute. Government based on such principles tends not to evolve for one thing and if it does it usually drifts towards fundamentalism.

Do we work to remove religion from the people in order to give them democracy?

No, I would suggest we work towards removing religion from the government. Individual religious freedom need not be affected by such a move. In fact it would be bolstered by such a move IMHO.

And if any of these few - or any from the full list - require a cultural change....we're back to the same basic principle that democracy is the best system when you change the people to fit it well enough.

If any of these few are missing I would suggest the culture/system of government is lacking the basic building blocks for a fair and just society.

Are we not then really saying that democracy is not the right system for such people, but that the solution is to change the people to fit the system. Maybe we're right...but how is that line of reasoning different to that employed by people who believe in other systems?/....Maybe they do, but I haven't seen that argued in more specifics then a basic stance of "they're wrong, and cannot be right unless they change to X", where X is very directly tied to our belief of whats right. I'm unconvinced that its a binary option.

I would say it's different for one simple reason(the Corinthians valid points aside for the moment). "Our" system of liberal democratic government allows for at least some dissension and freedom of expression. At least a lot more than a regime such as Iran's.

For me it would not boil down to "they're wrong, and cannot be right unless they change to X". It would boil down to "We may be wrong, we may be right, but we at least have some mechanisms in place which embraces our uncertainty". No such mechanism can exist in absolutist theistic societies.

My personal viewpoint would be that some cultures are more valid than others. I know it's not fashionable to say so these days(outside of silly neo-Nazi manifestos), but I honestly believe that to be true. Maybe we do need to help change the minds of others while embracing some of the more laudable traits of their culture. The charitable and welcoming nature present in Islam would be one example that we would do well to absorb.

How that's achieved is the difficulty. Certainly not by "smart" bombs raining down on cities. Maybe something as simple as, we(the UN?) will help you build your hospitals, schools, places of worship and infrastructure. We will help you develop it to the point where exchange of ideas and free and fair trade lifts us all. It seems that people will rarely kill each other if they're doing good business with each other. I suspect at that point some form of free and open government tailored to the culture would evolve naturally. It need not be "our" form of democracy but as a system democracy does seem to be the best of a bad lot.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote:

I would say it's different for one simple reason(the Corinthians valid points aside for the moment). "Our" system of liberal democratic government allows for at least some dissension and freedom of expression. At least a lot more than a regime such as Iran's.

Actually, were I to suggest a more utilitarian slant I might argue that the greatest advantage of Western liberal democracy is that it is the most efficient out there. Dissention is actually what allows a Western liberal democracy to self-regulate and weed out both excess and corruption.

It seems that people will rarely kill each other if they're doing good business with each other.

“Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war” - Richard Nixon (oddly enough)

It need not be "our" form of democracy but as a system democracy does seem to be the best of a bad lot.

Regrettably at present it does need to be "our" form of democracy and any deviation from this is no longer tolerated.

Sand

Interestingly, after rubbishing my suggestion, you then go on to respond to Victor, explaining that democracy right now for everyone wouldn't work either. Which is a polite way of saying that some people shouldn't have democracy right now, as it wouldn't be the best thing for them.

Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

I just requoted what you said so wed be clear. Western style democracies stretch from North America all the way across Europe and In Asia with outposts and strongholds around the Pacfic, and other largely unfree continents.

There is no underlying cultural similarity whatsoever between them bar whats expected from either close proximity or historical attachments. Japan has a wildly different culture to Ireland and yet liberal democratic norms work there. Liberal democracy has demonstrated that it is suitable for a whole host of cultures, and there is no broad similarity between the western democracies.

"Western" is merely used as a label because that is where the institutional system of checks and balances between the wishes of the majority and the rights of the minority were largely created, tested and refined. "Western" culture had its fair share of autocratic kings and emperors as well. There is no cultural argument for tyranny, no more than there is a cultural argument for poverty or prosperity. In both cases its simply a case of putting institutions and rights in place and ensuring they work.

In regards to Victor I commented that for liberal democracy to work the institutions underpinning it and restraining populism have to be put into place. It is not democracy as we understand it without them. These are institutions and rights defended in law were talking about, not demanding they engage in some massive cultural shift. I dont see this as stating that they need to buy SUVs, watch Oprah and get worked up over some has-been celebrity having a wardrobe malfunction.

You've flat-out said it, and defended it, with regards to the like of how our established free societies can occasionally change/bend/break the rules to remove freedoms from others as we see fit, but I've only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal for everyone.

Ive stated, and Ill happily back it up, that democratic institutions have shown themselves historically to be fragile and prone to subversion by illiberal or populist forces. Democracies such as our own, owe a hell of a lot to the decision to violate the human rights of anti-liberal organisations to protect the system that underpins the rights.

The likes of Al-Queda arent some political lobby group with simply a differing view that can be accomadated within liberal democracy. If they want to move to Texas and live their Middle Age lifestyle, so long as they bothered no one there wouldnt be a problem. The thing is they do want to bother other people, they want to force their views on others, and they want to destroy the system of rights and laws that prevent them doing this and replace it with their own system of government. As such, they cant be treated like over-zealous arts students who ultimately behind all the bull**** respect and value the system and the freedoms it allows.

I wont cry over the fate of those who are suddenly recognising why this whole liberal democracy deal with its attendant rights isnt as bad as they first thought, no more than I cried over the fate of the Nazi concentration camp guards who were murdered by the former inmates in many liberated camps. And regardless of my *personal* views, the US Supreme Court still intervenes to provide a bottom line of rights these guys can expect. I think thats a fair balance between expediency and the ideal.

Seventy-five odd years ago that may have been true, but it’s not now. I’m talking about what is true now, and frankly has been for quite a while, which is that we do not, for good or ill, have the right to question orthodox democracy.

Really? Were seeing terrorists getting elected to our Dail on a mish mash of ultra nationalism and marxist waffle. And its not an isolated with a variety of distasteful views across Europe getting dusted off and legitimised by voters bored of non-extremist politics.

If theyre the alternative to orthodox democracy then I dont see why its such a draw? Orthodox democracy is so open and flexible that it can accomadate anything bar the most extreme views - whereby the the rights that underpin the whole thing spring into place to protect the rights of the minority, which must be guaranteed for the people to have confidence that voting is not war by other means.

If there is an alternative that triggers these warnings then its probably not a workable alternative to people who have experienced liberal democracy.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

If theyre the alternative to orthodox democracy then I dont see why its such a draw?

Marxism is one noted alternative to orthodox democracy. So is Fascism. So is direct democracy. So is aristocracy. No doubt there are numerous other ideologies and political systems. But this simply detracts from the issue that I’m not even suggesting that orthodox democracy should be replaced - indeed, you cannot even suggest amending it anymore, let alone replace it. In its orthodoxy it is no longer evolving, and that is a very dangerous position to be in for any society.

Orthodox democracy is so open and flexible that it can accomadate anything bar the most extreme views - whereby the the rights that underpin the whole thing spring into place to protect the rights of the minority, which must be guaranteed for the people to have confidence that voting is not war by other means.

The problem is that extreme views now include anything that does not fit into our idea of Western liberal democracy. Democracy has become the end rather than the means.