Do we really want democracy in the Third World or Middle East?

Question

For years, foreign policy was pretty simple: if your country was a third world country that supplied multinational corporations with resources, the US tended to consider those nations as "friends" or at least friendly and stable. If your country supported supplying governments with resources (i.e., Communism or Third World socialism), especially by seizing multi-national holdings in those countries, the nation was considered an opponent of the US.

Today, a claimed part of our foreign policy is to promote global democracy. Yet initial results have given us Hamas, a Lebanese government with a sizable Hezbollah faction and others. Considering that in a real democracy, the masses very well might elect the new Hitler (even if only scaled down to small country size), is democracy really, in your opinion, the way to global security. In lots of Third World countries with a few wealthy and lots and lots of poor, there is a greater chance a "reformer" will want to fix that situation.

Answer 1

The biggest mistake that we are,( USA), committing in the Middle East is "forcing" a democratic government on them. The Middle East are countries that are different from the Western countries and we have to understand that. If we don't we will fail and I think that's what is happening. Our mission is honorable but wrong. Japan is a democracy because of the war we had with them, we had to destroyed the country and then rebuilt from the bottom up. If we want to success in the Middle East we have to do the same and I think this is impossible, right now. The countries in the Middle East have to live under hard core government because of their muti ethnic groups that live in one country. We have to take the example of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. If they don't have a hard core government they can not live in peace. They are different, different from the West. In the third world too much corruption, every body wants the power to get rich, not worrying about the rest of their citizen.

Answer 2

First of all, we are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, which means, that if were spreading US style democracy throughout the world, countries would be electing offficials willing to bend to the interests of the majority.
Now, if you believe that the mass of people is wiser than a single 'excellent' individual, then democracy is, for better or for worse, making decisions most relevant to the desires of the whole. If you do not, then one must assume that only a 'reformer'-as you state, will be able to rise the people to greatness.
I would encourage you to study more closely the origin of the worlds 'reformers' however. America has not been in the practice of propping democracies in the past, but has rather propped its own chosen leaders in war ravaged lands where there is a very real struggle for power and control. An example is Iraq, where the majority Shiites in Iraq were supplanted in government in favor of a minority group, the Sunnis (I may have this backward). If you are trying to build a democracy, it seems counter-intuitive to place a minority at the reigns of a new government. How would you expect the people to react?
It takes more than executive foreign policy to build a democracy overseas--it requires the consent and commitment of the people as well.

Answer 3

One reason to want more representative democracies in the world is so that citizens of a country can be held accountable for the actions of their government. It is much easier to determine what nations are friends and enemies that way, because the people and the government of a nation are aligned. This makes the goals of a military campaign much easier to acheive since it requires less discretion from soldiers.

Personally, I think a good litmus test for a government is the answer to the question "How do I treat my own people?" This includes personal freedoms allowed and protected, such as property rights, and how many of its own citizens are persecuted/imprisoned/killed internally for "the greater good" of the regime.

In a democratic nation where individual and property rights are protected, typically, any military action will be expensive, and the expenses will be paid by the people who have the power to elect/remove the representitives who are making the war. This should deter people from using war unnecessarily, promoting international stability. The problem comes up when the people paying for the war, fighting in the war, and dying in the war are not the same people who are deciding to go to war.

Answer 4

Hello.

Your question is rather precariously worded. From the time of the Cold War the USA has sided democratic countries; while the former USSR was biased towards communist regimes.

Third World Countries still supply the US with cheap raw materials; this is where your question seems rather confusing.

Democracy is still a desired form of government across the world. It is important to not that in Lebanon, the Hezbollah is an elected body! However the emergence of new Communist regimes across the world have caused concern to the US.

Yes, the US does want democracy in the Middle East & the so-called Third World Countries! The US has avowed itself to this end. The new democracies however lack credibility. They are created by the US & are mere puppets in the hands of the US.

Thank you.

Answer 5

Is our country a democracy when the votes were rigged in Flordia,
where the son of a illumanatic is enshrined into office by a bought
off court of friends. Where the former president could be the illegitimate son of the other illumanati power family the Rock. These
organizations you mentioned were created by the CIA to keep this
chaos going on in the middle. The Brits have been doing this since
Lawrence of Arabia. These area's have had CIA interference forever. Do not think that bombs, riots and troubles are not caused
by outside instigators.

Answer 6

George Bush has seized on this totally arbtrary idea from talking to God too much: that all the people in every nation on the face of the earth should have the same freedoms as American citizens. Right there he has made his major mistake, and this is why the US has wasted billions upon billions of dollars in Iraq for no ultimate purpose. The money could be better spent right here in the US helping American citizens but no, Bush places Iraqi citizens above Americans. What Bush and his pro-Zionist policy makers just don't seem to grasp at all is that many peoples DO NOT want anything to do with our concept of government, period. So Bush is trying to ram it down their throats whether they want it or not, come hell or high water. This nonsense is going to continue until Bush is finally out of office. Let's hope that after that his successor is able to undo the damage. Let's also hope he does not talk to God too much. We don't need any more of that crap.

Answer 7

During the cold war, any tinpot dictator who screamed "I HATE COMMIES!" was considedered a "friend". It was shortsighted & simplistic, but at least everyone knew where everyone else stood. The questions now are:
1) Should people have the right to choose their leaders? In my opinion, yes.
2) Should we accept their decisions? Again, yes.
3) Are we obligated, legally or morally to suport any & all leaders chosen by their people? Of course not!

It is the 3rd question that seems to trip up many people. People should be allowed to choose their own leaders, but at the same time, they must be accountable for their decisions. If people choose to elect terrorists who want to impose their world view on us, we have a right to withhold suport from them.
I don't deny people the right to their world view, don't deny us the right to ours!

Answer 8

Democracy also defines a way of life. I've been oppoessed to forcing a way of life from one culture onto another. Democracy has to be something the people want, not something that gets imposed. That's one reason for all the failed attempts by bushco.

Answer 9

You have asked a good question. Iran is a democracy, so to speak, and it has become a theocracy ruled by religious zealots. What would happen if Saudi Arabia became a democracy—it’s a scary thought.

Answer 10

if you think they want to fix the situation, how do you explain africa? democracy is the best thing we have unfortunately, and a country being third world wont make it better. communism is known to be the most corrupt form of govt even created.