Thread: Democracy and dictatorship. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026007
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
I am wondering if the problems in newly emerging democracies such as Egypt, are caused in large part by an over-expectation of what democracy can deliver. I am aware there will be many different causes and reasons, but I wonder if we are partly to blame for suggesting that democracy is necessarily the answer.
We sell it as the answer to every political problem; Dictatorship, oppression, communism, theocracy. And people have believed what we have said, without really knowing what it means, or understanding the complexity involved.
Democracy is sold as the people getting the government they want. What is not sold is that we do not all get the government we want all the time; sometimes we get our choice, sometimes we do not. When we do not we go home and wait five years. We don't engage in vast civil protest for weeks on end, or provoke civil war. Where protest happens, we don't engage in mass killings.
If we did, no government could stand, and no country could thrive.
Both sides in Egypt seem to think that they are entitled to have the choice they want, and that there is no need to compromise. They bring the mindset of dictatorship to the framework of democracy, and expect it to work.
In such a context, with people who understand nothing but oppression and the use of force, is it credible that democracy can work? Are we in the West wrong to force dictators out of power, when Dictatorships are the only way such countries can be effectively governed? Is Iraq actually better off now than it was under Mr Hussein? Is Egypt better off without Mubarak?
Perhaps democracy is not always the answer, without the understanding and maturity to accept that democracy necessarily involves the ability to accept compromise, and to accept not getting everything we want, all the time.
Is there a transition phase that could be investigated; a time of gradual change that will allow people to learn what democracy really is. In the West we have developed our political systems over hundreds of years. Can we expect other countries to change overnight, and mature overnight, from being oppressed for hundreds of years, to being capable of allowing an opposing pov to govern? Can any politician, any general, from such a land be anything other than oppressive when in a position of power?
Not sure. But I suspect something is missing in between democracy and dictatorship, and that Egypt is falling into that missing space.
[ 16. August 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Democracy gives people the idea that they are in control, and that the majority will of the people will be carried out, to the benefit of the people. It isn't meant to give a dictator power for a few years, who will impose whatever he or she will: even if it's supposed to be for the good of the people. It takes time to trust the system. Some are losing trust in ours, so it seems to me.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Democracy gives people the idea that they are in control, and that the majority will of the people will be carried out, to the benefit of the people. It isn't meant to give a dictator power for a few years, who will impose whatever he or she will: even if it's supposed to be for the good of the people. It takes time to trust the system. Some are losing trust in ours, so it seems to me.
I agree with all of that. But do you think we are doing enough when selling the concept of democracy to explain what it actually entails?
I was in Egypt two years ago, shortly after the Revolution. The people were already struggling financially because of the uncertainty, but there was a real optimism; a real belief that their new government would not let them down, and that it would represent the people.
They compared their Revolution with the French Revolution, and I very much hoped that the parallels would not be too close. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Have we learned in the West that the Government does not actually represent us? Have we learned to accept this as normal, and therefore see no point in resorting to mass demonstrations?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Have we learned in the West that the Government does not actually represent us? Have we learned to accept this as normal, and therefore see no point in resorting to mass demonstrations?
Yes.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I've just listened to a radio interview where a political analyst just made a fairly compelling argument to show that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact a terrorist organisation with no concern for democracy and who are using the current climate to inflame the situation in order to gain power. Is this in any sense a fair assessment?
*bit of a tangent I know, if it needs a separate thread perhaps a kindly host would let me know?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
Have we learned in the West that the Government does not actually represent us? Have we learned to accept this as normal, and therefore see no point in resorting to mass demonstrations?
Yes, totally normal. But our governments don't tend to be extreme so we put up with them as the least worst option.
The problem in Egypt, it seems to me, is that the democratically elected Govt decided to take extra powers. They couldn't walk the middle road.
There must be many, many 'middle of the road' Egyptians despairing just now.
The idea of folks being exhorted to go to Friday prayers today to get whipped up into a frenzy and then pour out onto the streets must be terrifying.
[ 16. August 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I agree with all of that. But do you think we are doing enough when selling the concept of democracy to explain what it actually entails?
I was in Egypt two years ago, shortly after the Revolution. The people were already struggling financially because of the uncertainty, but there was a real optimism; a real belief that their new government would not let them down, and that it would represent the people.
They compared their Revolution with the French Revolution, and I very much hoped that the parallels would not be too close.
Have we learned in the West that the Government does not actually represent us? Have we learned to accept this as normal, and therefore see no point in resorting to mass demonstrations?
We sell the ideal rather than the reality.
I think we have bought the line that the ballot box is the only valid means of protest. Parties are being voted out, rather than being voted in, on a turn-about basis with most people dissatisfied with all of the options.
The wide-scale ignorance of politics doesn't help.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Democracy is nothing more than three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for supper. So someone gets the popular vote to screw someone over. Big deal. Try telling the sheep democracy is a good thing.
What matters to me is whether or not a government is of a classical liberal/libertarian mind so that the rights of the smallest minority, the one individual, is protected.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I've just listened to a radio interview where a political analyst just made a fairly compelling argument to show that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact a terrorist organisation with no concern for democracy and who are using the current climate to inflame the situation in order to gain power. Is this in any sense a fair assessment?
*bit of a tangent I know, if it needs a separate thread perhaps a kindly host would let me know?
It's only a fair assessment if you believe that terrorist organisations are in the habit of running in elections and winning a clear majority in elections that were generally viewed as fair at the time. That's stretching the definition a wee bit.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only a fair assessment if you believe that terrorist organisations are in the habit of running in elections and winning a clear majority in elections that were generally viewed as fair at the time. That's stretching the definition a wee bit.
Not a habit, and risking Godwin, but that is exactly how the Nazis came to power.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only a fair assessment if you believe that terrorist organisations are in the habit of running in elections and winning a clear majority in elections that were generally viewed as fair at the time. That's stretching the definition a wee bit.
Sinn Fein spring to mind (albeit not quite a majority, but a lot of support at the ballot box). Hammas too, and Hezbollah.
I'd say that the Muslim Brotherhood have more in common with the US Republican Party though - vile and hateful, and not hugely invested in the democratic process, but not overwhelmingly violent.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I've been concerned with the conflation of a political idea - democracy - with an economic idea - capitalism. They are not the same. The western democracies are rather uninterested in truly democratic societies elsewhere, they are interested in having the economies openned up so they can get in and make money, with the use of individual freedom to promote that this will occur. Democracy may be either good or bad for business. It depends. And there is no difficulty overthrowing or pressuring democracies and having them be replaced by dictatorships if that is better for business.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd say that the Muslim Brotherhood have more in common with the US Republican Party though - vile and hateful, and not hugely invested in the democratic process, but not overwhelmingly violent.
Vile and hateful is what the democrat party is. Republicans are just kinda like the guy who thinks pro rasslin' isn't fake. In our state, at least, there's no reason to register with a party unless you want to work at a polling precinct.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
My understanding of the situation is that the Muslim Brotherhood was (and probably still is) the only political party in Egypt with the organizational structure and power to win in a popular election. I went to a talk a few months ago by a guy who was in Egypt shortly after the uprising, and in the run-up to elections. He said that in every city, as soon as it was clear that there was going to be change, the Muslim Brotherhood was organizing, and getting people out in the streets to clean and run neighborhoods- nothing wrong with that. But no one else showed up on the same scale. The issue is that there isn't a viable alternate. People are mad at how the Muslim Brotherhood ruled, but if they held an election again, the Muslim Brotherhood would probably easily win.
I doubt the usefulness of comparing the situation to any political situation, but I will still throw one out. You might be able to compare it to the first 70 years of post-revolution Mexico, where there were elections, but there was no real chance that anyone other than the PRI candidate was going to win.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
I think the West has oversold the concept of democracy especially on those societies that are not ready for for. There seem to be certain preconditions that must exist for successful democracies to take root and flourish. A few of them are:
1. A stable social system where wealth and power are not concentrated at the top;i.e., a reasonably strong middle class.
2. A social system that either has moved or is moving beyond a tribal society to something resembling a nation-state. I think this has been the chief problem in post-colonial Africa. When the colonial powers exited the colonial governmental infrastructure rather quickly collapsed and the old tribal rivalries reasserted themselves. Rwanda might be a good example of things gone horribly wrong. Tribal warfare could now be conducted with 20th cent. weapons. Irag is probably another example. I am still predicting that with Saddam dead and the US gone, the country will slide into a civil war where Shia controlled areas will become a client state of Iran. Sunni areas will separate as will Kurdish areas.
3. The population has at least a modicum of education.
4. A society that has had some experience with democratic institutions. Democracy did not spring full-blown from Magna Carta.The UK's parliamentary system evolved over centuries, each new step building on a previous one as power slowly moved from Crown to Parliament. The US had 175 yrs of practice, on city councils, colonial legislatures, etc., before there was an attempt at a national government. Even then the first attempt under the Articles of Confederation was a disaster. One of the most significant cases that contradicts this point is the example of post-WWII Japan. But then it is the exception that proves the rule.
What happens when democracies fail? It seems that the most common result is the institution of a military dictatorship. Cromwell, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. are a few of the most egregious examples.
Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on
:
Mere Nick, I must be terribly confused. Here I was thinking that the Republicans were vile and hateful. They seem to have spent the last 30 or so yrs. helping the rich get obscenely rich while trying to convince the rest of society that they should be content with the crumbs that fall from the table. I thought the Reps were spending their efforts on imposing Jerry Falwell-style fundamentalism on those of us who find it offensive and probably heretical. I also was under the apparently false impression that the Reps were intent on denying basic rights to women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, in fact to anyone who wasn't an old, bitter, white guy.
Thank you for the enlightenment!
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
Mere Nick, I must be terribly confused. Here I was thinking that the Republicans were vile and hateful.
If someone tells me the Republicans suck and the Democrats don't, or vice versa, I'm probably listening to a sap.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
This is typically where someone chimes in and says "FALSE EQUIVALENCE! FALSE EQUIVALENCE!"
Democracy would be better for Egypt than what they have now, but someone should warn them that it makes their discussion boards pretty predictable.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only a fair assessment if you believe that terrorist organisations are in the habit of running in elections and winning a clear majority in elections that were generally viewed as fair at the time. That's stretching the definition a wee bit.
Sinn Fein spring to mind (albeit not quite a majority, but a lot of support at the ballot box). Hammas too, and Hezbollah.
I'd say that the Muslim Brotherhood have more in common with the US Republican Party though - vile and hateful, and not hugely invested in the democratic process, but not overwhelmingly violent.
Hamas are the Brotherhood. "The Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine" The Egyptian organisation founded and funded them from the begining.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
But do you think we are doing enough when selling the concept of democracy to explain what it actually entails?
If we aren't selling enough democracy maybe its because we're charging too much?
[ 16. August 2013, 18:38: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only a fair assessment if you believe that terrorist organisations are in the habit of running in elections and winning a clear majority in elections that were generally viewed as fair at the time. That's stretching the definition a wee bit.
Not a habit, and risking Godwin, but that is exactly how the Nazis came to power.
This.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Hamas are the Brotherhood. "The Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine" The Egyptian organisation founded and funded them from the beginning.
I guess the ordinary Egyptian thought the MB would be good for Egypt , (where have we heard that before ?).
Now that the Arab Spring is turning sour the West can but look on in slack-jawed fashion . There was always a danger that the military intervention in Iraq , rather than spreading democracy , might destabilise the entire Middle East . Not that I'm suggesting this has happened .... yet.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
As I said, in the aftermath of the revolution, the average Egyptian saw the Muslim Brotherhood organizing young guys to clean up trash, paint dilapidated buildings, etc. Them's some savvy politics. I'm not going to blame the average Egyptian voter for seeing these guys organize and then turning around and voting for them, even if we have our own perspective about what they are all about.
Plus, there isn't presently a second party that might be able to beat them.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There's also the fact that in many ways Egypt is a failed economy with people requiring food subsidies and a large military that spends an enormous amount from outside the country.
Bread and Circuses and working democracy are uneasy bedfellows.
One of the most interesting books I've read in years is Donald Kagan's one book summary The Peloponnesian War. It shows how the new democracy experiment in Athens fascinated and terrified the surrounding oligarchies and tyrannies and led to all sorts of problems and solutions that are with us to this day.
Some of those events seem directly applicable to Egypt today.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Yes , I'm not blaming the average Egyptian for the outcome of what appears to be a complicated set of circumstances . It is said that the path to true love is never smooth , maybe the same can be said for democracy .
Because peaceful democracy was successfully planted in post-war Germany and Japan it was thought the same could be done in Iraq, and then be encouraged in surrounding regions. Unfortunately this whole area is riddled with various extremist groups, pursuing their own agendas, none of which seem to be the least bit interested in democracy, --- certainly not the Western version of it anyway.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I've just listened to a radio interview where a political analyst just made a fairly compelling argument to show that the Muslim Brotherhood is in fact a terrorist organisation with no concern for democracy and who are using the current climate to inflame the situation in order to gain power. Is this in any sense a fair assessment?
*bit of a tangent I know, if it needs a separate thread perhaps a kindly host would let me know?
In the last elections roughly half the voters voted for the MB, and half for the other side.
Imagine if this were the US; for the sake of argument about half Democrat, half Republican.
Would it help anyone if the party in power decided to label supporters of the opposition as terrorists?
Like it or not, Morsi won an election. The appropriate mechanism to get him out, given that his rule proved oppressive, was to have another election.
Again, imagine the US. I dare say Republicans are not happy with Obama at this point. What if they staged a coup, kicked him out, and put in an interim government. Would Democrats who took to the streets in protest be terrorists?
[ 17. August 2013, 09:58: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ORGANMEISTER:
I think the West has oversold the concept of democracy especially on those societies that are not ready for for. There seem to be certain preconditions that must exist for successful democracies to take root and flourish. A few of them are:
1. A stable social system where wealth and power are not concentrated at the top;i.e., a reasonably strong middle class.
2. A social system that either has moved or is moving beyond a tribal society to something resembling a nation-state. I think this has been the chief problem in post-colonial Africa. When the colonial powers exited the colonial governmental infrastructure rather quickly collapsed and the old tribal rivalries reasserted themselves. Rwanda might be a good example of things gone horribly wrong. Tribal warfare could now be conducted with 20th cent. weapons. Irag is probably another example. I am still predicting that with Saddam dead and the US gone, the country will slide into a civil war where Shia controlled areas will become a client state of Iran. Sunni areas will separate as will Kurdish areas.
3. The population has at least a modicum of education.
4. A society that has had some experience with democratic institutions. Democracy did not spring full-blown from Magna Carta.The UK's parliamentary system evolved over centuries, each new step building on a previous one as power slowly moved from Crown to Parliament. The US had 175 yrs of practice, on city councils, colonial legislatures, etc., before there was an attempt at a national government. Even then the first attempt under the Articles of Confederation was a disaster. One of the most significant cases that contradicts this point is the example of post-WWII Japan. But then it is the exception that proves the rule.
What happens when democracies fail? It seems that the most common result is the institution of a military dictatorship. Cromwell, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. are a few of the most egregious examples.
That all makes sense.
Clearly many countries in the Arab world have thought that democracy can be achieved relatively easily, and we have some responsibility for that.
Our own history is evidence that this is not the case; democracy has to evolve.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only a fair assessment if you believe that terrorist organisations are in the habit of running in elections and winning a clear majority in elections that were generally viewed as fair at the time. That's stretching the definition a wee bit.
Not a habit, and risking Godwin, but that is exactly how the Nazis came to power.
No. Hitler won less than thirty-five percent of the vote. There was no majority, and Hindenburg, who was President at the time*, was persuaded to ask Hitler to form a government. The Germans had no free elections after that.
*He was eighty-seven years old at the time.
Moo
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
The thing that gets missed out in these discussions is that democracy is not one thing but many. There are many models that work in different ways. There were the wittans, moots and things of the Anglo-Saxons which worked to shore up a very tribal, feuding culture without resort to constant violence. There was the direct democracy of Classical Athens where every citizen of sufficient standing participated directly in discussions. There was the Roman republican model with differing classes and factions theoretically being equally represented, there is the modern constitutional monarchy of the Westminster system, and the enlightenment model of the US. All of these were written specifically to address unique situations and unique cultures, with unique cultural and social problems.
The main problem is not that democracy works or doesn’t work, but that the wrong model is being used in the wrong society-types. A model of government needs to work for the existing way of life in a country otherwise it will just be quickly subverted and becomes just another tool of the powerful. The problem is western-centric models are being imposed, either by cultural or military propagation, on societies that are very different from us, rather than that society being allowed to develop its own form of democracy. Perhaps for a more tribal, divided society something closer to the Anglo-Saxon model would work, so every group has a measure of local semi-autonomous democracy, passing the voice regularly upwards through levels of government to the national government.
Instead we assume that a mere single vote once every four years is enough to give a mandate of representation to one man or one party and that everyone will just sit back and accept this, letting their voices then be entirely silenced for four years until they are allowed to speak once more, in such a limited, restricted way. And we’re surprised this results in people refusing to accept such artificial restrictions on their voice and instead demanding to be heard in other ways.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The other important thing to remember is that Mr. H got in on the the back of austerity imposed on Germany following the First World war .
Massive investment by the Allies following WW2 is what lead (West)Germany into democracy .
The Middle East is a completely different kettle of fish . Western activity there always seems to look more like interference and/or 'cherry picking' as opposed to any real effort at directing countries towards free democracy.
I know it's a wicked thing to suggest, but could the post 1945 success of Germany and Japan be due to the fact they were both totally defeated in war ? Unfortunately for the Middle East much of it seems to be caught in a simmering cauldron of internal hostilities, with the ever present possibility of dictatorships taking hold.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0