should the united states force democracy upon other nations?

Answer 1

No, our democracy states that people are free to choose their own path. To force democracy on them is to deny them the basic tenets of our beliefs. However, the other side is that it is for their own good for them to reap the benefits of democracy so it should please the liberals.

Answer 2

No, they should not, and cannot.

Democracy implies that the population at large can understand enough about their circumstances to make sensible choices, and that their political entity has enough homogeneity so they can agree on any course of action at all.

This requires a certain level of education, and a political system (or geographic region) which at least can agree on the basic things they want to accomplish so they will work together.

That means that trying to "impose" democracy will be a failure. But, if the conditions are there, you can "liberate" the latent democracy that may exist to one extent or another. But, they have to want it and welcome it.

What I am saying is that people have to be ready for democracy. If they are not, there is always someone who, for their own purposes, will promise anything and deliver a system which suits themselves (only). Whether there is an election or not, since an election does not necessarily mean you have a democracy.

Unfortunately, in the US, democracy has achieved, more or less, the status of a religion. But we all know how successful spreading a religion can be if it is not basically compatible with the beliefs of the "nonbelievers".

Democracy is a wonderful thing, but it took about 70 years (culminating in a civil war) to achieve even in the US. We have to be a bit more discriminatiing about where we try to plant that seed.

We can encourage "more" freedom, "more diversity" etc. etc. without trying to get everyone in the world to emulate ourselves. Different strokes for different folks. There is 0% freedom, 20% freedom, 80% freedom and 100% freedom (which is probably too much). But let people choose where in that spectrum they are comfortable.

We may be well meaning, but we can do a lot of damage along the way.

Answer 3

because forcing a democracy on a human beings is self-contradictory. Democracy is self-rule, self-decision. Forcing a human beings is the option. except for forcing a human beings to undertake democracy, there are different strategies. operating example. we are able to intrude in a rustic for the purpose of marketing democracy, of convincing the country that democracy is a sturdy concept. If the human beings of this usa do want to have democracy and rights yet are repressed by technique of their authorities, then that is clearly, conceivable and ideal, perchance even mandatory to help them and to help them of their war adverse to their authorities. notwithstanding, what is going to we do in the adventure that they do no longer want democracy? Is it no longer undemocratic to stress someone to be democratic? on the only hand, democracy implies appreciate for the want, the alternative and the consent of the human beings. yet, on the different hand, perchance that's no longer this variety of undesirable component to create a democracy with undemocratic ability. Peace isn't continuously restored with non violent ability both. when you're allowed to impose democracy from the exterior and without the contract of the human beings, then you surely of direction contradict your self because you do not act in a democratic way. you aren't any further fascinated contained in the want of the human beings (the want of the state is of no importance right here, notwithstanding regularly that is this can somewhat than the want of the human beings, which hinders democratisation). Refusing the undemocratic imposition of democracy would seem philosophically coherent, yet on second sight that is sparkling that this position suffers some logical issues. It forces a gadget to be self-unfavourable (it forces democracy to appreciate the want of the human beings in all circumstances, even at the same time as this implies respecting the alternative of the human beings adverse to democracy), that's obviously an unreasonable requirement.

Answer 4

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. -Sir Winston Churchill

Agreeing with the above I really don´t think that any country has the right to force upon other any form of government. States have their own freewill and no country can pose as the world police.

Answer 5

absolutely not.
a democracy is based on the th rights of all participants to have voice and come to consensus. _Forcing_ another sovereign nation to choose this form of govt. is not in keeping with that tenet.
(btw. the USA is _not_ a democracy .. we're a representative republic; if we were a true democracy, then the popular vote would rule, not the silliness which is the electoral college.)

Answer 6

May be only if the targeted nation was previously subject to enforced monarchy or dictatorship directly or indirectly by they U.S. so may be they should go back and enforce democracy in the system that they once implemented and supported. i.e. only if it is U.S. fault.

Answer 7

no.

maybe encourage...maybe...

unless some freak is killing a bunch of people (hitler, stalin, mao, etc) then yeah i guess... but not force democracy... intervene i guess.... and not wait til we get something in return... or something...hahaha i'll stop now....................

Answer 8

Absolutely not!! When are we going to learn to live and let live?????