[ethbro]

Hopefully OP will elaborate on his thinking, but I'd hazard the thoughts were something along the lines of "sectarian violence in Iraq needs to be controlled to let it become a modern country."

I.e. democracy is a fairly terrible vehicle for progressive change, as by definition you're going to be fighting against inherent conservativism (both terms used with social rather than political definitions) in a majority of your population. I know nothing on the history of Singapore, but /hazardGuess.

(Whether or not you agree with that perspective is a valid question, ofc)

[coldtea]

The problem with Iraq wasn't "democracy" but colonialism (which created a faux country out of nowhere with problematic arbitrary and non-historical borders) and invasion.

[ethbro]

Iraq has a lot of problems. Historical and modern.

And you never really commented on the original point: (given Iraq's, or any other similar state's, current state and status) is democracy and free speech the quickest path towards a more modern state?

[coldtea]

I don't think the citizens of a state are pawns or little children, so that we can ask "what restrictions on them would be the quickest path towards a more modern state".

That's the "You can't handle the truth" approach, which I abhor.

Now, if (for the purposes of discussion) say that we value having a "modern state" (which is vague in itself) over freedom, democracy, free expression, etc, then, OK, what you write might be a quicker path to it. And Iraq, Libya, etc was indeed more stable under their previous regimes than they are now (of course for those, foreign interests have a lot to gain if they are unstable, and will "help" them be unstable by playing all sides against each other).

It also raises the question what kind of "modern state" would that be, that was created with restrictions in democracy and free speech?

Historically people have shown (expressed but also proved with their actions) that they can value freedom (as they see it) over convenience and even over their lives (from Spartacus to numerous examples to many to mention). If for a state the kind of people want to be established there needs to be tension and people fighting over the outcome they want, then so be it (even if the final positive outcome is not guaranteed).

Just like France had to have the bloody revolution to become a modern state, the US had to have a revolution and a civil war, etc.

[ethbro]

Nor do I, but I allow for the possibility of the ends justifying the means still being a moral path in some circumstances. I also purposely tried to leave out "stable" as a goal adjective, as I agree that's an entirely too amorphous term.

I think Turkey is an interesting, if heavily cult-of-personality, example.

In essence, the US Supreme Court is a very real check on democracy and free speech. The former in that it can override democratic decisions, and the latter in that it has decided in several judgements that the right to free speech is not absolute (that it has not done so more frequently is kind of immaterial to the ideals of the state).

I would argue as a that historically people have show that they value personal gain more than either freedom or convenience, particularly in exactly the kind of government-today-gone-tomorrow states we're talking about.

As soon as you involve people with guns, then the person with the biggest gun starts having a better argument. Which is how you get central African transitions as opposed to South Africa.

A new state is only one of the potential outcomes of revolution. Endemic violence is another (Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq).