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 18 2013: There is no democracy for fools .

    Just imagine a village surrounded by a large river.The only access to go in and out is a concrete bridge that was built decades ago by the central government.One day, one of the residents who are fishing at the river find sth odd look with the bridge. Foundation cracks appear.Because he’s one of a few villagers who have knowledge abt construction,he would propose to the head-of-village so that the bridge will be renovated as soon as possible.

    The problem is,they need lots of money to fix the bridge. All people gathered in the village hall.The head of village asking their opinion.Democracy.It’s whether thy’ll repair the bridge using their money or just waiting the central government to fix it which will take times.That’s a fatal way to make decision,isn’t it? Although the whole world says it's the best way: democracy.

    Because most of the people do not understand anything abt civil construction, they do not understand about standard of safety,they argue emotionally,not logically.And more than that, not many people are willing to give their money for bridge repairs.They are the stakeholders on the implications of their decisions,they think it’s better to spend money for other purposes.At the end of the democratic process, the chief-of-village decided to take the decisions by the majority vote.As predicted,the vote to pending the repair gain victory.The repair is delayed.

    3 weeks passed,on a sunny morning, when the bridge is crowded with the people crossing it, as the children go to school at another village,the bridge suddenly collapsed.15 children died during the incident. 5 others died while being transported to a nearby hospital.It’s really a high price to be paid for the majority vote, Isn’t it?

    Is democracy the best system given by God? Written in the scriptures?Obviously not. Democracy is a human creation. In historical records, the authoritative system can also bring a better welfare. eg. Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire.
    • Sep 18 2013: Comparing the history of democracy with the history of autocracy will lead you nowhere. Democracy, in its modern incarnation has only been around for a very short time period, while autocracies are as old as the dawn of recorded history.
      Yet there are still disastrous examples of both. For every Roman Empire you have a North Korea, and several dozen nations so lacking in notability no one but history professors remember their name.

      Still, I wouldn't say democracy is fundamentally worse than other forms of government. The single biggest advantage is probably that If you manage to set one up properly, you may yet see rebellions, civil wars and general civil unrest pass you by.
      No point in turning to armed resistance when its easier to wait for the next election, which does wonders for a country's stability.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.