• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Riots erupt in Egypt as protesters demand end to Mubarak regime

What about the Islamic Republic of Iran? They hold regular elections. Is Iran a democracy?
Iran hold's elections for most offices, but is ultimately ruled by a 'Supreme Leader'.
It's a Theocratic Police state.
Definitely not democracy.
And the last election results for the A-jad/President were dubious.

Jordan has Parliamentary elections but is ruled by a King.
 
Last edited:
And I must disagree with you here. Going through the motions of elections does not make a nation a democracy, even a corrupt one. Saddam Hussein held elections; the Burmese junta held elections. When the outcome of elections is predetermined or irrelevant, and when citizens are not free to criticize the government, a country is not a democracy.

The Iranian presidential election last year had candidates limited to those who met the approval of the Theocrats. Even then, it was necessary for Ahmadinejad to steal the election from Musavi. That's why the Green Revolution started.
 
Why? What about them isn't democratic? (I'm thinking you don't have an answer because you don't know anything about them, and you're going to Wikipedia them to find SOME minor distinction that sets them apart from Western democracies.)



Because, of course, the only reason countries ever pursue democracy is to please the United States.



The only one of those countries that had democracy "imposed" on them was Japan, and they certainly don't need American help any more to sustain democracy. Democracy didn't arise in India, Botswana, or Ghana as a result of western colonialism; it's not like the British Empire was big on promoting democracy in its clients. Democracy didn't arise there until AFTER the British Empire left. Same with Korea and Taiwan; American troops had been there for decades before either of them became democratic, so that's hardly the catalyst.

American influence can help countries establish democracies, but it's stupid to think that democracy is a result of our imposing it on them...or that we'd even be CAPABLE of imposing it on them. :roll:



As countries develop they are more likely to become democracies. It will happen in Russia and it will happen in China. The only reason that Russia has held out as long as it has is due to oil-induced Dutch Disease and horrendous mismanagement in the 1990s.

I will concede Mali and Indonesia to you because I don't can't prove you wrong without research that I am not willing to devote to the subject. So I retract my statement to that extent.

But you can't use anything but semantics to argue that each and every one of those other countries did not act under the influence and domination of America or other Western powers.

Thus, I have conceded to you where I must. But in doing so I have chosen new ground that you are unable to assail. Let's continue this debate on the ground that I have chosen.
 
But you can't use anything but semantics to argue that each and every one of those other countries did not act under the influence and domination of America or other Western powers.

Yes I can. The relevant Western power either didn't give a **** about democracy (as was the case with America in Korea/Taiwan) or actively prevented it from arising (as was the case with the British in India/Ghana/Botswana). Those nations all had a homegrown desire for democracy. They made the successful transition due to some help from Western nations, but not because they "acted under the influence and domination of America."

Democracy is NOT exclusive to Western culture. There are more people living in democracies in the non-Western world than there are in the Western world. Hell, India alone has almost as many people as Europe and the Americas combined.
 
Yes I can. The relevant Western power either didn't give a **** about democracy (as was the case with America in Korea/Taiwan) or actively prevented it from arising (as was the case with the British in India/Ghana/Botswana). Those nations all had a homegrown desire for democracy. They made the successful transition due to some help from Western nations, but not because they "acted under the influence and domination of America."

Democracy is NOT exclusive to Western culture. There are more people living in democracies in the non-Western world than there are in the Western world. Hell, India alone has almost as many people as Europe and the Americas combined.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. We will turn first to South Korea. Then we will address the other nations one by one. I remember what happened in South Korea.

Do you remember Kim Dae Jung? Who prevented his execution? Answer this question and we will proceed further.
 
Thank you for accepting my challenge. We will turn first to South Korea. Then we will address the other nations one by one. I remember what happened in South Korea.

Do you remember Kim Dae Jung? Who prevented his execution? Answer this question and we will proceed further.

1950 - US occupies Korea
1973 - US saves Kim Dae-Jung
1987 - Korea first has a democratic election

I'd hardly call that imposing democracy on them. The US didn't give a damn about Korean democracy. When it evolved, we helped them manage the transition, but it was almost entirely homegrown. We were just fine with occupying the country for 37 years without demanding democracy, so it's pretty hard to make the argument that they were just bowing to our whims by establishing one.
 
Last edited:
1950 - US occupies Korea
1973 - US saves Kim Dae-Jung
1987 - Korea first has a democratic election

I'd hardly call that imposing democracy on them. The US didn't give a damn about Korean democracy. When it evolved, we helped them manage the transition, but it was almost entirely homegrown. We were just fine with occupying the country for 37 years without demanding democracy, so it's pretty hard to make the argument that they were just bowing to our whims by establishing one.
Or we could have done nothing and had a larger North Korea.

The "Blame America" camp is a very selective view of history.
What's amazing is how widespread it is despite it's jaded and unfair outlook.
 
Last edited:
1950 - US occupies Korea
1973 - US saves Kim Dae-Jung
1987 - Korea first has a democratic election

Kim Dae Jung would have died if America had not saved his life. He went on to become president of South Korea.

The promotion of democracy has been a key element of American foreign policy from 1945 through 2008. Pax Americana had consequences that permitted the creation of room for the evolution of politics in South Korea.

I'd hardly call that imposing democracy on them. The US didn't give a damn about Korean democracy. When it evolved, we helped them manage the transition, but it was almost entirely homegrown.

Semantics can be used to trick people. But it doesn't work on an old trickster. America didn't "impose" democracy on SK. It provided the ingredients necessary for democracy to be born. Without those conditions of "domination" democracy would not have been born in SK.

First, the ROK/USA mutual security treaty created the political and physical space for SK to exist.

Second, America's open market allowed SK, like Japan, to evolve an export driven economy that lifted the living standards of the people of the ROK.

Third, the US restrained the South Korean military dictatorship. Not with respect to the Kwanju Uprising and Massacre, but in 1987 the Reagan administration restrained the dictatorship from repeating the Kwangju massacre. Without the ability to quell the demonstations with brute force, the dictatorship was replaced by Roh Tae Woo who paved the way for democracy.

Take America out of the equation and there would be no democracy in South Korea. I remember the SK movement for democracy came to a head not long after the inception of People Power in the Philippines. One cannot honestly ignore the context and milieu established by Pax Americana.

South Korea had no history of democracy. The idea of democracy has not originated independently in any non-Western polity in history. Ever.


Edit: http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0301_new/099-126-Sangmook Lee.pdf
 
Last edited:
You know what I think, I think you want the hard line Islamists to take over so they can persecute christians & attack the Jews because deep down you hate Jews just like the muslim brotherhood & Hitler. Am I right dude?
Actually, i think the hardline islamists are ruthless hippocrites and losers, they dont interpret what they read correctly, and i doubt they have the brains and support of all the decent and rational muslims numbering a billion plus to take over, and allow them to make their lives a living hell, because in reality the majority of the muslims of the world just like other human beings just want to pay bills and raise their kids, when a puppet dictatator regime is installed for the interests of lets say for example of a western power or Israel, that gives the hardline islamists a foot hold, but you im sure as an educated man as you are already knew this, but you simply don't care or most likely dislike muslims because well their muslims, simple as that. As far as spelling is concerned yes i know muslim is not spelled mooslem. but if correcting grammer and punction makes you feel smart and superior by all means sir proceed.
 
Or we could have done nothing and had a larger North Korea.

This has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Fail. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Semantics can be used to trick people. But it doesn't work on an old trickster. America didn't "impose" democracy on SK. It provided the ingredients necessary for democracy to be born. Without those conditions of "domination" democracy would not have been born in SK.

First, the ROK/USA mutual security treaty created the political and physical space for SK to exist.

Second, America's open market allowed SK, like Japan, to evolve an export driven economy that lifted the living standards of the people of the ROK.

Third, the US restrained the South Korean military dictatorship. Not with respect to the Kwanju Uprising and Massacre, but in 1987 the Reagan administration restrained the dictatorship from repeating the Kwangju massacre. Without the ability to quell the demonstations with brute force, the dictatorship was replaced by Roh Tae Woo who paved the way for democracy.

Take America out of the equation and there would be no democracy in South Korea. I remember the SK movement for democracy came to a head not long after the inception of People Power in the Philippines. One cannot honestly ignore the context and milieu established by Pax Americana.

South Korea had no history of democracy. The idea of democracy has not originated independently in any non-Western polity in history. Ever.


Edit: http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0301_new/099-126-Sangmook Lee.pdf

As I've said before, it's rare for ANY nation to make the transition from dictatorship to democracy without the support of other democratic powers. That doesn't make it a "Western idea" that can't originate elsewhere, nor does it mean that it's Western countries imposing democracy on a resistant public. The South Korean democratic movement - just like the Egyptian democratic movement - was homegrown.

I don't know why you're drawing this distinction between Western and Non-Western. There are plenty of Western countries (e.g. Germany, Poland, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico) that needed help to become democracies too.
 
Last edited:
Iran hold's elections for most offices, but is ultimately ruled by a 'Supreme Leader'.
It's a Theocratic Police state.
Definitely not democracy.
And the last election results for the A-jad/President were dubious.

Jordan has Parliamentary elections but is ruled by a King.

Yes Mbig you are correct, all three are dictatorships, but the only difference is Iran's is not western installed and supported dictatorship that serves the interests of not their people but you know who, i am sure you dont lose any sleep over these tyrants never ending regimes, because frankly you dont care about the population of those countries. by the way Murdered By Islamic Gunman aka MBIG how are you doing still alive and kicking:lamo
 
Last edited:
The Guardian reports that most of the leading opposition groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, have indicated that they will support Mohamed ElBaradei to lead a transition government assuming Mubarak abdicates.
All eyes on Egypt's military as Hosni Mubarak fortifies position | World news | The Guardian

Unfortunately, i fear a new transitional government led by ElBaradei may have to muddy its waters with a senior government position filled by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Politicians are not in the business of unconditional support but i wont get ahead of myself:

down with mubarak!
 
Unfortunately, i fear a new transitional government led by ElBaradei may have to muddy its waters with a senior government position filled by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. These types of people are not in the business of unconditional support.

That's fine, a transition government should have members from all major political groups so that it has legitimacy. They won't necessarily be determining any long-term policy, they'll just be establishing the conditions necessary for elections (e.g. protecting free speech/media, allowing political parties to form, etc) and keeping the trains running on time until then.
 
Last edited:
That's fine, a transition government should have members from all major opposition groups so that it has legitimacy. They won't necessarily be determining any long-term policy, they'll just be establishing the conditions for elections (e.g. protecting free speech/media, allowing political parties to form, etc).

"Unity" governments have a terrible reputation, especially in the Arab world. I hope they can establish these conditions with a compromising and bi-partisan approach to all issues. I hope the MB take a more mature approach and do there best to not follow the examples of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
 
Last edited:
Actually, i think the hardline islamists are ruthless hippocrites and losers, they dont interpret what they read correctly, and i doubt they have the brains and support of all the decent and rational muslims numbering a billion plus to take over, and allow them to make their lives a living hell, because in reality the majority of the muslims of the world just like other human beings just want to pay bills and raise their kids, when a puppet dictatator regime is installed for the interests of lets say for example of a western power or Israel, that gives the hardline islamists a foot hold, but you im sure as an educated man as you are already knew this, but you simply don't care or most likely dislike muslims because well their muslims, simple as that. As far as spelling is concerned yes i know muslim is not spelled mooslem. but if correcting grammer and punction makes you feel smart and superior by all means sir proceed.

Yes because Mubarak was "installed" by Western powers and not by the radical Islamists who have assassinated Saddat. Everyone knows that.

Besides, Mubarak was also so much better for the West than that evil peace-making Saddat. Everyone knows that too.
 
As I've said before, it's rare for ANY nation to make the transition from dictatorship to democracy without the support of other democratic powers. That doesn't make it a "Western idea" that can't originate elsewhere, nor does it mean that it's Western countries imposing democracy on a resistant public. The South Korean democratic movement - just like the Egyptian democratic movement - was homegrown.

I don't know why you're drawing this distinction between Western and Non-Western. There are plenty of Western countries (e.g. Germany, Poland, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico) that needed help to become democracies too.

You are one of the smartest people on dp. So let me cut to the chase. We are talking about Egypt and democracy. Won't happen. There has to be a context within which democratic forces in any society can incubate. There is no such context in Egypt.

Democracy is an idea. It has arisen only twice in all of world history. First in Ancient Greece. Secondly, in Enlightenment Era Europe. There have been three great waves of democracy. Each has been in the West or has been in societies formed or protected by the West.

With the receding of the West, the context for further development of democracy ends. This is very sad, but it is what it is. Regards.
 
Yes because Mubarak was "installed" by Western powers and not by the radical Islamists who have assassinated Saddat. Everyone knows that.
he was assasinated because he made peace with the ancient archrival of the egyptians and other arabs, the israeli jews because they feel the Palestinian arabs lost territory they were living on. That is why, the term radical islamist that you posted is used often to misguide people of the world, as to why the conflict rages is on, its about territory the arabs feel they lost due to invasion and mass immigration of european jews into where the paly arabs were living. they dont want to take over the world as you want people to believe their main objective is to get back territory they used to live on apoc. Yes but you already knew that though.
Besides, Mubarak was also so much better for the West than that evil peace-making Saddat. Everyone knows that too.
they killed him for making peace with an an enemy they felt in their hearts stole arab land, to them its like making peace with someone who killed their mom. its that deep. but apoc we can keep beating around the bush of the true reasons why things happened as long as you want.
 
Last edited:
he was assasinated because he made peace with the ancient archrival of the egyptians and other arabs, the israeli jews because they feel the Palestinian arabs lost territory they were living on.

Are you justifying the assassination of Saddat because he was making peace with Israel?
Is that your mantra, murder those who bring peace?

That is why, the term radical islamist that you posted is used often to misguide people of the world, as to why the conflict rages is on, its about territory the arabs feel they lost due to invasion and mass immigration of european jews into where the paly arabs were living. they dont want to take over the world as you want people to believe their main objective is to get back territory they used to live on apoc. Yes but you already knew that though.

This mumbo-jumbo and history revisionism has nothing to do with this thread.

they killed him for making peace with an an enemy they felt in their hearts stole arab land

Thus radical islamists. You didn't get the point though, it was not the West that has "installed" the Mubarak regime. Get your facts right or don't get them at all.
 
You are one of the smartest people on dp. So let me cut to the chase. We are talking about Egypt and democracy. Won't happen. There has to be a context within which democratic forces in any society can incubate. There is no such context in Egypt.

Will Egypt's path to democracy be easy? No. But that is partially because Mubarak suppressed any civil institutions. If the country can remain democratic long enough for those institutions to flourish on their own, it will stand a much better chance of sustaining its democracy.

Albert Di Salvo said:
Democracy is an idea. It has arisen only twice in all of world history. First in Ancient Greece. Secondly, in Enlightenment Era Europe.

Well by that definition it CAN'T form elsewhere since anywhere in the world that it springs up, you can claim it as an heir to the European Enlightenment unless they successfully make the transition without any assistance.

Albert Di Salvo said:
There have been three great waves of democracy. Each has been in the West or has been in societies formed or protected by the West.

Fledgling democracies need to be guided by established democracies to have a good chance of success, yes. The cultural orientation of those established democracies is not relevant.

Albert Di Salvo said:
With the receding of the West, the context for further development of democracy ends. This is very sad, but it is what it is.

There's no evidence that "the West" is receding, nor is there any reason to think that countries are developing democracy merely because of us. India is a rapidly growing democracy, and it will have a strong interest in seeing other countries in its sphere of influence democratize in the coming decades. Similarly, China is slowly becoming more democratic and as its economy continues to boom it will have a much stronger incentive to democratize. Once countries pass a certain income threshold (with the exception of some oil-based economies) their citizens are far more likely to demand democracy. And China will be no exception.
 
Last edited:
...There's no evidence that "the West" is receding,...

Oh dear Kandahar. You could not be more mistaken.

We are all prisoners of time and space. Our perspective is always limited unless we study history and culture. There is a book I would like to recommend you read if you have a chance. From Dawn To Decadence by Jacques Barzun. It will break the heart of anyone who loves what the West once was.

The Ugley Vicar: On finishing Barzun's 'From Dawn to Decadence'
 
Oh dear Kandahar. You could not be more mistaken.

In terms of military power, the United States spends more than the next 20 countries combined. There is no way that we're going to be significantly challenged in this arena anytime soon.

In terms of economic power, the American economy is one of the most vibrant in the world. It isn't growing as fast as some other large countries, but that's because developing countries tend to grow faster because there is more room for growth.

In terms of demographic power, it's true that America's population is not growing as fast as other countries, but that isn't a bad thing. We tend to think of more people as more brains to solve problems...which is true in this country. In China and India, it just means more mouths to feed.

I wouldn't start bemoaning the collapse of American civilization quite yet. And in any case, the rising superpowers will have an incentive to see their neighbors democratize (in India's case) or to democratize themselves as they become wealthier (in China's case). There is no reason to expect democracy to recede.

Every non-petrostate with a GDP per capita (PPP) of at least $14,000 is a democracy...and every non-petrostate except Belarus with a GDP per capita (PPP) of at least $10,000 is a democracy. That seems to be a threshold at which people demand their freedoms. It will happen in China when they get close to that income level (they're at $7,500 now), and it will happen in Russia and other petrostates when oil ceases to drive their economy if not sooner.
 
Last edited:
Are you justifying the assassination of Saddat because he was making peace with Israel?
Is that your mantra, murder those who bring peace?
apoc im just giving you the actual reason he was killed and not justifying, it was done because he made peace with an enemy they felt they still had to expell from the land they believe is theirs. simple facts why, thats it.
This mumbo-jumbo and history revisionism has nothing to do with this thread.
apoc, if me calling the 1948 events, where their was a loss of land that arabs lived on mumbo jumbo historical revisionalis, then we have reached a deadend in this discussion
Thus radical islamists. You didn't get the point though, it was not the West that has "installed" the Mubarak regime. Get your facts right or don't get them at all.
apoc i was refering to the part in your post about the sadat assaisination, are you sure you feel ok?
 
Back
Top Bottom