I actually think that had the US never invaded Iraq, this revolution would have been on Sadaam's doorstep even before Mubarak's. Unfortunately, we couldn't wait.
Bassie, Generally speaking, I do think that Religion and State are independent in the US and European countries. Finer points can be argued. I'm unsure how well modern Islam can fully adhere to Democratic tenets. From what I have seen with modern Islamic countries...is a false sense of Democracy, where elections are skewed, religion rules the day and freedoms for all are suppressed...but at least they can cast a pointless vote.
Yes, with Iran, the US has thwarted the will of the people and ended up regretting it. The US backed Shah messed up the country, Khomeni came in stabilized things but drove the country toward ultra-Conservatism. Right now...they have a Jew Hating Holocaust denying loony President, backed by an Islamic authority.. This type of government can be a serious threat to the stability of the region...especially with long range Nuclear weapons. I think the people of Iran are progressive, most especially the youth, but restrained by a fundamentalist and oppressive government rigging elections. Yeah, sounds the Bush era. Anyway...I hope things can change for better there.
Possum. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Region. He warred with Iran, invaded Kuwait, bombed Israel, committed Kurdish genocide and violently suppressed his people. Without the US-Iraq invasion, I seriously doubt widespread revolutions we are seeing now would have occurred. US/International presence in the region, as much as I find fault with the hows and whys we got there, is essential to regional stability. An Iraq revolution couldn't happen because of limited infrastructure (communications like the internet), fractured politics (Sunis Shias etc) and any scent of rebellion is violent quelled before it even has a chance. Doesn't mean I agree with the Iraq war, but neither do I disagree. At least Iraq, as a country, prior to the war was stable. Get me the intel from the SoS, NSA, CIA, Pentagon, and President and I'll give you a better answer.
Without the US-Iraq invasion, I seriously doubt widespread revolutions we are seeing now would have occurred. US/International presence in the region, as much as I find fault with the hows and whys we got there, is essential to regional stability.
orly?
how the hell do you figure? pray tell where did this little nugget of wisdom come from?
its also really heartwarming to see how all the so called western democracies have come to the aid of the libyan people while they are being slaughtered by a mad man - with weaponry sold to him by the brits and italians - admittedly, a no fly zone would have been a bitch to implement while trying to fly western corporate staff out of the country. Democracy! Yay!
Theyre so lucky the us invaded Iraq and democracy is so high on the western agenda, those blessed middle eastern revolutionaries. we really have their backs.
its definitely not "just" down to the US invasion of Iraq - i don't think that has any relevance when you're talking about Mubarak in Egypt or Gaddafi in Libya. Remember that most of that part of the world are still likely to see that as American brutality, an unjust war that was fought on shakey ideological grounds with a huge amount of civilian casualties.
"1. At the heart if it all is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future
2. ...with access to social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and eg Yfrog so they can express themselves in a variety of situations ranging from parliamentary democracy to tyrrany.
3. Therefore truth moves faster than lies, and propaganda becomes flammable.
[...]
11.To amplify: I can't find the quote but one of the historians of the French Revolution of 1789 wrote that it was not the product of poor people but of poor lawyers. You can have political/economic setups that disappoint the poor for generations - but if lawyers, teachers and doctors are sitting in their garrets freezing and starving you get revolution. Now, in their garrets, they have a laptop and broadband connection.
Hmm. yes. And again, how ironic that the one force we can probably all agree was quite pivotal in kickstarting these events, julian assange and wikileaks - is being labeled as a threat and a terrorist and sought for trial by the US- and if it is up to would be us presidential candidate Palin, to be shot / executed for the effort. What a driving force for democracy the US is proving to be in this! not
EDIT yes! democracy is starting to spread already!
My problem with it is what happens to the interests of the few when the many/the powerful/the elite/the most educated and savvy get final say?
It gets too messy. All ideologies do, right? Great in theory, a holy mess once humans get their hands on it.
No system's perfect of course - just look at England, the worlds oldest democracy, for proof of that. But injustesses and disadvantages are usually more pronounced in non democratic states than in democratic ones. Al least democracy gives you the chance to chisel away at them over time. However having democracy and then optimising it are quite different fields. Like you I'm sure that just seeing the basics in set in place for coutries like Egypt or Tunisia is good thing. By basics I mean, THE basic - giving people a free and just vote. After that you can debate what institutional and cultural checks and balances to put in place for this or that country for an eternity. But the absolute basics are essential I think.
bassie said:
It gets too messy. All ideologies do, right? Great in theory, a holy mess once humans get their hands on it.
There's always mess. I prefer it to violence. Democracy isn't an idealogy in itself - at it's best it's nothing more than a condition that allows for the messy yet peaceful negotiation between conflicting ideologies. Some get fooled by the appearance of calm on the streets of an authoritarian autocratic state as the sign or law and order. But it's all simmering under the surface or in the secrete police's torture chambers or by the fear in the night that someone will knock suddenly on your door and drag you to a cell. It was Rosevelt I think who said that ruthless dictators justify themsleves by establishing law and order whereas in reality there is neither law nor order.
i do think what bassie is saying holds water though. i mean like you said, our wonderful world's oldest democracy doesn't seem to be that effective either. Particularly since we recently had hung parliament post-election, which resulted in a shotgun wedding between those on the far left and those on the centre right, which resulted in, more or less, an unworkable non-democracy where those elected on the left are then not able to carry out the policies they were elected on the basis of. So it does beg the question, who is really being represented!
not that i can suggest a better system off hand, but its clear that "democracy" isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Particularly when it's used as an excuse to justify invasions and the loss of innocent lives.
I'm unsure how well modern Islam can fully adhere to Democratic tenets. From what I have seen with modern Islamic countries...is a false sense of Democracy, where elections are skewed, religion rules the day and freedoms for all are suppressed...but at least they can cast a pointless vote.
You are entitled to your opinion about how real or false other democracies are.
The worlds largest Islamic country is a democracy.
The worlds 2nd largest Islamic country has a democratically elected government.
The country with the worlds 3rd largest Islamic population is Asia's oldest democracy.
Sometimes a little knowledge can be useful in forming opinions.
Stax...Revolutions in effect are BY the people FOR the people. They have emphatically stated they DON'T want the US involved. Even if I think the US/International community is providing basic support, be it's verbal, financial or logistical. If these Revolutions were a direct consequence of US meddling, you'd be bitchin about meedling Imperialistic US instead of bitchin about US watching the game. Damned if do, Damned if don't.
Laserwolf... Democracy isn't JUST the ability to vote. It includes a WIDE range of freedoms...which are limited in Iran, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. Which is A reason why we are seeing these revolutions flare up across the board. What's the purpose of Democracy when freedoms and opposition is stifled/limited? Egypt and Iran has elections..Democracy?
Laserwolf... Democracy isn't JUST the ability to vote. It includes a WIDE range of freedoms...which are limited in Iran, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. Which is A reason why we are seeing these revolutions flare up across the board. What's the purpose of Democracy when freedoms and opposition is stifled/limited? Egypt and Iran has elections..Democracy?
I was not referring to Egypt or Iran.
I was responding to your statement:
"I'm unsure how well modern Islam can fully adhere to Democratic tenets. From what I have seen with modern Islamic countries...is a false sense of Democracy, where elections are skewed, religion rules the day and freedoms for all are suppressed...but at least they can cast a pointless vote."
While this statement may accurately reflect what you have seen, it does not accurately reflect the ability of Islamic countries to have real democracies.
The worlds 1st and 3rd largest Islamic populations do have real democracies, with a "WIDE" range of Freedoms. The country with the 2nd largest Islamic population is attempting to function as a democracy, but the USA has renegade CIA agents killing citizens on the streets then claiming to be diplomats. Which is making the populace think the government they elected may not be independent.
To address your new argument: Islamic countries are incapable of democracy, that is why the people are protesting...
Well, I can't address that it is too convoluted for me.
What's the purpose of Democracy when freedoms and opposition is stifled/limited?
Exactly.
(There are numerous ways to stifle freedoms and opposition.
Some countries aren't as covert about it as others.
Having said that, do people think there are no political prisoners in places like the States or Canada?)
novasol said:
Egypt and Iran has elections..Democracy?
The US has two whole parties one can vote for. Democracy?
In Canada, where I live, one requires a lot of money to launch a political career and run a campaign that even puts them on people's radar. Democracy?
What's the purpose of Democracy when freedoms and opposition is stifled/limited?
Exactly.
(There are numerous ways to stifle freedoms and opposition.
Some countries aren't as covert about it as others.
Having said that, do people think there are no political prisoners in places like the States or Canada?)
novasol said:
Egypt and Iran has elections..Democracy?
The US has two whole parties one can vote for. Democracy?
In Canada, where I live, one requires a lot of money to launch a political career and run a campaign that even puts them on people's radar. Democracy?
I don't argue with a word you're saying re democracy, but the logiocal thrust of your argument is not to un-do it but just to improve it and make it fairer and more accountable.
novasol said:
What's the purpose of Democracy when freedoms and opposition is stifled/limited?
To preserve at least the chance for reform. Do you think you'll have a better chance for reform without the precursor of at least some degree of democracy? Does any one here really seriously think that it is the democratic impulse itself that is the problem? I do hope not.
What effect, if any, do people think the US invasion of Iraq has on pro-democracy demonstrators?
The US invasion of Iraq has nothing to do directly with the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.
US influence, if anything - is waning in the region, as is being extensively reported. The notion that the US are somehow behind or inspiring what is happening is LUDICROUS. Especially if its being inferred that a wind of change and democracy is now sweeping across the region due to the US invasion and consequent military presence in Iraq.
Secondly - the revolutions are not democratic ones - they are power shifts. There is no proof whatsoever that democracies are going to be in place in any of these countries as a result of whats happening - in Egypt, the army and muslim broherhood seem to be taking over - no forces of democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Ask the Israelis how they feel about whats happening.
Libya is regressing to tribal civil war with reports of Al qaida moving in to the power vacuum. Tunisia still has its old system in place - they just got rid of Ben Ali, there is no new government, reports are the old prime minister Ghannouchi took over.
So the romantic notion of a wave of democracy sweeping over the region due to us presence or influence is BS. Unless you want to count Facebook as an instrument of US foreign policy.
Oh, and the oldest democracy in the world, of course, is Greece. Where the word democracy was invented. Their democracy is not working too well at the moment either. To say the least.
There is tons of writing on the subject at the moment, unsurprisingly:
Joffe argues that American impotence in the face of the Egyptian uprising reflects a broader decline of US influence in the Middle East, considerable though it remains. This is partly a consequence of the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, but also of the rise of China and India as rival actors in the region.
Watching American television and reading American newspapers Joffe notes a worrying and growing detachment from reality, with the biggest concern seeming to be that Egypt will be taken over by the MB and possibly al-Qaeda. This is problematic in terms of how it will shape future US policy in the region. This analysis, in my view, greatly overstates the influence of the American public in shaping US foreign policy. It also ignores the fact that on many issues ??? for instance, on resolving the Iranian nuclear ???crisis??? ??? the American public takes a much more reasonable and sober position than its formal representatives.
God that's long, you're right maybe I don't care that much!
BobDesperado said:
My "understatement" comment had to do with the "no system's perfect" part of your comment. But then I'm an Irish.
I understood your comment as you had intended it. I'm British and made my original comment with Anglo Irish history in mind. The day the UK governement finally issued a formal apology for bloody Sunday was, choosing my words carefully I hope so as not understate it, ....a belated yet symbolically important step towards mutual reconciliation.
The US has two whole parties one can vote for. Democracy?
Have you ever been to the US? There are parties galore here. Plus independents. Plus write-in votes.
Yes, and they have such a powerful effect on our government and society as a whole...
And that has exactly what to do with the basic question?
You could start the Horseleech Party today if you wanted.
If "democracy" has to mean every voice and position gets the same representation then let's just change the word to magicocracy.
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.
If "democracy" has to mean every voice and position gets the same representation then let's just change the word to magicocracy.
Please. Every voice and position is not realistic but a better model of representation is.
Somewhere within all the amendments and footnotes, that is what a constitutional republic is, right? Its roots being, in the simplest definition, rule by both the wealthy and the poor. Edit - rule by and accountability to both.
If "democracy" has to mean every voice and position gets the same representation then let's just change the word to magicocracy.
Please. Every voice and position is not realistic but a better model of representation is.
Somewhere within all the amendments and footnotes, that is what a constitutional republic is, right? Its roots being, in the simplest definition, rule by both the wealthy and the poor.
I'm cool with your view of better governance. When you asked on page 1 "Is democracy really that great?" I think that what you really meant was "How can we have more and fairer democracy?"
Comments
I'm not sure their happiness can be established. I've been there and they seem very cranky.
Yes, with Iran, the US has thwarted the will of the people and ended up regretting it. The US backed Shah messed up the country, Khomeni came in stabilized things but drove the country toward ultra-Conservatism. Right now...they have a Jew Hating Holocaust denying loony President, backed by an Islamic authority.. This type of government can be a serious threat to the stability of the region...especially with long range Nuclear weapons. I think the people of Iran are progressive, most especially the youth, but restrained by a fundamentalist and oppressive government rigging elections. Yeah, sounds the Bush era. Anyway...I hope things can change for better there.
Possum. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Region. He warred with Iran, invaded Kuwait, bombed Israel, committed Kurdish genocide and violently suppressed his people. Without the US-Iraq invasion, I seriously doubt widespread revolutions we are seeing now would have occurred. US/International presence in the region, as much as I find fault with the hows and whys we got there, is essential to regional stability. An Iraq revolution couldn't happen because of limited infrastructure (communications like the internet), fractured politics (Sunis Shias etc) and any scent of rebellion is violent quelled before it even has a chance. Doesn't mean I agree with the Iraq war, but neither do I disagree. At least Iraq, as a country, prior to the war was stable. Get me the intel from the SoS, NSA, CIA, Pentagon, and President and I'll give you a better answer.
orly?
how the hell do you figure? pray tell where did this little nugget of wisdom come from?
its also really heartwarming to see how all the so called western democracies have come to the aid of the libyan people while they are being slaughtered by a mad man - with weaponry sold to him by the brits and italians - admittedly, a no fly zone would have been a bitch to implement while trying to fly western corporate staff out of the country. Democracy! Yay!
Theyre so lucky the us invaded Iraq and democracy is so high on the western agenda, those blessed middle eastern revolutionaries. we really have their backs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html
its definitely not "just" down to the US invasion of Iraq - i don't think that has any relevance when you're talking about Mubarak in Egypt or Gaddafi in Libya. Remember that most of that part of the world are still likely to see that as American brutality, an unjust war that was fought on shakey ideological grounds with a huge amount of civilian casualties.
"1. At the heart if it all is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future
2. ...with access to social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and eg Yfrog so they can express themselves in a variety of situations ranging from parliamentary democracy to tyrrany.
3. Therefore truth moves faster than lies, and propaganda becomes flammable.
[...]
11.To amplify: I can't find the quote but one of the historians of the French Revolution of 1789 wrote that it was not the product of poor people but of poor lawyers. You can have political/economic setups that disappoint the poor for generations - but if lawyers, teachers and doctors are sitting in their garrets freezing and starving you get revolution. Now, in their garrets, they have a laptop and broadband connection.
"
Quoted for truth.
EDIT yes! democracy is starting to spread already!
Al Qaida Establishing Islamic Emirate in Libya - headed by former Gitmo prisoner
No system's perfect of course - just look at England, the worlds oldest democracy, for proof of that. But injustesses and disadvantages are usually more pronounced in non democratic states than in democratic ones. Al least democracy gives you the chance to chisel away at them over time. However having democracy and then optimising it are quite different fields. Like you I'm sure that just seeing the basics in set in place for coutries like Egypt or Tunisia is good thing. By basics I mean, THE basic - giving people a free and just vote. After that you can debate what institutional and cultural checks and balances to put in place for this or that country for an eternity. But the absolute basics are essential I think.
There's always mess. I prefer it to violence. Democracy isn't an idealogy in itself - at it's best it's nothing more than a condition that allows for the messy yet peaceful negotiation between conflicting ideologies. Some get fooled by the appearance of calm on the streets of an authoritarian autocratic state as the sign or law and order. But it's all simmering under the surface or in the secrete police's torture chambers or by the fear in the night that someone will knock suddenly on your door and drag you to a cell. It was Rosevelt I think who said that ruthless dictators justify themsleves by establishing law and order whereas in reality there is neither law nor order.
not that i can suggest a better system off hand, but its clear that "democracy" isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Particularly when it's used as an excuse to justify invasions and the loss of innocent lives.
Understatement of the millenium. (Plus the "world's oldest democracy" claim is kind of weak.)
You are entitled to your opinion about how real or false other democracies are.
The worlds largest Islamic country is a democracy.
The worlds 2nd largest Islamic country has a democratically elected government.
The country with the worlds 3rd largest Islamic population is Asia's oldest democracy.
Sometimes a little knowledge can be useful in forming opinions.
Kind of like making a counter-claim without backing it up with hard fact. Maybe you're right but don't just say it, show it
Laserwolf... Democracy isn't JUST the ability to vote. It includes a WIDE range of freedoms...which are limited in Iran, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. Which is A reason why we are seeing these revolutions flare up across the board. What's the purpose of Democracy when freedoms and opposition is stifled/limited? Egypt and Iran has elections..Democracy?
I was not referring to Egypt or Iran.
I was responding to your statement:
"I'm unsure how well modern Islam can fully adhere to Democratic tenets. From what I have seen with modern Islamic countries...is a false sense of Democracy, where elections are skewed, religion rules the day and freedoms for all are suppressed...but at least they can cast a pointless vote."
While this statement may accurately reflect what you have seen, it does not accurately reflect the ability of Islamic countries to have real democracies.
The worlds 1st and 3rd largest Islamic populations do have real democracies, with a "WIDE" range of Freedoms. The country with the 2nd largest Islamic population is attempting to function as a democracy, but the USA has renegade CIA agents killing citizens on the streets then claiming to be diplomats. Which is making the populace think the government they elected may not be independent.
To address your new argument: Islamic countries are incapable of democracy, that is why the people are protesting...
Well, I can't address that it is too convoluted for me.
(There are numerous ways to stifle freedoms and opposition.
Some countries aren't as covert about it as others.
Having said that, do people think there are no political prisoners in places like the States or Canada?)
The US has two whole parties one can vote for. Democracy?
In Canada, where I live, one requires a lot of money to launch a political career and run a campaign that even puts them on people's radar. Democracy?
I don't argue with a word you're saying re democracy, but the logiocal thrust of your argument is not to un-do it but just to improve it and make it fairer and more accountable.
To preserve at least the chance for reform. Do you think you'll have a better chance for reform without the precursor of at least some degree of democracy? Does any one here really seriously think that it is the democratic impulse itself that is the problem? I do hope not.
There's a discussion here if you really care.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,,-80426,00.html
My "understatement" comment had to do with the "no system's perfect" part of your comment. But then I'm an Irish.
Have you ever been to the US? There are parties galore here. Plus independents. Plus write-in votes.
The US invasion of Iraq has nothing to do directly with the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc.
US influence, if anything - is waning in the region, as is being extensively reported. The notion that the US are somehow behind or inspiring what is happening is LUDICROUS. Especially if its being inferred that a wind of change and democracy is now sweeping across the region due to the US invasion and consequent military presence in Iraq.
Secondly - the revolutions are not democratic ones - they are power shifts. There is no proof whatsoever that democracies are going to be in place in any of these countries as a result of whats happening - in Egypt, the army and muslim broherhood seem to be taking over - no forces of democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Ask the Israelis how they feel about whats happening.
Libya is regressing to tribal civil war with reports of Al qaida moving in to the power vacuum. Tunisia still has its old system in place - they just got rid of Ben Ali, there is no new government, reports are the old prime minister Ghannouchi took over.
So the romantic notion of a wave of democracy sweeping over the region due to us presence or influence is BS. Unless you want to count Facebook as an instrument of US foreign policy.
Oh, and the oldest democracy in the world, of course, is Greece. Where the word democracy was invented. Their democracy is not working too well at the moment either. To say the least.
There is tons of writing on the subject at the moment, unsurprisingly:
full article:
Revolution in Egypt, where next?
Yes, and they have such a powerful effect on our government and society as a whole...
I understood your comment as you had intended it. I'm British and made my original comment with Anglo Irish history in mind. The day the UK governement finally issued a formal apology for bloody Sunday was, choosing my words carefully I hope so as not understate it, ....a belated yet symbolically important step towards mutual reconciliation.
And that has exactly what to do with the basic question?
You could start the Horseleech Party today if you wanted.
If "democracy" has to mean every voice and position gets the same representation then let's just change the word to magicocracy.
Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions. It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.
Yes, I have been to the States many times.
I have never voted there.
School me - how many independents hold seats?
True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.
Please. Every voice and position is not realistic but a better model of representation is.
Somewhere within all the amendments and footnotes, that is what a constitutional republic is, right? Its roots being, in the simplest definition, rule by both the wealthy and the poor. Edit - rule by and accountability to both.
It means that, for all intents and purpose, the U.S. is a two party country and has been for at least 150 years.
LMFAO, but go ahead, please tell the story of how independent/third party candidates shaped America.
(Though if that Nader fellow runs 60 more times or so he may end up as the mayor of somewhere)
I'm cool with your view of better governance. When you asked on page 1 "Is democracy really that great?" I think that what you really meant was "How can we have more and fairer democracy?"