Iran - Foward to the Past?

bonkey

Wibbs wrote:

You may have only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal, but you have certainly not defended that viewpoint in any meaningful way.

My stance is that I disagree with the notion that democracy is some sort of ultimate system of governance for everyone. I don't believe that this has been presented as anything other than a logical fait accompli, and is then used as a basis for many other lines of reasoning. I believe that it is so central a concept to so many of the arguments here that its not something we should just take on faith.

Democracy is not some form of panacea. It is a system of governance which - like any other system of governance - can be abused and can fail. It has many strengths and can be more resilient than other forms of governance in terms of resisting abuse/corruption. Like any other system, however, it requires certain factors to be in place in order for it to be possible to succeed. (This is, I believe, unquestionable, as no-one is going to suggest that democracy cannot fail.)

Lets consider those factors briefly. Is it possible, for example, to have a meaningful democracy in a highly theistic culture? Ireland is not what I would call highly theistic, and even here we've had many decisions decried by their opponents as being little more than the will of the Catholic Church being imposed on the people through the church sticking its nose in by telling its followers how to vote. So what about more theistic nations? Is there a point where we must define religion (regardless of which religion) as a limiting factor / enemy of democracy? What then, if a country is at - or beyond - that point? Do we work to remove religion from the people in order to give them democracy?

Are we not then really saying that democracy is not the right system for such people, but that the solution is to change the people to fit the system. Maybe we're right...but how is that line of reasoning different to that employed by people who believe in other systems? They too believe that their system is the right one, and that what needs to be done is that the people who's ways of life are incompatible with the system need to change so as to become compatible, at which point they can properly embrace the system.

Independant police force judiciary and press, controls on armed forces, church and state separation and a constitution to name a few.

And if any of these few - or any from the full list - require a cultural change....we're back to the same basic principle that democracy is the best system when you change the people to fit it well enough. This, to me, is still a tacit admission that democracy is not the best system for everyone....its just coupled with a rider which says that the people (who its not the best system for) need to change.

Maybe they do, but I haven't seen that argued in more specifics then a basic stance of "they're wrong, and cannot be right unless they change to X", where X is very directly tied to our belief of whats right. I'm unconvinced that its a binary option.

You have also not responded to sand's point that the new regime in Iran has more in common with the taliban(on religious grounds) than is comfortable.

I haven't responded because I didn't take issue with that point.

Boggle

Are we not then really saying that democracy is not the right system for such people, but that the solution is to change the people to fit the system.

Its a good point but I would ask why did democracy work here in Ireland when people here followed the church like sheep?
Further more, if you think back to how much influence the catholic church had over the country, would it not at least be plausible that the people gradually changed to fit the free system that we now operate? (now my history isn't great so this is just an assumption based on fractured info)

Wibbs

First off bonkey, appreciate the comprehensive response and the well thought way you put it.

Originally Posted by bonkey
Democracy is not some form of panacea. It is a system of governance which - like any other system of governance - can be abused and can fail. It has many strengths and can be more resilient than other forms of governance in terms of resisting abuse/corruption. Like any other system, however, it requires certain factors to be in place in order for it to be possible to succeed. (This is, I believe, unquestionable, as no-one is going to suggest that democracy cannot fail.)

Can't agree with you more there, but...... .

Is it possible, for example, to have a meaningful democracy in a highly theistic culture?

I would have to say no. Church and state need to be separate for any system of government to be fair to opposing views and minorities in said state as religion(all religions) tend towards the absolute. Government based on such principles tends not to evolve for one thing and if it does it usually drifts towards fundamentalism.

Do we work to remove religion from the people in order to give them democracy?

No, I would suggest we work towards removing religion from the government. Individual religious freedom need not be affected by such a move. In fact it would be bolstered by such a move IMHO.

And if any of these few - or any from the full list - require a cultural change....we're back to the same basic principle that democracy is the best system when you change the people to fit it well enough.

If any of these few are missing I would suggest the culture/system of government is lacking the basic building blocks for a fair and just society.

Are we not then really saying that democracy is not the right system for such people, but that the solution is to change the people to fit the system. Maybe we're right...but how is that line of reasoning different to that employed by people who believe in other systems?/....Maybe they do, but I haven't seen that argued in more specifics then a basic stance of "they're wrong, and cannot be right unless they change to X", where X is very directly tied to our belief of whats right. I'm unconvinced that its a binary option.

I would say it's different for one simple reason(the Corinthians valid points aside for the moment). "Our" system of liberal democratic government allows for at least some dissension and freedom of expression. At least a lot more than a regime such as Iran's.

For me it would not boil down to "they're wrong, and cannot be right unless they change to X". It would boil down to "We may be wrong, we may be right, but we at least have some mechanisms in place which embraces our uncertainty". No such mechanism can exist in absolutist theistic societies.

My personal viewpoint would be that some cultures are more valid than others. I know it's not fashionable to say so these days(outside of silly neo-Nazi manifestos), but I honestly believe that to be true. Maybe we do need to help change the minds of others while embracing some of the more laudable traits of their culture. The charitable and welcoming nature present in Islam would be one example that we would do well to absorb.

How that's achieved is the difficulty. Certainly not by "smart" bombs raining down on cities. Maybe something as simple as, we(the UN?) will help you build your hospitals, schools, places of worship and infrastructure. We will help you develop it to the point where exchange of ideas and free and fair trade lifts us all. It seems that people will rarely kill each other if they're doing good business with each other. I suspect at that point some form of free and open government tailored to the culture would evolve naturally. It need not be "our" form of democracy but as a system democracy does seem to be the best of a bad lot.

The Corinthian

Wibbs wrote:

I would say it's different for one simple reason(the Corinthians valid points aside for the moment). "Our" system of liberal democratic government allows for at least some dissension and freedom of expression. At least a lot more than a regime such as Iran's.

Actually, were I to suggest a more utilitarian slant I might argue that the greatest advantage of Western liberal democracy is that it is the most efficient out there. Dissention is actually what allows a Western liberal democracy to self-regulate and weed out both excess and corruption.

It seems that people will rarely kill each other if they're doing good business with each other.

“Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war” - Richard Nixon (oddly enough)

It need not be "our" form of democracy but as a system democracy does seem to be the best of a bad lot.

Regrettably at present it does need to be "our" form of democracy and any deviation from this is no longer tolerated.

Sand

Interestingly, after rubbishing my suggestion, you then go on to respond to Victor, explaining that democracy right now for everyone wouldn't work either. Which is a polite way of saying that some people shouldn't have democracy right now, as it wouldn't be the best thing for them.

Indeed. Just as we are such heroes to decide that all other cultures would also fare just as well under such a system as our largely-similarly western ones do.

I just requoted what you said so wed be clear. Western style democracies stretch from North America all the way across Europe and In Asia with outposts and strongholds around the Pacfic, and other largely unfree continents.

There is no underlying cultural similarity whatsoever between them bar whats expected from either close proximity or historical attachments. Japan has a wildly different culture to Ireland and yet liberal democratic norms work there. Liberal democracy has demonstrated that it is suitable for a whole host of cultures, and there is no broad similarity between the western democracies.

"Western" is merely used as a label because that is where the institutional system of checks and balances between the wishes of the majority and the rights of the minority were largely created, tested and refined. "Western" culture had its fair share of autocratic kings and emperors as well. There is no cultural argument for tyranny, no more than there is a cultural argument for poverty or prosperity. In both cases its simply a case of putting institutions and rights in place and ensuring they work.

In regards to Victor I commented that for liberal democracy to work the institutions underpinning it and restraining populism have to be put into place. It is not democracy as we understand it without them. These are institutions and rights defended in law were talking about, not demanding they engage in some massive cultural shift. I dont see this as stating that they need to buy SUVs, watch Oprah and get worked up over some has-been celebrity having a wardrobe malfunction.

You've flat-out said it, and defended it, with regards to the like of how our established free societies can occasionally change/bend/break the rules to remove freedoms from others as we see fit, but I've only suggested that democracy may not be the ideal for everyone.

Ive stated, and Ill happily back it up, that democratic institutions have shown themselves historically to be fragile and prone to subversion by illiberal or populist forces. Democracies such as our own, owe a hell of a lot to the decision to violate the human rights of anti-liberal organisations to protect the system that underpins the rights.

The likes of Al-Queda arent some political lobby group with simply a differing view that can be accomadated within liberal democracy. If they want to move to Texas and live their Middle Age lifestyle, so long as they bothered no one there wouldnt be a problem. The thing is they do want to bother other people, they want to force their views on others, and they want to destroy the system of rights and laws that prevent them doing this and replace it with their own system of government. As such, they cant be treated like over-zealous arts students who ultimately behind all the bull**** respect and value the system and the freedoms it allows.

I wont cry over the fate of those who are suddenly recognising why this whole liberal democracy deal with its attendant rights isnt as bad as they first thought, no more than I cried over the fate of the Nazi concentration camp guards who were murdered by the former inmates in many liberated camps. And regardless of my *personal* views, the US Supreme Court still intervenes to provide a bottom line of rights these guys can expect. I think thats a fair balance between expediency and the ideal.

Seventy-five odd years ago that may have been true, but it’s not now. I’m talking about what is true now, and frankly has been for quite a while, which is that we do not, for good or ill, have the right to question orthodox democracy.

Really? Were seeing terrorists getting elected to our Dail on a mish mash of ultra nationalism and marxist waffle. And its not an isolated with a variety of distasteful views across Europe getting dusted off and legitimised by voters bored of non-extremist politics.

If theyre the alternative to orthodox democracy then I dont see why its such a draw? Orthodox democracy is so open and flexible that it can accomadate anything bar the most extreme views - whereby the the rights that underpin the whole thing spring into place to protect the rights of the minority, which must be guaranteed for the people to have confidence that voting is not war by other means.

If there is an alternative that triggers these warnings then its probably not a workable alternative to people who have experienced liberal democracy.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

If theyre the alternative to orthodox democracy then I dont see why its such a draw?

Marxism is one noted alternative to orthodox democracy. So is Fascism. So is direct democracy. So is aristocracy. No doubt there are numerous other ideologies and political systems. But this simply detracts from the issue that I’m not even suggesting that orthodox democracy should be replaced - indeed, you cannot even suggest amending it anymore, let alone replace it. In its orthodoxy it is no longer evolving, and that is a very dangerous position to be in for any society.

Orthodox democracy is so open and flexible that it can accomadate anything bar the most extreme views - whereby the the rights that underpin the whole thing spring into place to protect the rights of the minority, which must be guaranteed for the people to have confidence that voting is not war by other means.

The problem is that extreme views now include anything that does not fit into our idea of Western liberal democracy. Democracy has become the end rather than the means.