TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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 10 2013: The Federalist Papers discuss (among other things) the difference between a democracy and a republic. Two different things! In a republic, the populace elect the best among themselves to represent them and to immerse themselves in the technical details. The presumption is that the representatives work for the common good and analyze things toward that end. In a democracy, on the other hand, the people make decisions in their spare time and according to the limited information they have available. Most Westerners live in a mixed system combining the best and the worst of both systems.

    Corporations, on the other hand, operate on a whole different set of ideas. Supervisors and managers are hand-picked by their higher ups. Employees are expected to obey directives and to operate as teams within parameters set by their higher ups. Everyone accepts the fact of corruption at higher levels -- and puts up with it if everyone is productively employed. Interestingly, some nations operate on this model. China (in which 'the party' runs on corporate assumptions) comes closest. It remains to be seen if the corporate model or the democratic/republican model prevails -- but most bets are on the corporate model. At least so far.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.