Exporting democracy from one country to another is an illusion.

[Jimboyready]

The Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said that the concept of democracy can not be imported


The Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said that the concept of democracy cannot be imported and that exporting democracy from one country to another is an illusion.

In his speech at the 18th International Kharazmi Festival, Khatami said that building trust between the people and the government can only be attained through promoting democratic principles and civil rights as well as leaving the people elect their own governments.

He also said that a permanent democracy depends on a country’s historical and cultural identity.

In this way democracy, will become a culture in the society, he added.

For this reason, the cultural identity should match with the basic guidelines of democracy, Khatami added.

“We, as Muslims, have created a great civilization over the course of history. This nation can still create wonders by relying on its religious identity and believing that its religion is one that should be able to meet the needs of the time,” he said.

“In my point of view, democracy is a prerequisite for every kind of progress and development,” he said.

Khatami also expressed his worries that there are some people who try “in vain, to give philosophical and religions justifications to their obsolete beliefs."

"The religion they offer is not only at odds with democratic values, but goes so far as to disregard even the most basic rights of the people.

In doing so, they lie, defame their rivals and order murders.

"All during my life I have defended an Islam that advocates freedom, independence and democracy and this is what I intend to do for the rest of my life even after quitting politics”. He added.

The Iranian leader also called for immediate steps to improve scientific and technological developments in Iran, saying that the Islamic republic should seize the current opportunities before it is too late.


Khatami also said that the objectives of Iran’s future development plans can only be attained through the free participation of the people, particularly intellectuals and scholars.

 

[yogi]

While I generally agree that the idea of exporting democracy is a farce, especially when applied to the Arab world, it worked for Japan.
But that's certainly the exception to the rule.

 

[Hit Man]

Yes, but it doesn't have to be. I'd like to thiink that, given the chance, people will choose freedom, if not democracy. The "Religon of Peace" has proven not to be so in many parts of the world.

 

[rollerboy]

Khatami is a reformer, which is a brave thing to be in Iran. He's also the legitimate elected President of Iran, but the real power is in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei and the mullahs. Khatami walks a fine line, pushing for reform but avoiding condemnation as a heretic. If he weren't as popular as he is, he'd probably be dead or imprisoned.

Recently, the reformers suffered a major setback when the hardline Guardian Council barred hundreds of reform candidates from running for election. Initially, I believe it was thousands, but the public uproar caused the hard liners to back down partially.

The Iranian struggle for Democracy is pretty fascinating. IMO, the promise of reformers like Khatami leading Iran towards true democracy is a big reason Iran has not been invaded. No such movement existed in Iraq, whose mass graves were filled with those who dared oppose Saddam. The Ayatollahs realize that they need Reformers like Khatami, if only to mollify the people and the outside world, but at the same time such Reformers will ultimately undermine their absolute power.

 

[rollerboy]

The truth of the statement is that for Democracy to take root, the people have to want it. The recent elections in Iraq and Afghanistan show that all over the world there is a great thirst for freedom. Only time will tell whether the initial hopes and enthusiasm of the people for Democracy will endure. If it does, only the people of those countries can take credit for establishing Democracy.

Certainly democracies have failed, for example Pakistan. Responsibility for the success or failure can only rest with the people. Still, I don't doubt that Pakistan will again try to become a democratic country. The best example of a country converted to a democracy in Modern times is Japan, and while force was the mechanism by which elections were brought to Japan, only the acceptance and will of the Japanese made this institution a success.

The falsehood underlying the blanket statement that "democracy cannot be imported" is the concept that "people cannot and need not ever be freed from tyrrany and oppression." This is a pretty morally bankrupt sentiment, the sort which allows for slavery, human trafficking, genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape, torture, and all manner of atrocity. People do want to be free, and to dismiss that universal longing for liberty is pretty damn unenlightened. In fact, most modern governments emerged after some kind of major war or conflict. The French, in particular, had one helluva bloody Revolution. And afterwards they marched all over Europe turning things upside down.

 

[rollerboy]

While I generally agree that the idea of exporting democracy is a farce, especially when applied to the Arab world, it worked for Japan.
But that's certainly the exception to the rule.

I've heard that many times, but I don't see how it's true.

Germany was forcibly converted from fascism, as was Italy, at the same time, and the results were equally positive.

I'm not saying that force is the best way, the only way, but certainly it has been "a way". And once upon a time, it was practically the only way. That's why the Nineteenth Century was largely the Age Revolutions, where the people rose up and wiped out the Aristocracies which ruled them for centuries.

 

[yogi]

Scholars have written countless constitutions that we've foisted on African & Latin American nations, all of which have failed miserably.

I find it ironic that here in the US we're becoming an undemocratic Christian police state, while the Bushies want to remake the Middle East into secular democracies.

 

[BushPilot]

I've heard that many times, but I don't see how it's true.

Germany was forcibly converted from fascism, as was Italy, at the same time, and the results were equally positive.

I'm not saying that force is the best way, the only way, but certainly it has been "a way". And once upon a time, it was practically the only way. That's why the Nineteenth Century was largely the Age Revolutions, where the people rose up and wiped out the Aristocracies which ruled them for centuries.

Actually, both Germany and Italy had democracy restored after World War II. However dubiously, both Mussolini and Hitler were democratically elected in the beginning. Then again, Saddam Hussein's rise to power was also loosely linked to a democratic process. Anyways, I don't think your examples of Germany and Italy are relevant to this argument.

 

[rollerboy]

Actually, both Germany and Italy had democracy restored after World War II. However dubiously, both Mussolini and Hitler were democratically elected in the beginning. Then again, Saddam Hussein's rise to power was also loosely linked to a democratic process. Anyways, I don't think your examples of Germany and Italy are relevant to this argument.

Um, didn't i just say that Germany and Italy were forceably (re)democratized after WWII? Are you familiar with the concept of "one person, one vote, one time"? The fact that dictators have often been initially democratically elected once, or even several times, doesn't make their regime any less of a Fascist government when they abolition elections, opposition parties, free speech, imprison political opponents, etc. That's pretty par for the course for banana republics.

If you want to say that Mussolini and Hitler are your ideas of democratic leaders...ok! Don't know what to say after that. As for Saddam, he was pretty much always a thug. They had a great special on him on the History Channel. Started out as a young killer/thug on the CIA payroll, failed assassination attempt against Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, later rose to power in a coup with his cousin. There was a great video where Saddam consolidated total power. During a Parliment session, he had his thugs lock the doors and then started reading off the names of "traitors", who were led off one by one to be executed. Everyone was terrified, and those whose names weren't called were relieved just to live. After that, Saddam was in charge. Saddam was an avid student of Stalin, and rose to and maintained power through absolute fear and terror. If that's your idea of a democratic process...your mind's gotten a little turned around by your rhetoric. And yeah, Saddam got a 100% of the vote in his elections, because he was the only candidate, the ballots were pre-marked, and even a wiff of dissent resulted in the secret police carting away whole families in the night. In one case, a mere child's question in school resulted in the execution of her entire family.

With respect to the revelence of Germany and Italy, I'm baffled that you don't think that's relevant as an example as a forcible conversion to democracy. Nazi Germany certainly was neither a democracy nor headed towards such when it was defeated by Allied power (led by the US), and neither was Fascist Italy. Hell, some Italian city states briefly had republican government in the 15th Century (interestingly, Machiavelli was a republican, serving prison time for that crime, when he wrote "The Prince").

 

[rollerboy]

Scholars have written countless constitutions that we've foisted on African & Latin American nations, all of which have failed miserably.

That's a pretty blanket, and false statement. You're saying that every Latin American democracy has failed miserably?

Going into the 80's, almost all of Latin America had autocratic government. Now almost all have freely elected governments. You may not like it, but democracy is popular not just in white countries.

As for failed nations, as I've said, democracy succeeds or fails ultimately on the will of the people. Tyrants can be overthrown by force, invaders repelled, but if the people don't have it in them to embrace and defend their freedom, they'll just get another despotism eventually.

And yet, it remains indefensible to hold that only Europeans and nations born of European colonization desire constitutional guarantees of basic rights and representative goverment. It's blatantly racist and ignorant. Napolean took France back into monarchy when he crowned himself Emporer. Poor Beethoven was crushed and infuriated when his hero turned out to be another despot. Does that mean that democracy was a dismal failure in France, that the French people simply didn't want or weren't capable of ruling themselves? Likewise, Britain reverted to monarchy after it's first attempt at becoming a republic. Democracy is hard.

But throughout history, force often played a role in the liberation of people and the formation of free states. And force is almost always necessary at some point to defend freedom. America's revolution depended critically on the military help of the French crown. Again, that doesn't mean that force is always a good idea, or that force doesn't often have disasterous consequences.

 

[HeMadeMeDoIt]

If Islamic terrorism, fundamentalism, wahabbism and all the other ism's associated with Islam can be exported to both the west and within the region then I firmly believe that so could democracy. With a little bit of political pressure from their biggest ally the Saudis are finally starting to see a dim light at the end of the tunnel with municipal elections being held next month. Kuwait has allowed women to run and vote in parliamentary elections for several years. All we need to do is take a look at Iraq and the Palestinian territories to believe that democarcy is possible in the Middle East; after all less than two years ago and 6 months respectively both countires were ruled by some of the most violent and oppresive men known since the likes of Hitler!

 

[dittman]

Scholars have written countless constitutions that we've foisted on African & Latin American nations, all of which have failed miserably.

I find it ironic that here in the US we're becoming an undemocratic Christian police state, while the Bushies want to remake the Middle East into secular democracies.

yogi what constitutional rights have you lost? is there a law that forces you to either go to church or to read the bible? Last time i checked most of latin america are democracies and we had nothing to do with the constitutions of africa.

 

[Jimboyready]

While I generally agree that the idea of exporting democracy is a farce, especially when applied to the Arab world, it worked for Japan.
But that's certainly the exception to the rule.

and the price they pay for it?

 

[memyselfandI]

"the price"? If you are referring to the Japanese, I'd say 50 years of peace and prosperity. But that's just me....

 

[BushPilot]

Um, didn't i just say that Germany and Italy were forceably (re)democratized after WWII? Are you familiar with the concept of "one person, one vote, one time"? The fact that dictators have often been initially democratically elected once, or even several times, doesn't make their regime any less of a Fascist government when they abolition elections, opposition parties, free speech, imprison political opponents, etc. That's pretty par for the course for banana republics.

If you want to say that Mussolini and Hitler are your ideas of democratic leaders...ok! Don't know what to say after that. As for Saddam, he was pretty much always a thug. They had a great special on him on the History Channel. Started out as a young killer/thug on the CIA payroll, failed assassination attempt against Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, later rose to power in a coup with his cousin. There was a great video where Saddam consolidated total power. During a Parliment session, he had his thugs lock the doors and then started reading off the names of "traitors", who were led off one by one to be executed. Everyone was terrified, and those whose names weren't called were relieved just to live. After that, Saddam was in charge. Saddam was an avid student of Stalin, and rose to and maintained power through absolute fear and terror. If that's your idea of a democratic process...your mind's gotten a little turned around by your rhetoric. And yeah, Saddam got a 100% of the vote in his elections, because he was the only candidate, the ballots were pre-marked, and even a wiff of dissent resulted in the secret police carting away whole families in the night. In one case, a mere child's question in school resulted in the execution of her entire family.

With respect to the revelence of Germany and Italy, I'm baffled that you don't think that's relevant as an example as a forcible conversion to democracy. Nazi Germany certainly was neither a democracy nor headed towards such when it was defeated by Allied power (led by the US), and neither was Fascist Italy. Hell, some Italian city states briefly had republican government in the 15th Century (interestingly, Machiavelli was a republican, serving prison time for that crime, when he wrote "The Prince").

The point at the beginning of the thread was that democracy must be achieved from within. You used the examples of Italy and Germany after WWII to say that it was possible. I'm saying that those nations had democratic traditions prior to their takeover by fascist dictators. In that sense, your examples are not relevant to the argument of whether democracy can be foisted upon one nation by another.

And for the record, the Allied victory over Nazi Germany was led by the Soviet Red Army, not the US.

 

[BushPilot]

If Islamic terrorism, fundamentalism, wahabbism and all the other ism's associated with Islam can be exported to both the west and within the region then I firmly believe that so could democracy. With a little bit of political pressure from their biggest ally the Saudis are finally starting to see a dim light at the end of the tunnel with municipal elections being held next month. Kuwait has allowed women to run and vote in parliamentary elections for several years. All we need to do is take a look at Iraq and the Palestinian territories to believe that democarcy is possible in the Middle East; after all less than two years ago and 6 months respectively both countires were ruled by some of the most violent and oppresive men known since the likes of Hitler!

I'm guessing that you're saying that Yasser Arafat was one of the most violent and oppressive rulers since Adolf Hitler. Personally, I'd say that Yasser Arafat's standing will only be judged by history. Because the US and Israel label him in one way doesn't make it so. It's all a matter of perspective. Some see him as a terrorist interfering in the Jewish people's god-given right to live in a land that was 'promised' to them. Others see him as a resistance leader doing whatever it took to drive out a foreign invader squatting on the land of his people. And there was no transition to democracy after the death of Arafat. He was the country's democratically elected president and the election that recently passed was triggered by a clause in their constitution that he was a major factor in getting instated.

 

[luckydog71]

And for the record, the Allied victory over Nazi Germany was led by the Soviet Red Army, not the US.

and all along I though the US fought the battle of the bulge. Or took Omaha beach on D-Day.

I guess the Canadian soldiers were over there to hold the Russian's coats and get them water when they were thirsty.

BP - you belittle the efforts of millions of brave men and women from all of the allied countries, who gave up a minimum of 4 years of their life and many who gave up life itself.

I am sorry to say I do not know what the Russian contribution was, but I do not it was not as significant as you claim.

 

[BushPilot]

and all along I though the US fought the battle of the bulge. Or took Omaha beach on D-Day.

I guess the Canadian soldiers were over there to hold the Russian's coats and get them water when they were thirsty.

BP - you belittle the efforts of millions of brave men and women from all of the allied countries, who gave up a minimum of 4 years of their life and many who gave up life itself.

I am sorry to say I do not know what the Russian contribution was, but I do not it was not as significant as you claim.

I didn't say that American, British, Canadian, etc. troops were not major contributors to the defeat of the Nazis. I said that the defeat was led by the Soviet Red Army. That is a fact. It was the Red Army that pushed the Nazis out of the nations of Eastern Europe, who liberated most of the Nazi's concentration camps, and who took Berlin. Read any history book that details the casualty numbers in WWII and you'll see how big a role the Soviets had in the defeat of the Nazis. If you read what I said, you'd know that I said nothing to belittle the sacrifices of anyone who fought and/or died in WWII. I'd appreciate if you didn't get condescending and accuse me of doing any such thing.

 

[BillyC]

Mullah!!

""real power is in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei and the mullahs.""

Mullah has been the real source of power for as long as it's been around!! LOL, those guys are smart!

BillyC

 

[Jimboyready]

"the price"? If you are referring to the Japanese, I'd say 50 years of peace and prosperity. But that's just me....

Japan is one of the regional Power before the WWII. It was one of the smartest nation before the US even know them. 50 Years of peace and prosperity is not the result of bunch of yanks droping the nukes over their cities.Should they be thankful to the US for Killing 2 million Japanese, destroying their cites and delivering them democracy? This is a very large number to make any nation numb.

There is no democracy in China, yet its economy is growing at a pace that overwhelms the whole world. Do they need to be taught Democracy 101.The point here is " democracy can't be exported".