Do you really belive in "exporting democracy"?

Question

don't you see how stupid and ridicoulus that is? does anybody study history or anthropology? or at least knows what democracy is(and that america is not this great model )? does anybody know what "use false ideology to support military interventions" means? does anybody get how stupid and ignorant a person have to be to belive these kind of bu***hits?

to [e-mail] = you seem to have a liberal approach to international relationship...and that's fine..but i'm not arguing with that. In theory..i do hope too that other countries will reach democracy system(because i think is the better system we know till now)..and i too belive that war between democratic countries is less common thanks to democracy...i know that because is the results of the observations and studies of history of international relationships...but..waht i'm arguing is the etnocentric point of view from which the problem is seen...(and u seem to have it too)which is misleading and intellectually wrong. We behave as our society and system is "right" and the other people are asking us to "save them"...(slave did ask to be free and we did't force them to be free we just satisfy their instances)which is deeply wrong and completly not true. But american institution use this false ideology to justify their aggressive foreign politic which is not expoting democracy

they're just exporting death and caos (we brought the first civil war in iraq). ok...we have democracy and that's better than autocracy and dictatorial system...but that does give us the right to change as we want the systems of others countries..this is etnocentric...and yes we force them...that's what you do with military interventions..then u have to consider that they have other cultures and u can just export o model like a receipt.(i suggest to read Rousseau)..the truth..or what seem to be the truth, is that in this way u garantee ur egemony in the region..and usa alwais do that...today u cannot no longer create colonies but u can establish ur egemony . Do u want to support and accelerate the process to expand democracy? then u negotiate, u talk, u cooperate, establish relationship and traties...ect..YOU DON'T MAKE A WAR AND KILL PEOPLE TO "EXPORT DEMOCRACY" that juast shows that you don't have democracy!! (i'm sorry if my english is not correct but i'm italian..)

Answer 1

Democracy outsourcing? U mean US got "Bangalored"?

Answer 2

Let's look at this problem from the point of view of those nations where america is trying to export democracy, i don't think that common people in these countries support the idea because as the history shows it never helps and moreover it is getting worse than it was before.
Furthermore there is no example of exporting democracy to a country where america had no economic or political interests, so tell me if i am wrong if so called exporting democracy is a cover of a true interests of the US and allies(whatever they are: raw materials, oil, gas, profitable contracts, cheap labour, new outlets and etc.).

Answer 3

Our (American) record of success Vs failure in the venture of exporting democracy is dismal at best. With the exception of Gemany (and maybe S. Korea), I cannot think of a single success story. Perhaps those two shining examples are so because it was not America alone that did the job. Sadly, what we have produced in these attempts is/are countries like Iran (See Eisenhower's CIA overthrow). And who do you suppose is behind the destabilization of Iraq? Iran.
Ours is not a true democracy, but rather a republic based upon democratic principles.

Answer 4

First of all, the United States does not have a democratic form of government to export. Who won the popular vote for president in 2000? Setting aside fraud in counting the Florida vote (which is a real possibility) more people voted for Al Gore than voted for George Bush. In a democracy, the person who gets the most votes from the people win. In the United States the electorial college elects the president not the people.

In the 2000 election, the Supreme Court decided the election. Nine non-elected individuals decided who was going to be the next president of the United States. And they decided in such a way that it negated millions of votes of the majority of the people of the United States.

Okay, 2000 was unusual. Lets look at something more mundane and usual. Senators. In the U.S. Congress each State has 2. That means that Wyoming, with 515,000 people has the same representation in the most powerful arm of the legislative branch as California with a population of 36,457,500. Put another way, each person in Wyoming has more than 70 times more say in what happens in the Senate than each voter in California. That certainly is not democracy.

I also do not believe that the United States truly goes to war or directs its foreign policy toward exporting democracy throughout the world. It all comes down to economic interests. Economic interest right now is spelled O-I-L. Suadi Arabia is one of the most undemocratic places on earth. The Saudi royal family is a monarchy. Yet, they are the friends of the United States because they cooperate with the U.S. and moderate the influence of other oil producing states in OPEC. With all the rhetoric about establishing democracy in Iraq that has nothing to do with the reason we are there.

We are there:

1. To get OIL.
2. To influence affairs in the Middle East so we can control our supply of OIL
3. To put in a puppet Government friendly to the interests of the United States so that we can control the world's supply of OIL.
4. To establish new U.S. military bases throughout Iraq from wihich we can better control the middle east and the world's supply of OIL.
5. To test new theories of warfare to spread the ECONOMIC interest of the United States throughout the world to fulfill the Neo-cons vision of the United States as the supreme power on earth---and to control the world's resources including OIL.

When politicians decide it is time to go to war, you cannot trust the justifications they give for it. No one wants to die for corporate America in some far off land---its easier to get the inner city kids who have no future to enlist in the armed services if you sell them on the myth that we are intervening to spread democracy to an oppressed people. It is also more soothing to the ignorant public.

Democracy does not exist on a national level in the United States. Not having it ourselves, we cannot export it to others nor is that the true reasons behind our military and diplomatic (if we still have any diplomatic) efforts.

Answer 5

Of course I believe in "exporting democracy", If you have an open mind, you will realize it too. Just keep reading.

First of all, democracy is the closest political system we can devise to allow people maximum freedom. Freedom is the natural state of human beings. Psychologically, the human race craves freedom. Once basic human needs such as hunger are met, the desire for freedom trumps everything else. It is part of our genetic makeup, and makes us uniquely human.

Some people laughably say we are "forcing" democracy on people. That is like some plantation owner back in the 1800s saying, "You can't force the ***** slaves to live in freedom. That is horrible. They like being chained".

Do you want lasting peace? Well consider this: no two democracies have ever gone to war against one another. Yeah, that's correct. Not even the Faulklands War was between two democracies, because Argentina was under a dictator. So, democracy means peace, a lasting peace.

Consider these wise words from celebrated author Dinesh D'Sousa about the transmission of ideas from the West:

"I am a writer, and I write in English. My ability to do this, and to reach a broad market, is entirely thanks to the British. My understanding of technology, which allows me, like so many Indians, to function successfully in the modern world, was largely the product of a Western education that came to India as a result of the British. So also my beliefs in freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity -- they are all the products of Western civilization."

D'Sousa also points out something Americans have a hard time grasping: the most basic concepts that you and I take for granted are practically unheard of in many of these oppressive, or less developed societies:

"It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee -- the custom of tossing widows on their husbands' funeral pyres. There is no reason to believe that the Indians, who had practiced suttee for centuries, would have reached such a conclusion on their own. Imagine an African or Indian king encountering the works of Locke or Madison and saying, 'You know, I think those fellows have a good point. I should relinquish my power and let my people decide whether they want me or someone else to rule.' Somehow, I don't see that as likely."

Democracy is freedom, and universally we humans crave freedom. Once the countries of Eastern Europe saw how the West really lived, their bitterness, anger, and frustration helped topple the Communist system. Exporting democracy will accomplish a similar goal. Already, the young people in Iran no longer revere the intolerant bearded Mullah relics from a less enlightened time. They want Western music. They want to dance and have a good time. They don't want religion dominating every aspect of their lives. People all over the Middle East saw the Iraqis voting, and started to question why they can't have democracy too. As was reported in Spiegel Magazine in Germany, "the Berlin wall is starting to fall" in the Middle East.

(P.S. Before anyone gives me "Thumbs Down", I'm sure you'll read the links below to enlighten yourself.... right?)
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
To: "Simona C", who asked the question: First, congratulations on your English. I didn't even realize you were foreign. If only I could learn Czech that well (I now live in Prague)!

Where we differ in opinion is the notion that we invaded countries to force democracy on them. No, we LIBERATED them from very oppressive regimes. Obviously, we are not going to leave them to the mercy of yet another regime of tyranny, so we give them the greatest gift of all: democracy, where everyone has a voice.

Remember what Dinesh D'Sousa said: if it weren't for Great Britain exposing countries like India to Western ideas, they would still be a primitive society. However, this is not colonialism. The Iraqis and the Afghans drafted their own Constitution. We did not like the Islamic provisions, but we did not interfere. They elected leaders THEY chose. They write laws THEY decide on.

We're not imposing our philosphy or way of life on them. We are just giving them the chance to decide based on an acquaintance with ideas that are foreign to them. For example, I saw a tv program where Iraqis were drafting laws, and our advisors had to constantly remind them that Democracy does not mean the loudest shouter wins the argument. They have to let other people speak. This was a completely foreign idea to them. In their culture, you just yell and shout as much as you can to silence the opposition. If we did not familiarize them with more enlightened ideas, how compassionate would that be?

Answer 6

There has been a plethora of literature writen on this subject. No democracy cannot be exported. It must emerge from within and no two democracies are the same.

Answer 7

When George W. Bush says he is exporting democracy, he means he is imposing neo-liberalism by brute force on countries rich in natural resources that neo-liberalism needs to survive. This cowboy "let's just take it" mentality is failing in Iraq. Michael Schwartz in "Neo-liberalism on crack: cities under siege in Iraq" (Stony Brook University, June 1, 2006) writes,

Neo-liberal economic reforms have created the 21st Century slum city, with its extensive shanty-towns, degraded public services, and hyper unemployment. Small pockets of the privileged maintain a life style that resembles the ideal of capitalist prosperity, but an increasing proportion are deprived of the accoutrements of modern life: reliable electricity, clean water for drinking and for bathing, a livable diet, a habitable dwelling, and a viable connection to the economic life of the nation. In Iraq, even during the hellish combination of Saddamist rule and UN sanctions, most Iraqis kept this connection, albeit in constantly degrading circumstances. With the arrival of the Americans, conditions in the cities turned more steeply downward. And with the rise of the post-invasion war, they went into free fall.

And just who is going to pay the bill for the United States' cowboy diplomacy? The working people of course. According to the doctrine of neo-liberalism, working people who cannot cut it, who cannot come out on top in the economic survival of the fittest deserve no assistance. The capitalist State, vis-à-vis neo-liberalism, has no obligation to compensate for their failure. Working class people are mere commodities in the capitalist process who can be tossed aside when no longer capable of valorisation, that is, of making capital. Karl Marx used the concept of valorisation in his work, Das Kapital. Marx describes it as process where a worker creates more than the equivalent of his own labor value, i.e., value added beyond the cost of labor.

Answer 8

In this "globalized" society, democracy should be able to "export" itself. However, true democratic ambitions must come from within, not be forced upon. When it is indeed forced, it is akin to tyranny.

Answer 9

Yes. Why not? It seems to have worked in Germany, Italy, and Japan after World War 2. South Korea, Poland, etc. etc.

Answer 10

Exporting Democracy !!.. It goes along with Bush's saying "most of our imports are coming from overseas"..(hahahahaha)..What a mindset,Huh?

Answer 11

ideology is not often exported with out force. Yes that is absurd