[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Some1]

Lol, all the comments

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

Countries like Iceland have not different ethnic Groups like Iraq... You cannot compare it.

And 'most' old democracies were only democratic for a certain sort of people.... Gipsies, black people, woman... and like were often excluded.

But to make my point (and make it less OT).... If iraq would be a democracy
Inhabitants:
55% arabic shi'it
25% arabic soennit
15% kurds
5% Christian, others

Ok, Irak 'always' was ruled by soennit leaders.
When there is a democracy this changes suddenly. I think a lot of people that are from the soennit side would not agree to that, cause this changes the attitude of Irak more to Iran.
This Base is not a good foundation for a 'stable' Democracy in my humble honest opinion....

What do you think?

R.

[ April 18, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Some1 ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Some1:
Lol, all the comments

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

Countries like Iceland have not different ethnic Groups like Iraq... You cannot compare it.

Yea there are stable democracies like Israel's which was my point in the first place.

As far as comparing the stability of dictatorships to democracies well forget Iceland. What about Canada? We have a very large French speaking province and we seem to manage. Got any examples of a stable dictatorship?? Do they ever Last longer than the life of the dictator?

You also seem to have a strange definition of the word 'Radical' The US is hardly radically different now from when Clinton was president. Do you know what happens when a new leader takes over in a dictatorship? I suspect that would be radical and involve a lot of killing and instability.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Some1:
[QB]BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.
[QB]

'technically not stable'?? What exatly do you mean by this. Seems to be pretty stable where I live. When we get a new Prime Minister all the civil servents keep their jobs, the provincial goverments remain in place, the local governments don't change, none of our military leaders get terminated and replaced with the prime minsters half brother, etc etc. Seems pretty stable to me.

Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off.

[ April 19, 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Fyron]

Rex:

When someone doesn't agree with me I think it's propaganda too.

I was referencing nearly every post made in this thread, actually. Maybe 10 or so (that aren't vacuous Posts) aren't rife with propaganda for one side or another (well, except for the few tangent discussions like this current one about democracies...). Those are the few that just contain real facts, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with "not agreeing with me." Please don't insert words into my statements that I didn't say any more. It is tiring.

Also Their are plenty of examples of successful long lived states that were not Democracies. One thing they all do have in common is a strong legal system. I can give numerous examples.

That isn't disagreeing with any Posts made in this thread so far, as all we were talking about was whether democratic forms of government were stable or not. No one has claimed that all non-democratic governments are unstable or anything like that.

Some1:

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

Yes it is. Democracies are inherently stable forms of government because they are designed to promote (and force) "regime" changes at regular intervals. So, there are no sudden upheavals, no coups, no seizures of power. Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments, where the old powers were not sufficiently neutered, so they still have the strength to reclaim power. Otherwise, the democracy endures. Saying that this sort of thing is an example of the instability of democracy is wrong, becuase there never really was much of a democracy to begin with in those countries.

Ok, Irak 'always' was ruled by soennit leaders.
When there is a democracy this changes suddenly. I think a lot of people that are from the soennit side would not agree to that, cause this changes the attitude of Irak more to Iran.
This Base is not a good foundation for a 'stable' Democracy in my humble honest opinion....

What do you think?

The US has so many various ethnic Groups in it from all over the world that it makes that example sort of meaningless. The government of the US changes as "drastically" as in your example all the time. Noone flees the country because of it. There was no mass emmigration of Democrats from the country when Bush won in 2000. There was no mass emmigration of Republicans from the US when Clinton won in 1992 or 1996. The UK has a number of vastly distinct ethnic Groups in it. It doesn't have any such problems either. Neither does nearly any other democratic country in the world.

Ed:
[quote] Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off./QUOTE] This is why the Ratings system should be removed... I suggest you (and everyone else) disable your rating.

[ April 19, 2003, 02:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[raynor]

Rather than arguing whether or not democracy is "technically stable", wouldn't it be more useful to argue whether or not the United States is really a democracy?

In a democracy, "supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" (Webster.com).

Again, according to Webster, an oligarchy is a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

Given the number of folks in this thread arguing that we primarily went to war just to line the pocket books of GWB's cronies, I'm surprised those same folks aren't arguing that we really don't have a democracy at all. Rather, we have an oligarchy.

[Roanon]

I think you need to agree on a proper definition of "stable" first before you can continue this thread.

Seems there are differing views about stability. Even a country where the head of state is assassinated and replaced by his murderer every year, maybe even accompanied by a short civil war of 3-4 months, can technically considered to be "stable" if this happens on a regular, stable basis

@raynor: certain standards applied, there is NO real democracy in the whole world, except maybe in Switzerland

[ April 19, 2003, 03:01: Message edited by: Roanon ]

[geoschmo]

America is not an oligarchy. I won't pretend there aren't problems, but they aren't systemic. The people have the the right to representation and even personal involvment in the governmental systems to a degree not thinkable in any other country. We have class differences, but they are for the most part self imposed and enforced. And movement between classes is possible here like nowhere else in the world, or in all of history. The problem is though that the majority of the people choose not to exersize their rights. They don't get involved in their government, or at least get educated about the issues. And they don't hold their representatives responsible when they take actions contrary to their wishes and interests.

EDIT: So in effect our system may currently operate as an oligarchy, because of the semi-permanent beurocratic class we have developed that is suffering from a co-dependant relationship with the money provided by the rich, we could as a nation at any point wake up and start operating as a living, participatory democracy. We wouldn't need a revolution, or a "regime change" or anything radical like that. Simply for the people to start exercising the rights already provided to them by the systems in place.

Geoschmo

[ April 19, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[raynor]

Sure. I agree that we as a nation could wake up and start participating in government. It would just take a bottle of smelling salts the size of, oh, say, Jupiter. But, sure, it could happen.

[Some1]

hmmmm,

Got any examples of a stable dictatorship??

Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..

Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off.

I never rated people... But what do you complain you have twice as many stars as i have anyway.

Yes it is. Democracies are inherently stable forms of government because they are designed to promote (and force) "regime" changes at regular intervals. So, there are no sudden upheavals, no coups, no seizures of power. Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments, where the old powers were not sufficiently neutered, so they still have the strength to reclaim power. Otherwise, the democracy endures. Saying that this sort of thing is an example of the instability of democracy is wrong, becuase there never really was much of a democracy to begin with in those countries.

Every 4 years a Upheaval (but following the rules) New politicy, new judges, new president...

But what i tried was including the Iraq model. Countries like that ARE instable AND ('Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments').... So, my question again, is a democracy the option GWB wants? And option for Iraq?

The US has so many various ethnic Groups in it from all over the world that it makes that example sort of meaningless. The government of the US changes as "drastically" as in your example all the time. Noone flees the country because of it. There was no mass emmigration of Democrats from the country when Bush won in 2000. There was no mass emmigration of Republicans from the US when Clinton won in 1992 or 1996. The UK has a number of vastly distinct ethnic Groups in it. It doesn't have any such problems either. Neither does nearly any other democratic country in the world.

USA is a 'democracy' for some time now... And in its beginning years it was far from democratic (for a lot of ethnic Groups)... This sort of thing takes a Lot of time, and during that it is not very (i shall use the dreaded word again) 'stable'... So, my question again (2), is a democracy the option GWB wants?

Seems there are differing views about stability. Even a country where the head of state is assassinated and replaced by his murderer every year, maybe even accompanied by a short civil war of 3-4 months, can technically considered to be "stable" if this happens on a regular, stable basis

lol

Given the number of folks in this thread arguing that we primarily went to war just to line the pocket books of GWB's cronies, I'm surprised those same folks aren't arguing that we really don't have a democracy at all. Rather, we have an oligarchy.

Im one of them...

pfew, i have pain in my eyes from my monitor
See your replies later

R.

[Master Belisarius]

[quote]Originally posted by DavidG:

Of course getting a democracy well established and stable is going to be pretty tough in Iraq.

Oh yes, but also MUST be a Democracy friendly to Occident, specially friendly to USA.
During a good time (can't guess how many time), they will have a "tutorial" government, that also will rebuild his country.
After this, only time will say, but I'm not optimistic that Iraq will be an independent country with a true Democracy... at least in my lifetime.