Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Why has democracy failed so badly in most of say Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East? It seems after colonialism these nations just devolved into more violence, coups, dictatorships, corruption, military-led juntas...why is it so hard for them to develop, to have stable governments?
Is it just their society? Their lack of law and order? No matter what 'good' the US and the West does, the same thing just seems to happen. Like how many hold out much hope for Iraq? Will the 'Arab Spring' really achieve much? Why is it so hard for the people in these country's to say no to religious theocracies, greedy dictators.etc?
Well, one side note is how you define democracy -- if you only take it in a sense of rule by the people, or the ability to choose among a list of candidates, then well, democracy is pretty much what a group of people, who are in the majority choose. They could make good choices. They could make bad ones. But it's what the people decide collectively (even if they end up choosing badly).
It's not too much of a stretch to see (especially with people already living in lawlessness, or faced with already past violence, and without good infrastructure being set up) you can get mob rule, and you could have a mob of people collectively deciding to vote for (or be tricked by) a smooth-talking idealistic-sounding dictator who promises to make things right, or a religious fundamentalist making utopian claims etc., or you could have a mob of people who are the majority collectively deciding to oppress a minority, who they'd outvote and blame for their problems.
But no, democracy as a buzzword usually has a lot more connotations in the contemporary discourse than in the sense of people can choose among X, Y, Z, and well, if all the options suck, too bad, they chose it, and that's probably the kind of thing people talk about when it comes to failure of democracy in some parts of the world.
When many people use "democracy" as a term in many of the political conflicts going on, however they tend to refer to the whole package of traits that characterize stable, developed, first world nations with high "development indices", with human rights, peace, fair laws, protection for weak and underprivileged groups, low corruption, free markets, freedom of religion, freedom of social norms etc. These things take a lot of time, effort and social change to accomplish, especially starting from war-torn or impoverished places, or where there is already a lot of distrust/social unrest.
Now, keep in mind, "the West" took a long time to get to where it's at today. Rome wasn't built in a day. And though, democracy as a notion and word, predates Rome, of course, long after the Greeks coined democracy, as an idea in principle or in practice, Western nations were just as full of "religious theocracies, greedy dictators" and other things you mention (Europe a few centuries ago was just as religiously fundamentalist, extreme, militarily-ruled and authoritarian as unfree nations such as those in the most extreme places of the Middle East today, like Saudi Arabia). The West's road to "democracy" (in the sense of not just rule by the people but all the connotations of stability, freedom, human rights, and fairness (or at least as stable, free and fair as our "western" nations are today) was long, bloody and messy and didn't happen overnight.
After all, think about the French Revolution and how it lead to ruthless turmoil despite it being a major stepping stone on the path down the road to the west's secularization, modernization, democratization etc. But it lead to the rise of the dictator emperor Napoleon, the restoration of absolute monarchy and all the things the Revolution had tried to eliminate in the first place just bounced back. The United States and other nations also democratized over time, where only a small subset of people were free earlier on, like white land-owners and others could still be treated brutally, like slaves, but surely but slowly progress was made. Same with secularism and lack of religious persecution. The Puritans sought of New England sought freedom and created the first universally literate society and was a lot freer than most places back home in old Europe at that time -- but the Puritans were arguably, some say, just as ruthless and fundamentalist to those who disagreed with them as those they'd fled from. The West had it's false starts, it's bumps and blunders and steps backward while it progressed to what it is today, but because it happened gradually, step by step over hundreds of years, sometimes we forget how fragile progress and civilization was, as if we'd always lived like this. A time traveller, hypothetically speaking, with the political and moral value systems of 2012, could be looking around the earth and asking your question in the 1700s, but instead of asking why some countries find it so hard to civilize, they'd be asking why all countries find it hard to civilize. And after all, even people alive today have experienced total savagery in what is now stable, western nation.
So, it is kind of depressing that so many have to be sacrificed on the altar of political progress and regime change and that progress is not guaranteed, but it's always good to be hopeful and supportive for the future.
I know this doesn't really answer your question though.
Last edited by Stumbler.; 07-25-2012 at 10:21 PM..
Why has democracy failed so badly in most of say Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East? It seems after colonialism these nations just devolved into more violence, coups, dictatorships, corruption, military-led juntas...why is it so hard for them to develop, to have stable governments?
Is it just their society? Their lack of law and order? No matter what 'good' the US and the West does, the same thing just seems to happen. Like how many hold out much hope for Iraq? Will the 'Arab Spring' really achieve much? Why is it so hard for the people in these country's to say no to religious theocracies, greedy dictators.etc?
You seem to have a blind spot for the corruption and violence of western governments.America is a leader in more ways than one.
Are you really comparing America to Zimbabwe? Let alone most African nations?
Honestly, I avoid the politics and other controversies forums for reasons like this. It's hard to get a lot of good insightful answers in this forum if that's what you're after, to say the least.
Why has democracy failed so badly in most of say Africa, Latin America, or the Middle East? It seems after colonialism these nations just devolved into more violence, coups, dictatorships, corruption, military-led juntas...why is it so hard for them to develop, to have stable governments?
Is it just their society? Their lack of law and order? No matter what 'good' the US and the West does, the same thing just seems to happen. Like how many hold out much hope for Iraq? Will the 'Arab Spring' really achieve much? Why is it so hard for the people in these country's to say no to religious theocracies, greedy dictators.etc?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
