Can you force a democracy on a nation?

[Tuukka]

A question for those who are more knowledgeable about history than I am:

IMHO the biggest key issue about the war on Iraq is that USA is trying by force to overthrow a totalitarian goverment and replace it with a democratic goverment. Iraq has never been a democratic country and has no any kind of democratic tradition at all with free elections etc.

Are there any examples in history where this kind of approach has worked? I think there has been several instances where it has failed terribly, but I recall that everytime a totalitarian country has become a democratic one, it happened because the people of that nation created a revolution and overthrew the totalitarian regime away by themselves, without another country interfering in the way USA is interfering with Iraq.

Can you give some examples of both succesful and failed attempts similar to what USA is doing now? And do you think it's possible for another country to create a working democracy by overthrowing a totalitarian goverment and giving out a free election?

[Jim H]

The prime examples are Germany and Japan. It has worked wonderfully for them.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Jim H
The prime examples are Germany and Japan. It has worked wonderfully for them.

RE:

But there are two major differences with Germany and Japan if compared to Iraq:

1. Japan and Germany were in war. Their goverments STARTED an open war against far superior force and their goverments (and nations) were self-destructing fast. Once Japan and Germany lost their respective wars, totalitarian goverments were over-thrown, peace was restored, and an open election was done. If USA and UN would have conquered Iraq after the Gulf war, we could be talking about a similar situation. But now we can't do it really. USA attacked a nation which was essentially a peaceful one, even if it was controlled by an immoral dictator.

2. I might be wrong, but I recall that it was UN which decided what was to be done with Germany and Japan. Not some individual country, as it is with Iraq.

...So Japan and Germany are not really comparable with Iraq.

Also, I recall that Germany in fact was a democratic country before Hitler came. He was legally selected as a the leader of his country, but he started to abuse the power he was given by the people and slowly Germany turned into a totalitarian country. Hitler was widely loved by his people, but of course they were ignorant of what was really going on in their beloved country.

So unlike Iraq and Japan, Germany did have a democratic tradition before WW2.

[Neesh]

Originally posted by Jim H
The prime examples are Germany and Japan. It has worked wonderfully for them.
I thought I knew alot about history, but maybe I don't. Which country(s) went into Germany and liberated their people?
Ditto for Japan. I didnt think democracy was "forced" on either of them.

[Morgana]

I'm not a historian myself, so I'll let other people answer your question. I would like to at least voice an opinion, though, which may be somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.

I don't think a forced democracy in Iraq is going to work for very long. Like you stated, Iraq was under a totalitarian regime, people don't know what a democracy is, or how to function under it. Such a drastic change in government needs a lot of guidance. And the rebuilding and restructuring of the country itself could take a very long time, perhaps decades. To think that we can just go in, dismantle the government, let the Iraqis hold a free election, and then we pull out and everything will be just dandy I think is an illusion.

Another issue... I don't know what the percentages are, but how many Iraqis actually DESIRE a democracy? If they had started a revolution themselves, then you would know what the majority of the population wants. But as things are, I think the forced democracy has more of a chance of crumbling than it does of succeeding. I do hate being a cynic, but I don't think a democracy in Iraq will stand for very long once the country is on its own.

All right, back to the regularly scheduled program, let the historians speak. ;)

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Neesh
I thought I knew alot about history, but maybe I don't. Which country(s) went into Germany and liberated their people?
Ditto for Japan. I didnt think democracy was "forced" on either of them.

The USA, Britain, Russia, etc (I'm under the impression it was mostly the USA) for Germany. In the case of Japan, mostly the USA again. We heavily oversaw development of the new government in Japan - there were many changes, both political and others. The takeover is the primary reason, for instance, they use about half as many kanji characters as they used to. I'm not sure how heavily we oversaw Germany's new government, but I know we were involved.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Jim H
The USA, Britain, Russia, etc (I'm under the impression it was mostly the USA) for Germany.

RE:

For sure it was not *mostly* USA. You have to remember that Germany was divided, and practically half of the country had to live under the rule of Soviet Union for decades. I admit being ignorant about the progress of East-Germany, but I would imagine Russia controlled them with iron hand in order to make them a communistic country. This was most likely something USA didn't approve.

[Neesh]

Originally posted by Jim H
The USA, Britain, Russia, etc (I'm under the impression it was mostly the USA) for Germany. In the case of Japan, mostly the USA again.
You missed the points Tuuka made a couple of posts ago. What happened with Germany and Japan sets no precedent for what's happening in Iraq.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Morgana
Another issue... I don't know what the percentages are, but how many Iraqis actually DESIRE a democracy? If they had started a revolution themselves, then you would know what the majority of the population wants.

RE:

This is the key point, really.

There is a strong possibility for example that the majority of Iraqi people want a non-democratic goverment which is pushing with iron hand the religious and nationalistic interests of a certain group. Iraq is a very divided country with several different nationalities and religious groups. Each one feels more or less strong dislike for each other.

So a democratic country might not be what the majority really wants.

[Lynn7]

From polling that has been done in Iraq which might not be accurate but is all we have right now, people do woant a democracy and they want a secular democracy.

Democracy is hard to keep and I wonder if the US will even be a democracy in the next few hundred years. If we are successfully undermined we might go down too. Regarding our govenment, didn't one of our founding father's say "It's a democracy- IF you can keep it"

[TheDeadWalk]

I'm shady on the aftermath of the French revolution. Maybe that could provide some slight discussion.

Also, Whathaps of the KMT democratic party in China. It did swell, only they didn't have a solid leader that could fend off war against Japan, which inevitably led to overwhelming communist support. Though the traces of democracy actually led to the exportation of what is recognized as Taiwan.

As far as individual moral and ethics are concerned, I don't feel that any nation(s) should force democracy down another nation's throat.

[TheDeadWalk]

Originally posted by Tuukka
RE:

This is the key point, really.

There is a strong possibility for example that the majority of Iraqi people want a non-democratic goverment which is pushing with iron hand the religious and nationalistic interests of a certain group. Iraq is a very divided country with several different nationalities and religious groups. Each one feels more or less strong dislike for each other.

So a democratic country might not be what the majority really wants.

Yeah, its very hard to have a 'majority ruled' country when you have two types of Muslims that seem to loathe each other.

I could see them maybe having a participatory government with senators accounting for each. Who knows, but it'll be very tough and the violence is inevitable for quite some time. The Shiite's are in the majority, and that pisses off the Sooni's. So obviously the Sooni Muslims don't want majority rule...

[electriclite]

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
Yeah, its very hard to have a 'majority ruled' country when you have two types of Muslims that seem to loathe each other.

I could see them maybe having a participatory government with senators accounting for each. Who knows, but it'll be very tough and the violence is inevitable for quite some time. The Shiite's are in the majority, and that pisses off the Sooni's. So obviously the Sooni Muslims don't want majority rule...



Which brings up the question of whether having a dictator is an alltogether bad thing?

Tito anyone?

[Lynn7]

Dictatorship is horrible becasue there is no accountability. You need to rely on the fact that the one is in control might be a good man. But who will succeed him?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Dictatorship is horrible becasue there is no accountability. You need to rely on the fact that the one is in control might be a good man. But who will succeed him?

You just described monarchy as well.



And accountability? Have you been watching the 9/11 hearings?

Accountability is being passed around that thing like a hot potato.



Growing up I think we all know the world isn't black and white. All governments and leaders have their darkside.

Dictators tend to keep people's pettiness in check. I swear sometimes I see how adults act and it makes me believe they need a parent again.

Saddam kept the Sooni's and the Shiites in check, Tito kept Serbs' an Croats' hostilities in line.

Downside of dictators: they tend to kill a lot of people.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Neesh
You missed the points Tuuka made a couple of posts ago. What happened with Germany and Japan sets no precedent for what's happening in Iraq.

It does answer the question of the thread, at least in part. You CAN force democracy on a nation. Sometimes it will take.

Downside of dictators: they tend to kill a lot of people.

Elected representatives can very easily too. Just most republics have some form of control and spread the power so much it is less likely to happen.

I would agree that dictatorships rarely work very well, but when you have a truely benevolent and good dictator, that can be the best type of government. It is so rare to get such a leader that I wouldn't ever want to live under that type of government, however.

[Raymond Babbit]

Uh, just a quick thought here, but.... isn't the very idea of forcing democracy on a country in and of itself undemocratic? Isn't the establishment of a democracy supposed to be the people's choice?

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
Uh, just a quick thought here, but.... isn't the very idea of forcing democracy on a country in and of itself undemocratic? Isn't the establishment of a democracy supposed to be the people's choice?

Yeah, that's one reason many people had a problem with the supposed goals of the invasion of Iraq. What if a democratic nation votes in a referendum to become a dictatorship? It can happen. Hell, in the USA they could pass an amendment to do it if they wanted to.

[badberry]

Yes, Yugoslavia is a prime example....when the Soviet friendly dictator Tito was in charge, the nation was quite peaceful and productive. When they were 'liberated' from Communism, the country fell apart as the various ethnic groups began to kill each other. And just look at the mess that region has turned into. Maybe sometimes an iron fist is what is needed to control a country like that. Iraq is very similiar, volatile, with different cultures and ethnic groups in conflict with each other. Without a strong government keeping them in check, look at the chaos that ensues. We won't see a stable democracy in Iraq for some time.

[Neesh]

Originally posted by Jim H
Yeah, that's one reason many people had a problem with the supposed goals of the invasion of Iraq.
I like your use of the word "supposed", since the goals seemed to change. First it was namely terrorism, then it shifted to liberating and establishing democracy.
People should realise that when Congress granted the President authority to go to war in October 2002, it was “to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” We must tremble in fear before this awesome threat, while countries nearby seek to reintegrate Iraq into the region, including those who were attacked by Saddam when he was a friend and ally of those who now run the show in Washington -- and who were happily providing him with aid including the means to develop WMD, at a time when he was far more dangerous than today and had already committed by far his worst crimes. Including squashing a 1991 Shi'ite rebellion that might've overthrown him. But I guess it's no surprise to smart schmoes here that Saddam was our friend and ally for quite a long time.

Of course, the inspectors found no WMD. Why, then, should there be any surprise that terror was downgraded in favor of the invasion of Iraq? Or that Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney and associates were pressuring the intelligence community to come up with some shreds of evidence to justify invasion, Blair and Straw as well: Iraqi links to terror, WMD, anything would do. It is rather striking that as one after another pretext collapses, and the leadership announces a new one, commentary follows dutifully along, always conspicuously avoiding the obvious reason, which is virtually unmentionable.
Among Western intellectuals, that is; not in Iraq. US polls in Baghdad found that a large majority assumed that the motive for the invasion was to take control of Iraq's resources and reorganize the Middle East in accord with US interests. It is not unusual for those at the wrong end of the club to have a clearer understanding of the world in which they live.

There are plenty of other current illustrations of the fact, obvious enough to Baghdadis, that terror is regarded as a minor issue in comparison with ensuring that the Mideast is properly disciplined.

The US leaders do not care about democracy - they want a government which they will be able to control, and it looks like they will have control, and of course control of the unmentionable - natural resources.