If a country is to be democratic should the wider world accept whatever the populus votes for?
In Northern Ireland in recent elections the more extreme parties have flourished.
In Palestine Hamas prevailed. And if there was true free and fair elections in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan I'm sure anti US parties would be elected.
What would the west prefer Democracy whatever the results, or appointed leaders who are western friendly?
Originally posted by invigorateThe second, of course.
What would the west prefer Democracy whatever the results, or appointed leaders who are western friendly?
At least the Western leaders. If the risk of war/instability is minimised by having a friendly but brutal dictator in place, I think they'd go for that every time.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, I was talking about the wider world accepting it, but you raise an interesting question.
Is it democratic to vote out of democracy?
I suppose that if the populace voted against democracy, that would be democratic - but then, what of the later generations, who wouldn't have had a chance to vote?
That's because democracy is not all that it is cracked up to be, but it's the slightly better system of a bad bunch. The solution is a binding constitution that protects rights and so ties government down so tight it dosen't matter whether the figurehead is there by popular vote or an accident of birth i.e. King, Queen.
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
""A man is none the less a slave
because he is allowed to choose
a new master once in a term of years."
-- Lysander Spooner
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
"Democracy, then, in the centralizing, pattern-making,
absolutist shape which we have given to it is,
it is clear, the time of tyranny's incubation."
-- Bertrand de Jouvenel
(1903-1987)