Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Forcible democracy

Page: 1(2)

14:44 / 21.04.03

Well then we'd be wandering into the domain of absolutes, which is a very tiny kingdom.

Fine. We shall give up polishing the speckled axe. Democracy is a crappy lie. I'd rather live in a world ruled by Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao or anybody really, as long as I don't get to vote for them.

:-)

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:48 / 21.04.03

Try to avoid the hyperbole. Nobody has said they wanted to live under Stalin, nor is that the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is whether it is justifiable to impose democracy. You have failed to offer a coherent argument in favour, is all. That doesn't mean that anyone is queer for Franco, only that you need to examine and explain your precepts.

Oh, and Hitler was appointed constitutionally. You might identify faults in the German constitution as a result of that, but it makes his apppointment, strictly speaking, as if not more legal than George W Bush's.

15:50 / 21.04.03

I was trying to avoid the hyperbole: no one's arguing that it's right ... just the least wrong.

Precepts, precepts, precepts. Maybe we could use some, maybe not. What are the precepts for ignoring the actions of a nasty dictator? Their right to privacy? However, not to worry -- I am not asking you to provide any precepts, because I see this argument as an ethical argument and, as such, absent any underlying "truth" on either side. Even "clear and present danger" as the sole, indisputable cassus belli would fall apart under close examination.

So, somebody is asking if it's ever right to impose democracy with the use of force and responding to positive answers with an endless supply of yes-buts. Presumably this will go on until the positives dry up and the negatives claim a victory. Unless someone would like to argue why democracy should never be imposed, it'll be a rather cheap victory, don't you think?

16:24 / 21.04.03

It seems to me like one can't impose democracy, only a hegemony disguised as democracy. Since democracy rises upward from the population, it can't be imposed - if the people want a king, they'll vote one into power, right?

16:57 / 21.04.03

Yes, but that hegemony wouldn't be unique to imposed democracies.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:45 / 21.04.03

*sigh*

Ignatius, I am asking you only to make some sense. The understanding of European and American history on which you based your first statements has proven to be seriously incomplete, and your refusal to amend your position in the light of factual inaccuracy makes it very difficult to treat your position as anything other than incoherent.

Now, the idea of installing a democracy in a conquered country has a degree of "previous", as Ignatius mentioned with partial correctness, but it remains to be demonstrated why it should always be the least worst option, particularly where its neighbours and traditional allies might themselves be anti-democratic, leading to further confusion of the situation. Or maybe democracy can be unwise for the continued relationship with the conqueror nation - the US has a proud tradition of installing or supporting pro-US dictatorships ahead of democracies of dubious or indefinable allegiance.

19:59 / 21.04.03

No, the question was actually:

is it right or wrong for one group to forcibly install democracy in another nation?

Nothing about "always."

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:03 / 21.04.03

Now demonstrate an interest in answering it - if not always, what conditions have to pertain to make the imposition of democracy desirable or necessary? You posited Germany so far, but the history may have hampered you from looking at the reasons why that was a good and right idea. Can one only decide on the advisability of imposing another form of government on a conquered nation with hindsight? Because if so, I'd say statecraft is in trouble...

22:27 / 21.04.03

"What conditions have to pertain to make the imposition of democracy desirable or necessary?"

There you go with the absolutes again. Like I said, this is an ethical argument. You know, Golden Mean, all that crap.

"Can one only decide on the advisability of imposing another form of government on a conquered nation with hindsight?"

How is the fact that it's justifiable only in hindsight relevant to the question I pasted into my previous post?

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:23 / 21.04.03

The Golden Mean is 1:l.618034...you seem now to be throwing out nonsense in an attempt to give the impression of cleverness without actually saying anything. Unless I have missed the relevance of 1:l.618034... to democracy. If you would like a less "absolute" formulation, try "what conditions *might* make the imposition of democracy desirable or necessary?", but do try.

14:46 / 22.04.03

"to use force to install a democracy in another nation" - doesn't that boil down to ensuring that the citizens of that nation get a chance to decide what they want?

The only positiong against it I can think of is one in support of national soverignity - which becomes a sticky argument the moment it's uttered. If one is opposed to one nation's interference with another, a lot of global peace initiatives fall apart.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:10 / 22.04.03

Excellent, back on topic:

"to use force to install a democracy in another nation" - doesn't that boil down to ensuring that the citizens of that nation get a chance to decide what they want?

Logically, yes - in the sense that the democratically enfranchised people can then presumably exercise their right to elect a government that will then fulfil a manifesto pledge to dismantle the democratic institutions.

Except - is this the case? Certainly, most democracies contain provisions to prevent the democracy being dismantled, so any action to do so would be extra-legal, and thus risk "stabilising" action from outside the nation and, on another level, would make those acting to dismantle the democracy nominally traitors...

15:18 / 22.04.03

Okay, so we're not talking about whether or not it's moral, but rather whether or not it's realistic.

Are we settled on the morality behind the notion, or are we bypassing it to talk about "real-world" terms?

The provisions you mention, by the way, can theoretically be superseded by democratic process. There's a difference between "extra-legal" action and reform. This brings forth another issue - by "enforcing democracy" are we talking about enforcing one particular system of democracy, or are we talking about enforcing the basic freedom of choice that is at the core of democracy's definition?

15:22 / 22.04.03

For example, while I am a supporter of America's military action in Iraq primarily because of the (unfortunately secondary) goal of releasing its people from a bloody dictatorship, I am disappointed to note that nobody has invited the Iraqi people to write their own constitution.

17:43 / 22.04.03

What happens if the people choose, in a referendum, to elect a "dictator for life"?

18:07 / 22.04.03

Leap -- Well, that might be one reason why the Iraqis haven't been offered the opportunity to put their own pen to paper as Ray mentioned. But then, it's not very different in unimposed democracies -- I don't ever recall seeing a ballot paper with a box I can tick to vote to reform my system of government. So, in a way, we're not asking them to do anything we don't do ourselves.

18:45 / 22.04.03

I don't ever recall seeing a ballot paper with a box I can tick to vote to reform my system of government

Uh...where do you live?

American state legislative elections often offer registered voters the right to vote for or against ratification of proposed laws. Canadian regional elections do the same thing.

Technically, all democratic countries allow for grass-roots movements to appeal to elected representatives on a regional, state/provincial, and federal level for legislative change. In fact, it's part of the representatives' job description to listen to their voters. You don't just have to wait for a ballot to offer you the choice, you can initiate discussion.

19:03 / 22.04.03

"uh ..." Hahahahahahaha! Water off a duck's back, mate.

Yes, I am aware you do get the chance to vote for items of legislation sometimes in the US. But I would be very surprised if you ever saw, for example, "tick here if you would like to dissolve congress" option on your ballot paper. And that is what I meant by my use of the word, "reform."

22:27 / 22.04.03

What happens if the people choose, in a referendum, to elect a "dictator for life"?

Well, for that to happen the office of "dictator for life" would have to appear on the ballot, wouldn't it? A sensible consitution would make that impossible. Here in the U.S. we couldn't elect a "dictator for life" if we wanted to, because (a) the President is limited to two terms of four years each, and (b) even if he wasn't the constitution simply doesn't give the President dictatorial-level power, instead splitting the functions of government between the executive, legislative and judicial branches at the federal level, maintaining a certain separation between federal and local jurisdictions, etc.

Of course, this assumes that the government and citizenry of the conquered nation would respect and adhere to the imposed constitution, but if they didn't it wouldn't likely happen at the voting booth. Rather, the "President" could attempt to assume dictatorial power by simply acting as if he had greater authority than that constitutionally assigned to him--he could, for instance, simply refuse to leave office at the end of two terms, announce that he was in office for life, and order the police to imprison anyone who complained. If the police did in fact follow his orders, then bye-bye constitution.

02:01 / 23.04.03

Here in the U.S. we couldn't elect a "dictator for life" if we wanted to, because ...the constitution simply doesn't give the President dictatorial-level power, instead splitting the functions of government between the executive, legislative and judicial branches

And no branch of government would willingly cede power or authority to another would they? Like the authority to declare for example?

What happens if the people choose, in a referendum, to elect a "dictator for life"?

A sensible consitution would make that impossible

Let me see if I've got this right: a dictatorship is bad because it allows people no freedom of choice, so we overthrow whatever government they do have, arrest or kill their leadership, write their new constitution for them and then decide what they will be allowed to vote on. These people now have choice in what sense?

Your new consitution is 'sensible' because it matches your preconceptions. You've freed them to make any decision that you have pre-approved. Whether such actions are practical or likely to revert to less 'advanced' systems shortly afterwards is overshadowed, rather, by the fact that you are creating a series of sattelite states, a federal empire or a succession of proxy conquests. Does this not undermine the basic precepts of democracy that you are so keen to promulgate? Is there not an inherrant contradiction in imposing choice? I'm not advocating dictatorship, I'm merely suggesting that the only valuable democracy arises from within a state or section thereof.

06:44 / 23.04.03

Your new consitution is 'sensible' because it matches your preconceptions. You've freed them to make any decision that you have pre-approved.

No, it's sensible because it's designed to prevent the situation reverting to the previous tyrannical-authoritarian status quo. If you think it's a good idea to impose democracy on a conquered population, you obviously want to maximize the chances of it actually staying around. But you seem to have missed my main point in this post and my previous one earlier in the thread, namely that, ethical considerations aside, external imposition of "democracy" is unlikely to work in practical terms, and is therefore a bad idea whatever you think of it in principle. So I'm very much not advocating the setting up of any "satellite states" whatsoever.

Disco is My Class War

07:53 / 23.04.03

Forgive me for being nit-picky, but isn't it entirely impossible to have a conversation about this as an abstracted theory? Doesn't anyone think it's important to think through the investments that various nations might have in enforcing democracy on another? (I can't quite work out where to put the scare quotes: 'democracy' or 'enforcing'? Hm. Perhaps both.) If a nation wanted to encourage democracy, it would have to stand by the tenets of democracy itself, which is the rule of the people by the people. And regime change, how we love our euphemisms, or the Third Way (ie Vietnam), wouldn't be very acceptable.

For instance. In the Iraq/US situation, in consideration of which I assume this thread began, the US has scads of reasons why it wants to retain the power of having financed and installed future Iraqi governments. As far as I can see, this has little to do with democracy and far more to do with the US's interest in Iraqi oil, and more importantly the currency in which that oil is sold. They want the oil to be sold in US dollars rather than Euros, thus prventing US economic collapse. (Look up the important words in Google for more info.) For that reason the US would like to a) prevent Balkanisation, ie the division of Iraq into Kurdish territory, Shia territory and Sunni territory; b) make sure the new regime is US-friendly, or at least is hugely indebted to the US so it must be friendly, and sell its resources the way the US wants it to.

Force is never good. But then, democracy depends on the power of force. 'Demos' literally means 'the citizens' -- for any democracy to be stable there must be non-citizens. Who are variously locked up, thrown out, put to death, not allowed to vote, etc. Force is thus endemic to democracy. Whatever democracy one might talk about, the use of force, violence, oppression etc is already part and parcel of the political process.

(Don't make me continue this rant on what a shoddy concept democracy is, now.)

No star here laces

07:55 / 23.04.03

Ray - the original intention was to talk about the ethics, not the practice, but the discussion is quite lively, so moderators aside, I think it's good this way.

I personally see the ethical argument as follows:

Reason use of force is bad:

Death, injury and distress caused to the population.

Reason imposing a system of government is bad:

Removal of right to self-determination of population.

Reasons why dictators are bad:

1) Removal of right to self-determination of population
{ 2) Possible but not inevitable death, injury and distress caused to the population cf Haus' examples }

So if we take democracy as a principle, i.e. when we say "installing a democracy" we mean "installing an accountable government that will always reflect the will of the people", there are clear and obvious reasons why one might make the argument that imposing democracy does not in fact constitute "removing the right to self-determination".

This argument, and the Churchill quote, are based on the assumption that "freedom" is the most basic and fundamental human good, and that maximising freedom in a system of government, and indeed the world, is a Good Thing.

i.e. although all systems of morality are necessarily subjective; freedom (and therefore democracy) are both subjectively and objectively good.

Therefore the imposition of democracy by force is justifiable...

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:16 / 23.04.03

And this government that is always accountable and always reflects the will of the people...that's arriving when? Becasue if that isn't how democracies function, then we're not talking about it. If they do, then well and proper. But if we're talking about ideals, then tyranny might be said to be sensitive to popular opinion as requiring manifest support from those people, moderated by civilian, police and military factions, and able without the impediments of systems unsuited to the conditions of the country to concentrate on the welfare (including the freedoms) of its citizens.

However, Ignatius did say something useful when he suggested that democracies tend to kill fewer of their citizens (altohugh the US, of course, the greatest democracy on Earth by all accounts, has a mile-high hard-on for judicial execution of its ethnic minorities); we can perhaps attribute this to greater freedom, i.e. you can do more stuff in a democracy without being killed. If that's your aim, then clearly democracy is a good system. On the other hand, if you are not aiming for that, it's a bad system. See Chile, for example, where it was judged that democracy was not a system likely to achieve the desired aims (of US foreign policy, in this case), and thus it was replaced with a dictatorship, which was the right government on a foreign policy level, even if the citizens of Chile were less than chuffed about it.

So, the assumption that freedom is objectively good is suspect (freedom to do what, exactly?) is suspect, the assumption that freedom is maximised by democracy is suspect (although seems empirically defensible), and the emergent thesis that democracy is objectively good, and that imposing it is thus morally jusitified (in fact, morally *required*, but that's another question) is also therefore suspect. cui bono? is probably quite a good thing to ask.

08:34 / 23.04.03

Haus –

So, the assumption that freedom is objectively good is suspect (freedom to do what, exactly?)

Freedom from being managed. Freedom to be held an equal rather than subservient/inferior. Freedom to be an adult as opposed to the restrictions imposed upon an ignorant child. Freedom from being patronised by a ‘benign’ dictator. Freedom from being treated as cattle. Freedom to actually face up to your responsibilities in life. Freedom to be fully human.

the assumption that freedom is maximised by democracy is suspect (although seems empirically defensible)

Strictly speaking; the freest form of society is anarchy blended with democracy – living as a private person as the majority of the time but sharing in those things that need rare joint action.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:46 / 23.04.03

Yes, Leap. You believe in anarchodemocracy. You mentioned earlier. But we're discussing whether it is justifiable to impose a democratic system on another nation by force (check the topic abstract). So, do the freedoms you define justify imposing a democratic system on another nation by force? You have already said no. Has your viewpoint changed?

No star here laces

09:39 / 23.04.03

Haus:
1) The assumption that freedom is objectively good is suspect (freedom to do what, exactly?)
2) The assumption that freedom is maximised by democracy is suspect (although seems empirically defensible),
and..
3) The emergent thesis that democracy is objectively good, and that imposing it is thus morally jusitified (in fact, morally *required*, but that's another question) is also therefore suspect. cui bono? is probably quite a good thing to ask.

(numbers mine)

1) - please unpack - in what sense is freedom not a good thing? Normal operating definition of freedom does not include criminal behaviour, obv.

2) I'd agree, hence the original insistence on discussing theory rather than practice. I would tend to say that democracies can and do deliver an approximation to "an accountable government that will always reflect the will of the people" but that there are obvious flaws in all of the systems created to date. However all other things being equal, a democracy ought to deliver more freedom than every other system (anarchy not being a system as such), no?

3) This conclusion is clearly suspect, hence the question in the first place. My curiosity is as to where the logic breaks down. It would appear that either freedom as a good or democracy as a provider of freedom is in question here. Fashions in thinking appear to be towards the belief that freedom is less important than previously thought, but i wonder if this is based on sound reasoning or not...

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:26 / 23.04.03

1) OK, if we assume that freedom doesn't involve criminality (which isn't obvious, btw. Nothing is obviosu at this point), then...no, hang on a second? If freedom is objectively good, then does that mean there is something that can be objectively identified as "criminal" also? we seem to be moving into metaphysics here. Criminality is socially defined, and I would suggest that freedom is as well.

So, are we saying that "freedom" means "freedom to act according to a set of laws created by a particular system", in which case democracy does not entail greater freedom than any other system. Or we can define it as "freedom to behave in a way that would be sanctioned *in* a democracy", but that banjaxes our objectivity clause, because it means that the concepts of freedom and democracy are symbiotic and we have to reexamine the relationship.

On democracy providing the greatest amount of freedom - way-ull, in that case, or rather with that emphasis, we aren't actually talking about it being the best possible system because it is a democracy, but rather because it provides the greatest possible freedom (not including criminal actions, for which see above). So, if another system offered more freedom, like Leap's anarchodemocracy perhaps, then we would have to substitute it for "democracy".

Which I think brings up one of the problems with imposed democracy - that it is logically incumbent on the imposer to reimpose a better system if it comes up, or if the democracy can be modernised. Once you have decided that your duty as a nation is to help other nations to ensure the greatest possible freedom for their citizens, where do you stop?

(Iraq is an interesting case, of course, where you had a dictatorship supported by a bureaucracy. The dictator is gone, but it looks like the bureaucracy, at least for the moment, is going to remain in place in some form. This period could be seen as a transitional period before the new constitution, with an eye to democracy and freedom, is delivered, or possibly a transitional period before a plebiscite on the future government of Iraq.)

10:35 / 23.04.03

Haus –

What do you mean by impose?

Do you class education as a means to imposition, or are you thinking purely in terms of military might? If the former would you include keeping children out of democracy until a certain point (level of age, education, or what ever has been reached – and if those standards are a matter of education / previous proven history of competence to act in accord with general principles, would you allow a system of imposition placed upon ‘adults’ to bring them up to that standard)?

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:46 / 23.04.03

The topic abstract says "use force to install a democracy", so presumably Byron is thinking primarily of military force. Although possibly external compulsion to change the educational system would also be applicable..

11:04 / 23.04.03

Hmmmm

There is a difference between initiating democracy by force (the same way we initiate freedom by force on our children - making them earn freedom by growing up, but until that point holding them subordinate) and maintaining democracy by force (by vetoing the democratic vote to remove democracy you would essentially negate it).

11:17 / 23.04.03

Or is democracy about the freedom to do anything BUT end democracy.....?

16:50 / 29.04.03

Democracy is solely about choosing your governers. Rights like freedom of speech were tacked on later. I suppose now they are ingrained into the concept, so whatever.

However, consider this. Freedom to do as you please so long as it is not a criminal behavior of some sort is without negative consequence to those who do not agree with being free. It can't be that hard to find someone who will boss you around, lock you in a room, or defecate on you. If you don't like freedom, then by all means, find a master. You have the freedom to do so

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:18 / 29.04.03

Historical note. actually, the early democracies had individual issues voted on by the entire citizen body. However, the "governors" of the process were selected by lot - to be exact, the Athenian boule, with 50 citizens from each of the ten tribes forming a civil service. The generals, IIRC, were conversely elected, war being far too important o leave to the lot.

Page: 1(2)