Posted on 03/05/2006 3:14:50 PM PST by RWR8189
THE U.S. AGENDA to promote democracy in the Middle East appears fatally wounded. The results of recent elections in Iraq, Egypt and especially Gaza and the West Bank have led many to conclude that this agenda is terribly misguided: wonderful in theory but disastrous in practice, enabling the most dangerous and antidemocratic elements in the region to gain power through democratic means.
If true, this is certainly a worrisome turn of events. Can the skeptics be right? Is it simply too dangerous to promote freedom in the Arab world? Must the United States give up on promoting democracy and go back to supporting authoritarian governments that do its bidding?
That was the old policy. But foreign policy "realism" — the notion that the free world could buy security by supporting repressive dictators who would act in American national interests — collapsed on 9/11. That was when it became clear to many policymakers that regimes that repressed their subjects were creating breeding grounds of fanaticism and terror.
Today, many people believe that the antidote to fanaticism is to open these societies to dissent, to the free exchange of ideas, to the opportunities offered by a free market and to the hope that comes with democratic life.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Democracy IS tyranny. The tyranny of the majority. A republic is what we should be talking about.
Democracies lead to the seductive wasteland of socialism.
"The recent election of Hamas is the fruit of a policy that focused on the form of democracy (elections) rather than its substance (building and protecting a free society)."
"Obviously, any regime that supports terrorism is hostile to the most fundamental principles of a free society and should therefore be treated as an enemy."
Sharansky certainly didn't write the headline to this op-ed. The LAT seems to be hoping no one reads past the second paragraph and presumes the remaining content based on the title.
"Despite my faith in "democracy," I was under no illusion that elections should be held immediately. Over the previous decade, Palestinian society had become one of the most poisoned and fanatical on Earth. Day after day, on television and radio, in newspapers and schools, a generation of Palestinians had been subjected to the most vicious incitement by their own leaders. The only "right" that seemed to be upheld within Palestinian areas was the right of everyone to bear arms.
In such conditions of fear, intimidation and indoctrination, holding snap elections would have been an act of the utmost irresponsibility. That is why I proposed a plan calling for elections to be held no earlier than three years after the implementation of a series of democratic reforms. Three years, I believed, was the absolute minimum for democratic reforms to begin to change the atmosphere in which free elections could be held. Unfortunately, the plan was never implemented."
Well, true as far as that goes, but the thing is, in modern American parlance anyway, the word "democracy" is little other than shorthand for "constitutional democratic republic".
Nobody who advocates democracy is talking about pure democracy, after all. The notion that they are, is a straw man.
How long did our Republic take to evolve into what it did? Didn't we go through a civil war?! I hate ludacrus articles like this. I mean we expect these countries to foster 2006 U.S. democracy under a Republic in months.
Oh no? Try telling that to the many people (yes, there are alot) who claim that Bush really didn't win the 2000 election because he lost the popular vote; and the people (again, there are alot) who don't see the necessity of the Electoral College and even go as far as to say that it is inherently wrong.
To go a bit off topic, but we are much more of a democracy than we are a republic. If our senators were appointed as representatives of their state governments as originally intended we would be more of a true republic.
Response: No. It merely replaces the tyranny of one with the tyranny of the mob.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Ding ding ding we have a winner!
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
You obviously didn't read the article...
And there you have it - even constitutional republics are beholden to majority rule to keep them operating correctly. The problem every constitutional republic faces, is when the majority fails to properly raise up the next generation to commit to those same values.
You can't have a constitutional republic if the majority's progeny don't want their parents' constitutional republic.
What's my prize???? :)
The democracies of Weimar Germany and Venezuela, more recently, show how delicate a flower democracy is, and how easily trampled into the dirt.
"to open these societies to dissent..." well, then he would have to start with rewriting the Koran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.