TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Why does the Western world think democracy is a magical, catch all solution?

There seems to be this sort of prevalent attitude in the Western world that democracy is something of a catch all solution for all the world's political problems.

Now, lets just get this out of the way. This isn't some pro-autocracy/democracy is bad argument, I believe the system has many benefits. I'm not for one second disputing all the good its done in many countries. What I am claiming, is that there are situations where its not the right answer.

Take for example the recent revolution and election in Egypt. Dictator toppled, Muslim Brotherhood elected democratically, uses democratic tools to get rid of democracy, toppled by military. If it wasn't for the military, chances are Egypt would have been going down the road to being a theocracy right now.
The same happens whenever a country with a long standing tradition of politically active religious groups with a wide voting base. Any democratic election will lead to democracy being canceled in short order.

While I dislike using it as an example, it also can't be ignored that Hitler originally rose to power democratically. The same is true for many other dictators, of both religious and secular leanings. That's what happens when a democratic tradition simply isn't there.

Any transition to democracy, needs to be done carefully, and with the bare minimum force of arms. Its not something that can be rammed down people's throats, and there are simply situations where the political climate doesn't allow it work.

I'm trying to get some insight as to why the western world doesn't see that?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 3 2013: You are correct. Democracy in any form is difficult. And for a people to become democratic over night or in short order from a life under a restrictive governance almost never happens. It took the West nearly a thousand years to form the democracies they have today and that transition was not all that smooth.
    The West sees democracy as the best way for men to live free. They do and they want everyone to have that same opportunity. The point is that if the West does not encourage democracy with all possible means, who will?
    Are we too pushy? Yes. And the alternatives? The West could simply ignore the rest of the world and let things happen as they may and that is an international policy, but... if the west did that and with vibrant economies that depend on world trade, would the rest of the world fall into dictatorial chaos ending the necessary trade?
    If it was easy, we would have nothing to talk about
    • Sep 4 2013: I have no problem with doing what we cant to help democracy along in a more passive manner, but doing it through force of arms should be discouraged.

      These changes can be hard enough without being seen as a foreign invader's idea. You must remember that most of the world still has bad memories from the days of colonialism--a lot of them see democracy as just another set of strings from the western puppet masters they've just managed to overthrow.
      Invading them and forcing a new system of government that goes completely against everything they're used to isn't something that's going to improve that situation.

      Any transition to a different form of government can either be a slow, largely internal process, or a short and painful transformation. The former sticks a lot better than the latter, and I honestly think its a mistake to go for the latter when it has such a low success rate and great cost (both financial and in blood).
    • Sep 4 2013: All forms of government ulitimately involve forcing people to abide by whatever decision is made. It doesn't matter if that decision is made by a tyrant or 500,001 out of a million people. There will always be people who are forced to act in ways that they feel are contrary to their best interests. That is the inherent flaw of government and the reason why governments always seem to devolve into tyranny.
      • thumb
        Sep 4 2013: i don't agree to the "always will be" part
        • Sep 4 2013: Technically, you are correct. It is theoretically possible for 100% of the people to vote the same on an issue. That case becomes less and less likely as more and more people are involved. If my memory is correct even the vote to declare war against Japan here in the states had one decenting vote in the Senate and that was after they attacked us.
      • thumb
        Sep 4 2013: i was talking about a free society, one without government

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.