Why is it a common statement that "democracy" cannot be "given" or forced?

Question

There are so many examples where democracy has been given or forced and have become very successful nations that protect individual human rights. The two most noteworthy recent such events have been Japan and Germany. These progressive, successful, prosperous nations were forced to adopt a representative form of government and now are strong adherents to the rights of the individual. Why is it such a persistent MYTH that democracy cannot be given?

Answer 1

First of all, you're thinking of a republic, instead of a democracy. This is a common misconception. Democracies would vote directly on the issues, and republics would vote for people to do the job of voting on issues for them.

In the case of Japan, it was recognized that change could not be forced on the population. "MacArthur realized that imposing a new order on the island nation would be a difficult task even with Japanese cooperation. It would be impossible, MacArthur believed, for foreigners to dictate radical changes to 80 million resentful people." When rule by the people was first suggested, the Japanese were shocked, and fought over it, because they believed in obedience to the Emperor. The Emperor commanded his people to abide by the principles of "rule by the people." So, the Japanese people accepted democracy. I think it's wrong to say that the Japanese were forced to accept democracy. If it was forced, it wouldn't have worked.

The reason that many people are skeptical about giving democracy is that there is so rare an opportunity where the leader will give up his authority, and defer his power to a Republic by the people. Usually, there has to be a revolution, a fight, to take the power away. When people fight for the right to self-government, it is the surest way to know that they really want it. If you fight for them, and then it turns out that they don't want it, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to force it upon them... and so the effort will have been wasted. I'd say it's best to let people show that they want self-government by having them be the ones to start the revolution... I would allow for providing support in their cause, but that's it.

In the case of Germany, you are probably confused, because there were so many revolutions in comparison to most countries. However, Germany fought for their own "democracy" in 1848. See the Wikipedia link for this information: "On May 18, 1848 the National Assembly opened its session in St. Paul's Church... the first freely elected German parliament."

Germany ceased being a democracy on Feb 27, 1933. This is from the 3rd link: "On 27 February, the Reichstag was set on fire. Basic rights were quickly abrogated afterwards under an emergency decree. An Enabling Act gave Hitler's government full legislative power. A centralised totalitarian state was established by a series of moves and decrees making Germany a single-party state."

When Hitler was defeated, the Allies divided Germany into two countries, both republics similar to what it had been before Hitler. Establishing a republic at this point was a more natural conclusion, because it was what Germany was like without Hitler. The exception being that Germany was divided into two countries, but even that change didn't hold, and Germany later re-unified. I do NOT think this is the same as establishing a republic from scratch. It is much easier to re-establish something that already existed, both from a logistical and cultural standpoint, than it is to establish something like that from scratch.

---

Ok, I wasn't going to add onto this, but I'll do it anyway, because I feel like I never finished answering this question. I think this notion that a representative republic never originated from outsiders comes from the fact that the *norm* is for representative governments to be established by the people of that country. The two examples you gave are exceptions to that rule, and the reason it worked out differently had their unique reasons. That's what I was trying to point out. What special circumstances will make it work for Iraq? We don't have a national well-respected leader, like the Emperor, who can command the cooperation of the Iraqi people. So maybe people are trying to figure out how Iraq would fit under the category of the "exception" to the rule where governments for the people are traditionally established by the people.

Not only is there the question of can we do this, but should we do this? Perhaps part of the reason that people chafe at the idea of forcing a republic on people stems from the idea that such a government should be freely chosen (and fought for) by the people, too... and with our interference, which we of course did not ask permission before giving, is a glaring action against what we claim to represent.

Answer 2

This statement really means there's no guarantee it will take. Experience shows that this is correct. Japan and Germany were ready for Democracy, but it seems that Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries are not. Democracy is not an easy form of government. There are prerequisites. Like a high level of literacy, acceptance of rule of law and limited government, and separating religion and government. Without these, Democracy becomes "One Man, One Vote, One Time".

Answer 3

For democracy to survive and prosper it must be supported by the people for which it governs.This includes the necessity to fight to keep it as was the case in our own country the USA at the time of our founding.I believe it is a deep rooted desire by all people to have freedom but sometimes the cost in lives is too great.

Answer 4

Obviously, these people were willing to accept it otherwise there would have been more war.