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?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 6 2013: I tend to agree with a lot of what you are saying. Our constitution tried to solve the religious question by making it unconstitutional to make any laws that respected religion. Unfortunately,our religious right has been rewriting history for many years, and an awful lot of people buy into it. I suspect this democratic republic will be facing some awfully hard questions in the near future, and our supreme court unfortunately allows their religious views to taint their decisions.
    • thumb
      Sep 7 2013: Just a small but so important point... the USA is a constitutional republic. States may be defined as more democratic but...

      Also, I am not sure that the religious right has been that active in "rewriting" history, it seems that most of the challenges to the amendment has come from not the "religious right" but others. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of others more then the religious right, but I can't determine motive. Nobody can.

      Some have called it religious tyranny by the minority. that's a strong statement.
      • Sep 7 2013: How can you say that the religious right hasn't been actively seeking to rewrite history? I remember some of that ilk trying to use the under god part in the pledge of allegiance to prove that the U.S. is a Christian nation. They are still actively trying to convince people that the founding fathers thought of the U.S. as a Christian nation when that is clearly not the case. What about blue laws that were put into place by the christian majority, What about the cry of they are taking God out of the classroom, [he was never there], what about the cry that christianity is under attack[clearly not the case they are the attackers] I could go on, but whats the use. There is a clear cut agenda by the religious right to change the U.S. into a Christian nation, the takeover of the republican party is a clear example. Barry Goldwater [a real republican] forsaw this event, and foretold it's outcome. AS for the supreme court Scalia clearly uses his religion in most of the cases he decides.
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2013: Let's see, where do I begin. Yes, Christians can be zealots when they espouse their beliefs. And then there is the fact that most of the earliest settlers from England came here for religious freedom and they were Christians. I can't remember the last time Pat Roberts filed suit inn Federal Court unlike the the American Atheists who do so on a daily basis. And just what religion is Scalia? He is a strict constitutionalists, I find refreshing as I am too.
          PS Bad news, Most of our law is based on Judeo Christian Law.
      • Sep 8 2013: Wrong! most of our law is based on English common law which is pagan at best. Again Christians wanting to rewrite history. If you have read history you would know that the settlers that came here where running from yet another Christian group as Christians can't even get along with there own kind. The religious freedom they sought was freedom from governmental religion which is why we have the clause about respectin no religion.Scalia is not a strict constitutionalist as he has essentially taken away the rights of gays [ and no marriage is not a christian concept either] and allowed the in god we trust to remain on our currency which is clearly unconstitutional. So, Bad news, you need to get the facts straight about law.
        • thumb
          Sep 9 2013: Oh gosh, I must not have deserved all good grades in law classes. And yes,Christians can't get along with other Christians, then there are Shias and Sunnies, Progressive and Hascedic.... Nobody gets along with nobody.

          Scalia is a strict constitutionalists, so says CJ Roberts. Who am I to disagree. When did he take away rights from Gays? The SCOTUS rules on constitutionality of law. I don't believe he took anything from anybody.

          Wait a minute, modern marriage is a christian concept instituted by the Roman Church about 600 years ago. Spousal contracts are civil actions that go back thousands of years. People call spousal contracts marriages but it's a misnomer.

          Common law is pagan at best? Pagans had no common law. The judeo/christian rules as defined in the 10 commandments became the basis for most common law. If you get a copy you can follow down and many are word for word.... thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc.

          Timmy, you are wound too tight. It's all not that bad. Read carefully, think thoughtfully and you'll be at peace and gain wisdom... it's what I try to do.
      • Sep 9 2013: 30 minutes ago: Yes, Yes you must not have deserved them and my name is tim or timothy not timmiy. Modern law is based on English common law that is most definately pagan. The fact that we do not demand an eye for an eye is proof enough but if you combine that with fines or weregild as the pagans would define it you have your answer.Whether or not you want to equate the word marriage with a spousal contract means nothing as in the eyes of the law a "spousal contact performed by a judge is evry bit the same as a marriage done in a church. Do not attempt to change the history in front of me as you will lose. You are actually useing another died in the wool christian as your proof that Scalia is a strict constituionalist? That would not fly in any debate, might as well take FOX as the truth. Please go back to your university and try to get a refund on your historical education.


        taken right off wiki, but it is in several other places as well.

        At both the federal and state levels, the law of the United States was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law, which was in force at the time of the Revolutionary War.[
      • Sep 10 2013: I take exception to your statement,

        "Pagans had no common law. The judeo/christian rules as defined in the 10 commandments became the basis for most common law. "

        This statement is not only wrong, it is exactly what I was talking about. Every school kid I went to school with knew about the code of Hammurabi, or the edicts of Rome, or even British common law which had it's beginnings in the times before christianity. All of these were PAGAN, and all had moral codes that seem to line up with Judeo-Christian morals with one exception which proves my point, they only fined someone were as the Judeo-Christian demanded like for like. This whole statement of yours only proves that Christians are actively trying to "change" history favourably in their stead.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.