The problem is that people aren't a monolith and fundamentalist sharia, like all religious nationalism, tramples all over minority rights. This is what makes me uncomfortable with the "if people want sharia" argument.
A lot of our democratic law influenced by lobbyists is trampling on the rights of the majority to benefit a small minority.
We can't bomb democracy into these countries. We have to show them that our model is superior. We bombed away many dictators, just then to be unhappy with what the people voted for afterwards. How are you going to convince the Afghans that Democracy is better than the Taliban and Sharia, when their president was corrupt and fled the country with a helicopter full of money, instead of protecting the nation?
Imagine Apple bombing the house of a Samsung user to convince them to buy an iPhone. That's what we do in Arabic countries. And while we talk about democracy, we steal what they have.
You are assuming Democracy is better, while at the same time saying that it isn't, due to who gets elected.
> Imagine Apple bombing the house of a Samsung user to convince them to buy an iPhone. That's what we do in Arabic countries. And while we talk about democracy, we steal what they have.
Sorry, that isn't what happens in the world. You seem to believe the justifications provided by politicians are the true causes of things. For example, consider the 20 year war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is ridiculous to think that the rest of the world couldn't eliminate a small group of people over a 20 year period. They are on social media. They use trackable phones. The intent was clearly not to track them down.
That's because the goal wasn't actually to eliminate the Taliban any more than the goal is to solve any of the wedge issues in politics. These things are kept alive in order to fund politicians and special interest groups. In the case of The United States in Afghanistan, there was a 20 year war overseen by Generals who have never won a war. They spent somewhere just under a billion dollars a day. In that case, Defense contractors were the ultimate beneficiaries of the 20 year war. Now that there is a pullout, The United States is sending civilians to help get people out of the country.
Assumption: Democracy is good.
Counter: Look at what democratic countries did to Afghanistan in the name of democracy, when it really was just about some a-holes enriching themselves.
Conclusion: Spreading democracy by force make a mockery out of it. We should spread it by proofing that it is better, by having a better quality of life, a fairer system, more freedom, less injustice and so on.
No wonder people in those countries don't trust democracy, they have only seen the perversion of it!
With apologies to Planck, politics progresses one funeral at a time. For example, in Afghanistan there is a generation of women who had never faced oppression from the Taliban; who knows what would have happened if there were five generations of women who had never faced such oppression.
The US is quite bad, its imperial adventures are a disgrace, and it absolutely should not have been occupying Afghanistan, of course.
That's a good point. I am Austrian, living in Germany. Perfect examples of how to do nation building after a war. Maybe we should have tried that in Afghanistan.
You may not be aware of the spectrum, but there are plenty of forms of government between democracy and authoritarian.
For instance, there can be an indirect democratic republic that is configured in a way to protect the rights of the minority against the desires of the majority.
In a democracy, any configuration can be changed given a qualified majority. If there's such configuration that it can't be changed by a qualified majority, then it's not a democracy.
Indirect democratic republic sounds painfully similar to people's democratic republics. Or infamous Putin's "controlled democracy" in Russia.
How would limited indirect democracy differ from autocracy such as in Russia or Belarus?
I'm not from US so naturally don't know every single bit about US...
My country is a constitutional republic too. But here any article in constitution can be changed with a constitutional majority. Yes, it's not a simple 50%+1 majority democracy, but it's still a democracy where the population can implement whatever changes they wish. Given that large enough part of population signs off on it.
It is impossible for correct authoritarian regimes to exist because people die. Even the most benevolent authoritarian regime cannot build the sorts of institutions required for their continued goodness after their current ruler dies.
This is one of the reasons why democracies work out more often: because leadership changes happen more often, they act as a forcing function to build better institutions. Of course democracies have real failure modes too.
Well, according to this thread, democracies are not universal because people will die too.
The question about democracy is wether democracy can ensure it's population does not go wrong way to vote in wrong people. Or does it need an oversight to make sure the society stays on track to be fit for a democracy? But if society needs an oversight, is it truly a democracy?
We can't bomb democracy into these countries. We have to show them that our model is superior. We bombed away many dictators, just then to be unhappy with what the people voted for afterwards. How are you going to convince the Afghans that Democracy is better than the Taliban and Sharia, when their president was corrupt and fled the country with a helicopter full of money, instead of protecting the nation?
Imagine Apple bombing the house of a Samsung user to convince them to buy an iPhone. That's what we do in Arabic countries. And while we talk about democracy, we steal what they have.