| > Saudi Arabia? China? Neither was a democracy to begin with. True, and I used the term "undemocratic assumption of power", which is also true. I didn't say they were democracies, though I understand why someone might take that implication. My point was that these governments are moving away from democracy to having power more consolidated and away from the rule of law to the rule of one person. In contrast, the leaders could have moved toward democracy, announcing reforms in that direction. > Also it’s funny that you’re referring to the US - the greatest supporter of Saudi Arabia - as the noble protector of democracy and human rights. Seems like someone drank too much Kool-Aid? I didn't mean to imply any nobility or altruism about it, and I purposely omitted that kind of language to avoid provoking a tangential debate on it. Beyond a doubt the U.S.'s behavior, going back to its beginnings as a world power over a century ago, has been self-contradictory and complicated; sometimes the U.S. works in favor of democracy and sometimes against it. But also beyond a doubt, promotion of democracy has been one strong aspect of it, and it's been bipartisan until now. Reagan was a strong supporter (and yet undermined others). GW Bush claimed democracy promotion was part of his reason for invading Iraq, and they fully expected to establish a nascent democracy there and in Afghanistan. In this White House, establishing and supporting democracy is no longer discussed and is openly disparaged, and the White House openly admires dictators who consolidate power (including in China and Saudi Arabia). |