Canada Doesn't Like The Outcome of The Palestinian Election - Undermining Democracy

This applies to the US, Canada, EU and others who are b****in about Hamas electorial victory. It is hypocritical and ultimately damaging to the spread of democracy to praise democracy as the most stable and virtuous form of government and then condemn a country for democratically electing a government that you don't approve of. It just makes all of the neo-Wilsonian rhetoric that GW Bush expounded on in his second innaugural look completely hollow.

Democracy doesn't equal to Western secular states since their is a context with which any election takes place. I agree that democracy is much better than tyranny because it makes the people responsible for their government so its ridiculous to abandon the idea of democracy just because someone you don't like comes to office.

DD and others are right countries have the right to decide who they recognize but IMO its a mistake to refuse to recognize a democratically elected government after you've been praising and pushing democracy.

 

For one democratically elected government to have a stated objective of wipping another democratically elected government off the map is not very "democratic."

I don't see it as hypocritical at all.

 

Can we get Canada to invade the U.S. and restore democracy. Mexico is already trying, they could use a second front in the north.

 

Why not? If the people elect in a free and fair election a party with that objective then that is completely democratic.

This whole argument that democracies don't start wars is very suspect. If enough people in a democracy support a war then a democracy will start a war even with other democracies. Just because one two countries have democratically elected governments doesn't mean they will suddenly see eye to eye on everything or resolves there disputes peacefully.

Its harder to sustain the will to fight a longterm war in a democracy but just given our own recent history its not that hard to start a war in a democracy.

 

Explain this logic. Democracy != Pacifism, although people seem to have been fooled into thinking as much.

 

No, the reaction is damaging to the spread of terrorism. It would be hypocritical if these entities supported a terrorist government.

 

Countries not allying and aiding a country they don't like isn't undermining democracy.

A country who is occupying another nation, and controling all of the monetary purse strings, and says they won't accept a democratically elected official is undermining democracy.

 

if anything it lends more credence to being staunchly violent. if hamas joins the political process and declares a cease fire for the time being and wants to negotiate and yet is refused...that makes people turn more to the military wings of these movements instead of the table to negotiate.

 

Not quite so. Technically WWII was fought between democracies since the Nazis came to power democratically. The Falklands conflict was between two democracies, one could question how good of a democracy Argentina was at the time but it was considered a democracy. Democratically elected governments in India and Pakistan have fought each other along with conflicts between democratically elected governments in Turkey and Greece. Besides that the US during the Cold War helped overthrow democracies in Chile and Iran and tried to overthrow India.

Anyway the argument is more precisely that democracies don't start wars of aggression.

 

Except that in the case of the US we have GW Bush on record as saying a the 2nd innaugural:

 

Somebody (can't remember who) was writing recently that while mature democracies seldom fight wars, fledgling/developing democracies are statistically among the most likely candidates to engage in wars.

In fact, here is the source, recent research:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=book&item_id=448

 

And when did we ever say that their 'own way' requires our $$$?



Further, you are now basing your argument on Bush's intellect? heh

 

From Sam Fisher's link.

If this does not describe what Bush claims as his goal in the Middle East.

The above: Leaders of these countries attempt to rally support by invoking external threats and resorting to belligerent, nationalist rhetoric
certainly describes America under Bush and the neocons.

There are always exceptions to the rule that established demcoracies don't act like this.

 

Democracy works under the assumption that public have accurate information.

 

I would rather them take a proactive approach with Hamas similar to N. Ireland and IRA. It is an initial hit in the War on Terror in light of any dealing with any terrorist group, but showing that the terrorists' movement gain more influence through legitimacy and credibility kills the fuel for more radical action.

Since they started as murderers and kidnappers, they'll have their initial stumbles, but if Western countries maintain funds for the Palestinian democratic process then they'll have an awsome amount of leverage over the ruling government's actions (just like the US with Israel and Egypt) as opposed to symbolically cutting off funds and stoking their hardcore factions within the party.

The Palestinians do not view Hamas as hardcore terrorists. Now that they're in the spotlight, it's much more difficult for them to blur that line of legitimacy and criminality.

Finally, if the legitimization of Hamas works, then it'll be used on the War on Terror as an example of freeing up the political process in other terrorist plagued countries, which are mostly sustained from the lack of political alternatives.

If it doesn't there's the usual real politik of passing the buck, but I doubt it would make the War on Terror worse because the Palestinians made their own bed and Hamas didn't win by gunpoint.

 

I don't know where Mr. Eisha got the idea that anyone else is required to fund his government. The Palestinians have made their own bed, and now they get to lay in it. I don't care how many hospitals and orphanages they open, the palestinian people know that Hamas is a terrorist organization. They have freakin' terrorist, er "martyr" trading cards. They choose to elect a government which anyone could have told them would be unacceptable to all of the nations that have been bankrolling them. There is an old saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." At this point, any of their whining should fall on deaf ears.