Does America have the right to force Democracy on the World?

I was thinking about what Bush said to about Putin and russia and it occurred to me that the Policy of the US is now to reward countries that apply democracy and to punish and pressure countries that don't.

Do we have the right to do that? Are we becomming as bad as communists used to be? I mean, dont' get me wrong, I do believe that democracy is beneficial for most countries and it's what the people want most of the time...but what if they don't?

Do countries have a right not to choose democracy? Or have we become conquerors for Democracy?

 

No we dont, but it seems at this point in history, with this administration it doesnt matter.

 

What would be interesting is if a country that had democracy "forced" onto them voted to return to a dictatordhip!

As long as the people have a big say in the structure of the democracy. You can't force any particular type of model on them such as the US model or UK model for example.

 

To answer your first question, OF COURSE we have the right to "reward countries that apply democracy and to punish and pressure countries that don't."

We are a sovereign nation, are we not? Hell, we have the right to use economic and diplomatic resources to reward and pressure other countries on things as petty as whether we like their flags, not that I think such a course would be prudent.

Severian, are you saying that we do not have the right to make economic and diplomatic decisions on our own?


To the more fundamental question, Manawan, what makes you think all countries are equally legitimate?

When you refer to a government like the ones in the United States, in the U.K., in Japan, and in Germany, you're referring to governments that rerpesent their people. When you refer to Iran or North Korea, you're referring to governments that represent its small cabal of tyrants.

If you're suggesting that North Korea as a country has the right to be a totalitarian regime, what you're really saying is that individual North Koreans have no political rights.

I would have never thought a liberal would take that position.

 

If you're suggesting that North Korea as a country has the right to be a totalitarian regime, what you're really saying is that individual North Koreans have no political rights.

Shouldn't North Koreans have the right to whatever government they want?

Obviously, certain regimes are totalitarian. However, is the only "right" form of government that of democracy (or some variation) of it, and if so, do we have the right to force any nation to become democratic?

I would have never thought a liberal would take that position.

What positive substance does this add to a discussion? This is just the sort of thing that several people mentioned in DM's thread. Labeling and generalizing are two of the things that frustrate people a great deal in the Senate.

 

Social Contract Theory states that the government derives its power from the governed and that the governed must give consent to its actions.

Therefore, the only legitamete form of government would be some kind of democratic system.

 

Well Bubba,

what if the PEOPLE of a country wanted a Theocracy and not a Democracy?

What then?

 

Let the wookie win.

 

Well said, Crix.


This is my answer to any question along the lines of "what if the people want X instead of a democracy?"

All other forms of government deny the basic belief that want the people want actually matters.

There is a great deal of latitude within the category of democracy: representative republic vs. direct democracy, party representation vs. districting, constitutional monarchy, government with a state church, president as the head of state, prime minister as the head of state, unicameral, bicameral, etc.

If people want one form of a democracy instead of another, fine.

I suppose it's possible that a people want an altogether non-democratic form of government, but -- again -- all other forms deny the idea that what the people want matters.


Let's say the people make clear that they want a dictatorship -- that they don't want their voices to be heard.

If we allow it, then their voices have been heard, which is the opposite of what they wanted. If we choose to "impose" a democracy, well they didn't want their voices to be heard, so we ignored their voices and installed a government that best suits our own interests.

It's as if somebody comes up to you and yells, "I DEMAND THAT YOU IGNORE ME."

 

The impression I'm getting from what you're saying is that people can choose from A, B, C or D, but only "A" is the correct answer, even though a country should be able to choose whatever form of government it wishes.

If a government chooses something other than democracy, it seems that it is therefore incorrect and invalid.

Totalitarian governments could be chosen at some point in the future if a society (or the planet itself) wanted authority concentrated in one or a few people, in response to a huge catastrophe or some other event.

Edit: It's sort of like saying, "You can choose whatever you want, but if you don't choose "A", we're going to come in and fix it for you".

 

I agree with the first half of Bubba's post. We should of course reserve the right to reward and punish the behaviors of other nations. The behaviors that we reward and punish (and how and when) are of course debatable.

I disagree with the second half of Bubba's post and with JediFlyer's post. A legitimate government is any government that manages to retain power. If no one's toppled you yet, you are in fact legitimate since the rules and standards that you must hold to are made by you. Whether other nations will treat you as legitimate depends on what's convenient for them.

 

The impression I'm getting from what you're saying is that people can choose from A, B, C or D, but only "A" is the correct answer, even though a country should be able to choose whatever form of government it wishes.

KnightWriter, the other choices deny choice.

What do you mean by "country" when you write, "a country should be able to choose whatever form of government it wishes."

Are you referring to the ground within the country's borders? Soil can't make decisions.

Are you referring to the government? So you're basically saying that the government should choose its own form? I don't see why I should be compelled to agree.

Are you referring to the people? If you're doing that -- and that is the only way the statement has any moral weight -- then you're saying that the people should be able to make their own decisions.

Funny, that sounds democratic to me.

 

Are you referring to the people? If you're doing that -- and that is the only way the statement has any moral weight -- then you're saying that the people should be able to make their own decisions.


Of course I'm referring to the people. If the people of a country choose a totalitarian regime of their own free will and choice, what then?

 

Are you referring to the people? If you're doing that -- and that is the only way the statement has any moral weight -- then you're saying that the people should be able to make their own decisions.

The point is if they choose a government that's not to the U.S.'s liking would we be forced to intervene? Because last I checked, the Iranian revolution was by the people. Ditto to the Communist revolution in Russia.

 

When you refer to a government like the ones in the United States, in the U.K., in Japan, and in Germany, you're referring to governments that rerpesent their people.

Hmmm... really?

When you refer to Iran or North Korea, you're referring to governments that represent its small cabal of tyrants.

You have certainly got a point, but it's a bit more complicated than that, Iran and North Korea have very different complexities as well.

It's ironic that North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Social Contract Theory states that the government derives its power from the governed and that the governed must give consent to its actions.
Therefore, the only legitamete form of government would be some kind of democratic system.

And what is this Social Contract Theory and who wrote it?


To answer the question at hand though. No, no-one really has the right to force their ideas onto others.

Democracy is by no means a perfect system, I would think the ancient Athenians would be appalled at what some people call democracy now: the alarming extent of political ignorance amongst the electorate, the underhand attempts at character assassination between candidates, the astounding amount of money involved and now necessary in political campaigns, the dominance of two political parties, and the literal handing over of power once ballots have been counted. And that's just the American brand.

I'd personally like to move to Switzerland myself, they've got a great version in place.

I find it ironic that at a time when Americans and Brits are trying to bring democracy to darker places around the world, their own democratic models are being diluted by voter ignorance, apathy and emotion.

 

Of course I'm referring to the people. If the people of a country choose a totalitarian regime of their own free will and choice, what then?

But which people, KW? A country's population subtly changes every year: some people die, some people become legal adults, and some people are born.

Fire invoked the revolutions in Russia and Iran. The Russian revolution occurred in 1917. By 1980, there were adults who were born in 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, and every year in-between. Did they have a voice in determining the government? No, because their elders decided -- in a violent, less-than-democratic fashion -- that the voices of every subsequent generation would be irrelevant.

Heck, Iran's revolution was in 1979. There are now people 20 and 25 years of age who weren't even born when that happened. Funny enough, college-age Iranians are protesting, demanding political reform. Should we deny them their voice because others decided the issue for them?

 

But which people, KW? A country's population subtly changes every year: some people die, some people become legal adults, and some people are born.

I wasn't really thinking in semantics, which I now seem to be arguing about in two different threads in two different forums.

Instead of nitpicking, why not answer the question? If a population of natural citizens of voting age choooses a non-democratic form of government, what happens then?

 

You're forgetting that Hitler came to power through the support of the Germany population. So in that case, democracy was replaced by totalitarianism legally.

Did the world intervene at that point? Of course not, that would mean another world war which everyone wanted to avoid.

So therefore, if the country we want to inflict democracy on has strong allies, then we leave them alone. If it's a country that's easy to dominate, we invade. If the Soviets had threatened to openly declare war on the United States for going into Vietnam, we would have pulled out really quick.

Let's not forget how many legitimate rulers of 3rd world countries America has toppled, putting a tyrant into power instead, to gain economic resources.

America is a hypocrite when it comes to "spreading democracy around the world." We haven't had the cleanist track record, and I'm not inclined to believe the current administration at face value.

 

To Bubba:

The problem with going your route is that we didn't decide our government either. It was handed down from the generations. And it continues to suffer from an apathetic populous. The people that make up voting elections are hardly the majority of people. They're just the ones that went out and voted.

 

KW:

Instead of nitpicking, why not answer the question? If a population of natural citizens of voting age choooses a non-democratic form of government, what happens then?

It's not nitpicking to note that, by 1980, the vast majority of people living under the totalitarian Soviet regime weren't even born when the regime first came to power.

What happens if a population chooses a non-democratic form of government? My answer should be obvious: short of a violent revolution, the voice of every subsequent generation is silenced.


Fire:

The problem with going your route is that we didn't decide our government either. It was handed down from the generations. And it continues to suffer from an apathetic populous. The people that make up voting elections are hardly the majority of people. They're just the ones that went out and voted.

Surely you must see that our government at least affords subsequent generations some voice. Every two years, each adult citizen can cast a vote for a representative. Every six years, each adult citizen can cast a vote for one of his two senators. Every four years, each adult citizen can cast a vote for the president. And there's even a democratic process by which the people can change the rules: the amendment process.

Of course every older generation makes decisions that impact subsequent generations. But you must surely see the immorality of an older generation deciding that the younger generations will never have chance to make decisions for themselves.

You write, "The people that make up voting elections are hardly the majority of people." I'm not sure that's accurate unless your counting minors; since 1960, every presidential election has had voter turnout of over 50%, with the sole exception of 1996.

But even if voter apathy is a problem -- and I've seen better arguments that the problem is voter ignorance and not apathy -- it is a problem where people still have a voice. Their decision not to vote is still their decision, not the decision of some politburo.

 

Surely you must see that our government at least affords subsequent generations some voice. Every two years, each adult citizen can cast a vote for a representative.

Yes...it does, but it's not the same. If you want to extend my conclusion, no one really chooses the government that they grow up in. So how can you say the lack of one generation's choices being affected by another's is any more or less wrong than the other?

 

Here's a slightly modified question:

Can democracy be forced on anyone?

I'd say no. You can only encourage others to embrace it. In that respect, it is very much like religion. No one cn force you to become a (Catholic|Baptist|Muslim|Jew|Mormon|etc). You ultimately have to choose it for yourself.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Hathor on this one.

 

I?ll approach this from a slightly different direction.

Let?s say that a nation implemented Athenian-style democracy, running their government along the same patterns as those in ancient Athens. Or implemented a democracy in which someone became a citizen only after appropriate voluntary military service. Or a democracy in which only those with an income greater than the equivalent of $100,000 US per year could vote. Or a democracy that forbade certain ethnic ore religious groups from voting, or which didn?t allow women to vote.

Now, I?m not going to disagree that America has the right to put up trade sanctions, withdraw its diplomats and use whatever other non-violent means of showing its discontent towards the so-called democracy in question. But does America have a moral right to force their version of democracy on the nation in question via military means? And that of course begs the question, if someone else has issues with American democracy (political corruption, the two party system, the electoral collage, the powers invested in the President, or any other aspect) does that give them an equivalent moral right (if not physical ability) to force America to change its system?

 

If you want to extend my conclusion, no one really chooses the government that they grow up in. So how can you say the lack of one generation's choices being affected by another's is any more or less wrong than the other?

With all respect, Fire, I don't understand what you're asking.