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?

+8
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sep 18 2013: At the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth, for some countries, the most of male citizens were allowed to vote. Before of that just 2/3 % had the legal right to vote and, when the process leading democracy to the liberal istitution was completed, everybody thought that times were about to change. Many historians are inclined to believe that this represented the basis of totalitarianism because THE MAN could conquer the power fom the bottom (the enormous number of new electors). In spite of that I firmly believe "men make the difference". In the past peoples were used to deal with dictators and privileges and total lackness of rights, but then somethng changed. Some faught to gain what every person deserve, therefore, they struggled and succeded. What politicians and blind populations do with the hard efforts of those men and women is not the logical consequence, so democracy

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.