Imposed Democracy?

Question

Surely the idea of imposing Democracy on countries in the Middle East is in itself undemocratic. Revolution is the only legitimate way for a country's people to change their form of government. What are your thoughts on the subject, particularly when the form of democracy imposed in these countries by the US is a toothless form of government which they themselves don't have. And why are certain candidates not allowed to stand? What does Democracy actually mean nowadays, other than being a magic word to allow the US and UK behave as they wish in foreign countries?

Answer 1

Before answerring, it appears that some of the previous answers are a little mistaken; 1 The UK is not a republic, it is a constitutional monarchy, & 2 Germany elected Adolf Hitler in free and open elections, so it didn't work in Germany as claimed by an ignoramous, & 3 Any person who simply believes that all Iraqis are animals should be put down by a vet, as they do not deserve a life.
The UK has first past the post MPs for each constituency, and the US has it's collegiate system of pooling votes by state, yet they wish to impose Proportional Representation, which splits power among the factions, resulting in power sharing agreements amongst idealistically differing factions. The overall result is governmental paralysis, frequent re-elections, and a tough time for residents. After about 200 years, a country may form more constant alliances based on powersharing, as is the case in certain European countries where PR is used, however history shows this took many years to come about, with confusion and governmental splits during the early periods.
Simply the US & UK want a powerless government in Iraq, so they can push them around.
In the UK, Tony Blairs 'New Labour' government have consisitently denounced PR for the UK, despite the Liberal Democrat Party desiring it. Yet Tony thinks it's good for Iraq. What a hypocrite!

Answer 2

You are right; they would be better off under a dictatorship. Some people are not worthy of living a free life. Those people are animals that need to be herded by a dictator. Even if you find these methods cruel it is better that they die rather than run the risk of making members of the West especially the US and the UK to be shown as a positive force.

Answer 3

Democracy is not a panacea for all ills afflicting a country or a nation...its not a magic wand that you simply wave and viola the country is going to transform into an ideal of virtues cherished by the democratic nations all over the world. Some of the cultures or nations are simply not compatible with democratic norms..whether we like it or not...also, when Western nations esp. US & UK talk about bringing in democracy in faraway nations...the notion of their 'double standards' prop-up...or their past actions come to the mind...democracy is that which suits them...that can be dictatorship, tyranny or something else, as long as that nation has a pro-Western govt., it doesn't matter what kind of govt. is in place...case in point, Iran is today one of the axis-of-evel nations, but what about 50 yrs. back when Britain with active help from CIA disposed-off Mohammed Mosadegh's democratically elected govt. 'coz he was nationalizing the British owned pertoleum company, and then Shah Reza Pehlvi, a stooge of US & Britain, was installed as a ruler, whose tyraanical rule lasted for almost 25 yrs...or in Chile in '73 when CIA backed coup lead to the assassination of democratic head Salvadore Allende, who was succeeded by Gen . Auguste Pinochet, who over a period of 16 yrs tortured his country men, so much so that many of them vanished without a trace...basically, it all boils to this: whats sauce for the goose is definately not sauce for the gander or the notion of democracry varies from culture to culture, nation to nation or people to people.

Answer 4

I think it's ultimately pointless, democracy is not something you can force onto people, it's something they have to want for themselves.

And I think a comparison to the post war situations in japan and germany is not realistic, germany and japan both saw the value of a western style government.

Answer 5

i imagine in the concern of iraq, some thing had to be performed. i dont accept as true with the way it develop into performed. no united states could ever be lied to as a fashion to bypass to conflict..it takes the risk for our elected officials to do what their voters might want to favor them to do through no longer giving all of them the information, therefore receives rid of determination....the w hollow element of democracy. if we..the most important and maximum democratic united states cant be democratic in the most important parts, who're we and how are we think to bypass into yet another united states to inform them the thanks to run their united states. yet another interest is way of existence. some cultures are in simple terms no longer waiting for democracy. i imagine the full international should be free, yet at their own %.. you could not rigidity others to stay the way you imagine they ought to...its said as being a BULLY so some distance as leaving iraq, each and every large united states has had its civil conflict. u.s. did and seem at us now.

Answer 6

I think it maybe a sort of reverse psychology spun by the powers that really rule thinking Democracy is the last thing that will ever happen & to prove it we will use the labeled name right in front of everyone to see & hear, while mocking for it to actually happen!

Answer 7

If I understand your question, you are saying that there exist people in this world who do NOT wish to vote for their own leaders?

Why, that's the most arrogant, elitist, bigoted and possibly racist thing I've heard in some time!

Answer 8

The UK and US are both constitutional republics not democracies.

Answer 9

It worked in Germany and Japan.

Answer 10

peace is a process not a state and cannot be reached by war.
democracy, likewise, is a process, and the same applies.