p kirkes
VIP Member
In the news today President Bush will make a speech to mid-east leaders promoting democracy, civil liberties and freedom.
In the context of Islam and the proscriptions it has on believers and the entrenched tribalism of that area I question the notion that democracy is a viable form of government for them. I could include the south pacific island countries as well, but for sake of debate I'm posting only in reference to the middle east.
We in America can testify that the democracy we cherish is far from ideal, and has, in significnt measure, been usurped in favor of special interest, a creation of a political class and through it's manipulation of the constitution's provisions has nearly ceased representing the people but is more like representing the government to the people (a phrase that's been in use for a while, don't know who to give the credit).
From the founding fathers onward men of renoun have given their wisdom, energy, fortune and their lives to further our unique constitional government because democracy is fragile and needs to be defended constantly.
America was not created suddenly in a vacumn. Many years, even centuries, of evolution from Greek and Roman influence, the Magna carta, parlimentary governments, have helped shaped the foundations that America is built on. I know this is a digest version, please cut me some slack.
But the Middle eastern countries never had that background and hence the concept and application is foreign (pun intended) to them.
Therefore, is it America's business to undermine other forms of government in the world and work to substitute, without adequate background, a form of government, democracy, that is totally alien?
I say no. I use as an example, post Saadam's Iraq. Is that what we want for the rest of the non-democratic world?
You may say it has to start somewhere, and I would agree, but it has to start within the countries involved and is an evolutionary process.
Colonial America was populated by British and European citizens and or immigrants (Mayflower). They did not revolt because they did not like being part of the Empire and it's laws. They revolted because the Empire stopped treating the colonists fairly and began exploiting them. But the Colonists had the background and built on it.
So, laudable as it may seem, the notion of fostering, especially by force, democracy on a people is doomed to war, chaos, and finally despostism.
Israel is not an exception because it was reformed with a western, non Islamic population. Lebanon was a shinning star of hope for a few years, a diverse Islamic/Christian population but has descended into chaos because of Muslim intervention. They couldn't hold it together.
I welcome your criticism. Thank you,
Pat
In the context of Islam and the proscriptions it has on believers and the entrenched tribalism of that area I question the notion that democracy is a viable form of government for them. I could include the south pacific island countries as well, but for sake of debate I'm posting only in reference to the middle east.
We in America can testify that the democracy we cherish is far from ideal, and has, in significnt measure, been usurped in favor of special interest, a creation of a political class and through it's manipulation of the constitution's provisions has nearly ceased representing the people but is more like representing the government to the people (a phrase that's been in use for a while, don't know who to give the credit).
From the founding fathers onward men of renoun have given their wisdom, energy, fortune and their lives to further our unique constitional government because democracy is fragile and needs to be defended constantly.
America was not created suddenly in a vacumn. Many years, even centuries, of evolution from Greek and Roman influence, the Magna carta, parlimentary governments, have helped shaped the foundations that America is built on. I know this is a digest version, please cut me some slack.
But the Middle eastern countries never had that background and hence the concept and application is foreign (pun intended) to them.
Therefore, is it America's business to undermine other forms of government in the world and work to substitute, without adequate background, a form of government, democracy, that is totally alien?
I say no. I use as an example, post Saadam's Iraq. Is that what we want for the rest of the non-democratic world?
You may say it has to start somewhere, and I would agree, but it has to start within the countries involved and is an evolutionary process.
Colonial America was populated by British and European citizens and or immigrants (Mayflower). They did not revolt because they did not like being part of the Empire and it's laws. They revolted because the Empire stopped treating the colonists fairly and began exploiting them. But the Colonists had the background and built on it.
So, laudable as it may seem, the notion of fostering, especially by force, democracy on a people is doomed to war, chaos, and finally despostism.
Israel is not an exception because it was reformed with a western, non Islamic population. Lebanon was a shinning star of hope for a few years, a diverse Islamic/Christian population but has descended into chaos because of Muslim intervention. They couldn't hold it together.
I welcome your criticism. Thank you,
Pat
