Yes. Only problem is democracy leads to tyranny, but tyranny leads to anarchy, which then leads to democrac.
Democracy is such a loaded word. I believe in a representative form of government where officials are elected by the people. But yes I support democracy.
Not always, it requires an educated populace. This is something Jefferson also believed in, and what I believe has been America's worst mistake (neglecting education). Mathloom said in another thread it was the indigenous population's right to do as they please. True, just like it's our right to do what is in our interest. I worked temporarily in the Green Zone, and I've seen firsthand what democracy means in a place like the Arab Middle East. That place and possibly Egypt is nowhere near ready for democracy. Too many ethnic groups, too many religious sects, too little for value for human life, no respect for freedom of speech.
I voted Yes. Democracy is extremely inefficient, but alternative forms such as authoritarianism, or totalitarianism have more drawbacks. But for sure, for every successful democracy, there is no so successful one, such as India, the Philippines, some South American countries and so on. Lately I take the view that Democracy is just one of many factors contributing to the success of a country like the US. Also contributing to that success is the independent judicial system, the freedom of the press and the good political tradition that doesn't encroach on the aforementioned departments. But w/o a democracy, such a check and balance system would be very very difficult, if not impossible, to develop out of the whims of one or group of people who control the power. So Yes, stick w/ democracy.
Is that so? Quickly off the top of my head, the education level in the US in the 19th and early of 20th century wasn't very high, but the country thrived under the democracy. At least in the US, executive branch still holds a lot of power that is not answerable to the people immediately. How much say does an average American have in particular issues, say, in foreign policies? I don't agree with the argument that certain education level is condition precedent to a working democracy.
Actually I was think from America's point of view. If you let a country become democratic and they decided democratically that they didn't like us. I think even in that case you have to pick democracy.
dmc89 voted no, he doesn't support democracy. Can we assume that since you haven't voted and agree with his statement, that you too do not support democracy? That's a big change in your thinking since 2003.
Democracy is just an aristocracy of the people who proclaim to be well informed enough to make decisions about your life. We should be talking about how to limit the coercive power of the state. Who wields the power isn't as important.
The question is probably better do you support Democracy in lieu of stability. Obviously you support a stable democracy over a stable authoritarian regime but any new democracy or move towards a democracy goes through a transition stage where institutions are not yet established or effective in servicing the people as they would in a more mature democracy. This can be a very messy, violent, and dangerous stage on the road to a mature democracy. It's a period where criminals, extremists, and radicals can take advantage of the power vacuum. The short term result could be disastrous but ultimately democracy should win out, the desire for freedom is a natural evolution of the human condition.
it's a tarp and not a well thought out one on your part, either. I've said it's not black and white. Can't you think critically on this, as opposed to trying to boil it down to a yes/no answer on only a component of what's needed?
That is an excellent point. Democracy in the abstract is preferable to authoritarianism something else but how you get to a functioning democracy is where things get problematic.
I support democracy, but it really doesn't matter because people with the power to change things don't really care. Whether it was Reagan in the 80s, Castro or Cheney, men like them are more alike than different. It's not okay to support sadistic Right wing dictatorships just to get a political point across. It's not okay to point the finger at another country and say they're not a democracy because they want to sell you their mangos at market value. I know it's difficult to put yourself in the shoes of the poor and the oppressed, especially when we've been spoiled by living in the best country in the world. With the right patriotic words, a little fear and a hinch of intimidation, Democracy can be molded into the perfect political weapon. Case and point, last year, Mexico's Calderon, which I'm not a big fan of, came to the U.S for a conference and gave his opinion on how Arizona was dealing with illegal immigration. All you heard from one party were things like, " How dare this man come to our country and tell us what to do. That's what happens when Obama is running things." Yet the U.S can go into any country south of the Texas border and dictate how things should operate? No one has that right, only the people of those countries. I almost forgot to vote in the poll.
....unfortuately the road to a mature demoracy is made all the more messy when an external force influences the balance of power. Depending on the intemperance of this puppet government, an equal and opposite extreme forms within the people.
But Egypt has elections. Mubarak always wins 99% of the votes. Whomever replaces him will too, in the end.
I support what is best for everyone. By and large Democracy looks the part but once you allow money and economics to give various groups and people more say and control then Democracy begins to look completely different depending on your position in the society Rocket River
The US can't have both ways. I think Obama is playing it correctly. We can't say Iraqis, you go ahead to have democracy b/c Saddam sucked for us and then turn around tell the Egyptian not to have democracy b/c Mobrak is pro-US.
