Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
If America isn't a "true democracy", then neither is Canada. Both would be termed republics, more accurately. But the thread is about 'forcing democracy" not forcing republics. In common usage, democracy is usually used to term any government where the people have a say in either who represents them or what laws are put into place. In that sense, both America and Canada are democracies.
And I really don't understand people saying that X country isn't ready for democracy. Are people in Iraq not smart enough to rule themselves? Or does the Iraqi disposition somehow lead itself to domination? Again, people are essentially saying that it's not always best for a country to have self-rule.
|
Inteligence is only one factor in the developmental process of a country. With America and Canada, we have countries that revolted themselves and implimented democracy themselves. Like I said before "Today, the Middle East lacks the conditions, such as a democratic political history, high standards of living, and high literacy rates, which stimulated democratic change in, for example, central Europe and East Asia." The process from autocratic past to democractic future that we have seen in many countries is a very delacite one. In trying to build a democratic Middle East, the president and his neoconservative advisers ignore the one of the most basic principles of human existence: people don't like being bossed around. They particularly don't like being bossed around by foreigners.
Quote:
|
In common usage, democracy is usually used to term any government where the people have a say in either who represents them or what laws are put into place.
|
In common use? A democracy is a democracy. It is not some term with a flexable meaning.