NationStates Jolt Archive

After hearing that the Pakistani party Benazir Bhutto headed was choosing her son as her successor, it occurred to me that democracy in Pakistan probably has a slightly different meaning than it does in the US. This, along with the forced democratization of Iraq, led me to think whether or not democracy would work at all in these countries, which brings me to my question: do you think there is one system of government, one "formula," that should be applied to the entire world? On the one hand, it seems that countries such as Iran should become more like the United States, which in turn should become more like England. But then again, it seems reasonable to assume there are things in the American government that would only work in America, and the same with England or Iran. The logical conclusion seems to be that the government a country has is the one best suited for it, but that flies in the face of human rights, among other things.

Sorry for the long, bloggish post. I'll shut up now and let others speak.

One formula of government would be highly unsuitable for most of humanity.

Here in the west, we have mostly some variant of Parliamentary Representative Democracy. It works well for us. Because of it's flexibility, and the fact that some variation of it is used by many other societies, we often make the mistake of assuming it's the best system for all.

Unfortunately, that just isn't true. Russia, for instance, has always done best undr a single, strong leader - whether or not said leader has been particularly pleasent.

China tried representative democracy, and got what is probably the worst government they ever had.

Saudi Arabians seem, in general, quite happy being ruled by an absolute monarch.

Human Rights don't include anything about choosing your own government; they're just a se of guidelines about treating people right. Any government, democratic or not, can do that. And any government, democratic or not, can entirely fail to do that.

Let people have the governments that suit them. They'll be happier, and there'll probably be less cleanup to do afterwards.

I've come to the conclusion that problems happen in countries where the people do not see themselves in terms of nationality but by more local loyalties.

This causes political factions to arise where loyalty to the faction takes precedence over doing what's best for the people.

I'd like to propose a system of assimilation, one that retains the best of local or ethnic customs but within the context of a greater nation, possibly leading to the dissolving of all nations into one world.

Yet that takes time and I don't have the patience.

My solution is genocide alas.

After hearing that the Pakistani party Benazir Bhutto headed was choosing her son as her successor, it occurred to me that democracy in Pakistan probably has a slightly different meaning than it does in the US. This, along with the forced democratization of Iraq, led me to think whether or not democracy would work at all in these countries, which brings me to my question: do you think there is one system of government, one "formula," that should be applied to the entire world? On the one hand, it seems that countries such as Iran should become more like the United States, which in turn should become more like England. But then again, it seems reasonable to assume there are things in the American government that would only work in America, and the same with England or Iran. The logical conclusion seems to be that the government a country has is the one best suited for it, but that flies in the face of human rights, among other things.

Sorry for the long, bloggish post. I'll shut up now and let others speak.

I consider a major problem being that the general public is not well versed in politics, and thus easily manipulated. In general, a better education for all Pakistanis would improve the system greatly. Otherwise, emotion takes control and it is becomes easy to convince a gullible population of something. Knowledge, and a habit of questioning things would greatly help the democratic process.

Um, nepotism in the "People's Party" doesn't prove that Pakistan is incapable of democracy. It just proves that Bhutto was not much of a democrat.

After hearing that the Pakistani party Benazir Bhutto headed was choosing her son as her successor, it occurred to me that democracy in Pakistan probably has a slightly different meaning than it does in the US.

It's more than slightly. Even Japanese "democracy" is very different from the US or British.

This, along with the forced democratization of Iraq, led me to think whether or not democracy would work at all in these countries,

If Pakistan and Iraq were proper nation-states, instead of failed patchwork constructs masquarading as states like many othe post-colonial "nation-states", they might.

which brings me to my question: do you think there is one system of government, one "formula," that should be applied to the entire world?

Absolutely not. Every state has it's own unique political culture which shapes the institutions of it's government.

On the one hand, it seems that countries such as Iran should become more like the United States,

In a few superficial ways, possibly.

which in turn should become more like England.

No.

But then again, it seems reasonable to assume there are things in the American government that would only work in America, and the same with England or Iran.

Exactly so. And the opposite is also very true. There are things that work well in the UK that wouldn't fly in the US - the monarchy-parlimentary system for example.

The logical conclusion seems to be that the government a country has is the one best suited for it,

Not always. Countries generally have the government they deserve. This is not the same as the one which is most suitable. If the governments were those that were best suited, you'd see very few overthrown.

but that flies in the face of human rights, among other things.

If governments were generally the ones that were suitable, then no. Since they aren't, then yes, many governments fly in the face of human rights. (Note also that there is not a lot of agreement on what human rights are exactly.)

Sorry for the long, bloggish post. I'll shut up now and let others speak.

Neither long nor bloggy. :)

I've come to the conclusion that problems happen in countries where the people do not see themselves in terms of nationality but by more local loyalties.

This causes political factions to arise where loyalty to the faction takes precedence over doing what's best for the people.

I'd like to propose a system of assimilation, one that retains the best of local or ethnic customs but within the context of a greater nation, possibly leading to the dissolving of all nations into one world.

Yet that takes time and I don't have the patience.

My solution is genocide alas.

The problem here is one of a confusion of the defintions of state and nation. Iraq is a state, but not a nation.

Not to go into it in too much detail, but Ralph Peters (who I hesitate to bring up for other reasons, but in this case is a worthwhile example) had a suggestion for settling a good bit of the problems of the region by redrawing the maps. Blood borders:
How a better Middle East would look (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899)

Map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg)

Redrawing the maps, especially if proposed to be done by force, really isn't doable, at least not right now, but at least it illustrates my point.

Um, nepotism in the "People's Party" doesn't prove that Pakistan is incapable of democracy. It just proves that Bhutto was not much of a democrat.

Perhaps, yet the fact that this nepotism is an accepted state of affairs speaks of a society in which democracy does not work.

I'm unable to come up with an alternative over enforced representation, but enforced by who I cannot say, or, at least, I can't think of a reasonable body.

The problem here is one of a confusion of the defintions of state and nation. Iraq is a state, but not a nation.

Not to go into it in too much detail, but Ralph Peters (who I hesitate to bring up for other reasons, but in this case is a worthwhile example) had a suggestion for settling a good bit of the problems of the region by redrawing the maps. Blood borders:
How a better Middle East would look (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899)

Map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg)

Redrawing the maps, especially if proposed to be done by force, really isn't doable, at least not right now, but at least it illustrates my point.

Yes, same problem and the reason I used 'countries'. In describing the current state of affairs, it seems obvious some countries simply don't work.

Yet to change this, well how? I think we both dislike force, despite my genocide quip, but I don't see referendums working either due to the distribution of natural resources.

Time and pressure is all I can think of.

Having read the article now...

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

I knew it!

While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State

Ah ha ha ha - never going to happen.

This is a pipe-dream for the reason I put above, no 'country' will give up natural resources and certainly not religious sovereignty in this way.

Yes, same problem and the reason I used 'countries'.

I was thinking of this: "the people do not see themselves in terms of nationality but by more local loyalties". If the people don't think of themselves as a nation, they (probably) aren't.

In describing the current state of affairs, it seems obvious some countries simply don't work.

Yep, absolutely.

Yet to change this, well how? I think we both dislike force, despite my genocide quip, but I don't see referendums working either due to the distribution of natural resources.

Time and pressure is all I can think of.

Rational, realistic diplomacy is the only real lever that can be applied. Force may be used when there's a real danger - keeping Pakistan's 100 or so nukes out of AQ's hands for example, but you can't force cultural changes. Populations obey the rather hackneyed bromide usually applied to addicts (and Buddhist students) about having to want to change.

Having read the article now...
I knew it!

Ethnic Cleansing - the kinder, gentler genocide... :(

Ah ha ha ha - never going to happen.

This is a pipe-dream for the reason I put above, no 'country' will give up natural resources and certainly not religious sovereignty in this way.

Like I said, it really isn't doable - at least not for now. (And probably never.)

After hearing that the Pakistani party Benazir Bhutto headed was choosing her son as her successor, it occurred to me that democracy in Pakistan probably has a slightly different meaning than it does in the US. This, along with the forced democratization of Iraq, led me to think whether or not democracy would work at all in these countries, which brings me to my question: do you think there is one system of government, one "formula," that should be applied to the entire world? On the one hand, it seems that countries such as Iran should become more like the United States, which in turn should become more like England. But then again, it seems reasonable to assume there are things in the American government that would only work in America, and the same with England or Iran. The logical conclusion seems to be that the government a country has is the one best suited for it, but that flies in the face of human rights, among other things.

Sorry for the long, bloggish post. I'll shut up now and let others speak.

Is there a 'best' government--a good question. I'd imagine no, as different situations demand different solutions. However there may be a best way of governing--tactics to lead effectively, building up and empowering followers when appropriate, employing effective methods for making decisions, that sort of thing could be said to have a 'best' approach.

I was thinking of this: "the people do not see themselves in terms of nationality but by more local loyalties". If the people don't think of themselves as a nation, they (probably) aren't.

Yes, and this was something I was asking in another thread - what turns a group of disparate people into a nation.

Common heroes would be one, often after an invasion or threat of some sort so I suppose a precursor to 'common hero' would be a threat that binds people together in seeing themselves as one.

I therefore see little future for Iraq and I wonder if this ties into the basket-nationhood of other countries - if you're not founded from struggle then nothing holds you together. If anything, most African and ME countries were founded in shame, in the sense of colonial map-drawing.

EDIT: As a corollary to this, I remember being surprised in walking around War Museums in Vietnam that the emphasis was not on what we call the Vietnam War but on kicking out the French, specifically Dien Bien Phu.

I consider a major problem being that the general public is not well versed in politics, and thus easily manipulated....emotion takes control and it is becomes easy to convince a gullible population of something.
In other words, exactly the way American politics work.

In other words, exactly the way American politics work.

There's something very true in this, people would be surprised at how much politics is discussed in countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and others - it directly impacts lives in a far greater way than the choice between Democrats and Republicans.

The problem here is one of a confusion of the defintions of state and nation. Iraq is a state, but not a nation.

Not to go into it in too much detail, but Ralph Peters (who I hesitate to bring up for other reasons, but in this case is a worthwhile example) had a suggestion for settling a good bit of the problems of the region by redrawing the maps. Blood borders:
How a better Middle East would look (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899)

Map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg)

Redrawing the maps, especially if proposed to be done by force, really isn't doable, at least not right now, but at least it illustrates my point.

Interesting map, it's the same sort of situation in Africa too.

Um, nepotism in the "People's Party" doesn't prove that Pakistan is incapable of democracy. It just proves that Bhutto was not much of a democrat.

I didn't say it did. But it struck me as kind of funny, and made me think how Pakistani democracy is different from American democracy, and would be even if Bhutto never existed.

Perhaps, yet the fact that this nepotism is an accepted state of affairs speaks of a society in which democracy does not work.

No, it doesn't. It speaks of a society in which democracy does not (right now) exist.

Very different.

No, it doesn't. It speaks of a society in which society does not (right now) exist.

Very different.

Umm...

I throw my hands up to say I cannot answer this.

I remember an Aussie retorting to some facile point I'd made with the phrase - don't come the raw prawn with me mate - in entirely not knowing what the hell he was saying, I lost the debate due to open-mouthed whatness.

After hearing that the Pakistani party Benazir Bhutto headed was choosing her son as her successor, it occurred to me that democracy in Pakistan probably has a slightly different meaning than it does in the US. This, along with the forced democratization of Iraq, led me to think whether or not democracy would work at all in these countries, which brings me to my question: do you think there is one system of government, one "formula," that should be applied to the entire world? On the one hand, it seems that countries such as Iran should become more like the United States, which in turn should become more like England. But then again, it seems reasonable to assume there are things in the American government that would only work in America, and the same with England or Iran. The logical conclusion seems to be that the government a country has is the one best suited for it, but that flies in the face of human rights, among other things.

Sorry for the long, bloggish post. I'll shut up now and let others speak.

i believe that if your talking democracy all nations would be siuted to democracy. but democracy isn't everyone votes for there president and so on like ours it's also voteing on your government. even Pre-soviet russia was democratic but stupidly they rejected capitalism and became a dictatorship and never got to communism. if people don't like thier government it is thier right to overthrow it or move. as John Locke believed the governing recieve power from the governed.

Umm...

I throw my hands up to say I cannot answer this.

Oops. Make that "It speaks of a society where democracy does not (right now) exist."

My mind gets way ahead of my hands sometimes.

Perhaps, yet the fact that this nepotism is an accepted state of affairs speaks of a society in which democracy does not work.



*cough*

Georges W. Bush?
Hillary Clinton?
The Kennedy family?

I rest my case.

i believe that if your talking democracy all nations would be siuted to democracy. but democracy isn't everyone votes for there president and so on like ours it's also voteing on your government. even Pre-soviet russia was democratic but stupidly they rejected capitalism and became a dictatorship and never got to communism. if people don't like thier government it is thier right to overthrow it or move. as John Locke believed the governing recieve power from the governed.

O RLY?

I would say a democracy has advantages, and disadvantages as well. A functional democracy is self correcting, and will remove whatever is hindering it (eventually). But, a lot of money (and time) is wasted campaigning, and often times beneficial policies are struck down by a lack of support.

On the other hand, a monarchy (or dictatorship), unrestricted, has the potential for both unrivaled growth and unrivaled ruin. If the ruler is good, they are allowed to enact whatever policies they wish, and if they seek the best interests of the people (though I admit this is rare) then the people will prosper. But a bad king, unchecked, will do the opposite.

Then of course you can combine the two, or take heavily from one, or heavily from the other. But either way, both have their benefits and advantages.

Oops. Make that "It speaks of a society where democracy does not (right now) exist."

My mind gets way ahead of my hands sometimes.

Okay, so the difference is between whether it works or exists?

I'm saying that a society in which I will vote for my incompetent brother over anyone else, because my brother will land me a job or ease my way in life out of family duty, is not a society that is ready for functioning democracy - it is a society in which democracy does not work.

It can exist and not work, and that is essentially what we have in Pakistan, the machinations of democracy are there but it does not work, to further the poor analogy, the petrol on which democracy functions is not being added and that petrol is a vote for policies and/or direction over personal preferences.

Somehow I'm getting deja vu on this, your reply will be that my initial example is therefore not a democracy and therefore it does not exist.

I'm saying that a society in which I will vote for my incompetent brother over anyone else, because my brother will land me a job or ease my way in life out of family duty, is not a society that is ready for functioning democracy

That's a very different kind of nepotism from the kind Bhutto practiced, and its effects are so minor as to be irrelevant.

It can exist and not work, and that is essentially what we have in Pakistan, the machinations of democracy are there but it does not work,

No, the institutions aren't there. Hence Musharraf. Hence the high potential for electoral fraud. Hence the capacity for Bhutto to let her corrupt husband rule the party as regent for her son.

That would never happen in a society with democratic institutions. Any party that became a tool for a given family's political power would not be a successful political party. People want to be represented, not to have a tiny segment of the population get very rich and powerful.

Ah, what you're saying is that there's no democracy in Pakistan right now - see how I copy your sentence exactly while saying I misread it - my error is due to thinking in terms of my own meaning and reading yours within that context.

My meaning was democracy in general and my thoughts are fairly well explained, well better than my own thoughts, in this report (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/the_governance_and_democracy_in_pakistan)

That's a very different kind of nepotism from the kind Bhutto practiced, and its effects are so minor as to be irrelevant.

I foolishly simplify my examples, partly due to lack of diligence on my part but, from the article linked above, this is what I mean...

The country's semi-feudal system with its sets of obligations and hierarchy provided similarly inhospitable soil for building a democracy. The traditional power brokers, the wealthy, large land-holding families, are prepared to give their allegiance to anyone who promised to protect their material interests and way of life.

No, the institutions aren't there. Hence Musharraf. Hence the high potential for electoral fraud. Hence the capacity for Bhutto to let her corrupt husband rule the party as regent for her son.

That would never happen in a society with democratic institutions. Any party that became a tool for a given family's political power would not be a successful political party. People want to be represented, not to have a tiny segment of the population get very rich and powerful.

Yet, in line with my original meaning, Pakistan does theoretically have those institutions, albeit under dictatorial cessation right now yet, due to the society, they do not work even when applied.

*cough*

Georges W. Bush?
Hillary Clinton?
The Kennedy family?

I rest my case.

I knew someone would bring this up and it's a fair point but, for reasons I can't be bothered to go into, it's irrelevant.

Dammit no, I can be slightly bothered - this is something that's accepted in America but I doubt it would be for any other modern, functioning democracy.

I can't fully explain it to be honest, I hazard a guess at America's love of personality, or perhaps a history of Great Families, or a dysfunctional party system because, frankly, I'm utterly appalled by the fact that either George W was elected or that Hillary Clinton stands a strong chance of being elected, and personally I like Hillary best of all the candidates yet it just makes me shake my head that such a state of affairs has occurred.

I'm not even American.

6 out of the last 7 elections have featured Bush or Clinton - this period will be a field day for historians.

People want to be represented, not to have a tiny segment of the population get very rich and powerful.

Too bad reality contradicts your statements hmm?

Maybe they don't exactly want that, but that's what they do anyway.

I knew someone would bring this up and it's a fair point but, for reasons I can't be bothered to go into, it's irrelevant.

Dammit no, I can be slightly bothered - this is something that's accepted in America but I doubt it would be for any other modern, functioning democracy.

I can't fully explain it to be honest, I hazard a guess at America's love of personality, or perhaps a history of Great Families, or a dysfunctional party system because, frankly, I'm utterly appalled by the fact that either George W was elected or that Hillary Clinton stands a strong chance of being elected, and personally I like Hillary best of all the candidates yet it just makes me shake my head that such a state of affairs has occurred.

I'm not even American.

6 out of the last 7 elections have featured Bush or Clinton - this period will be a field day for historians.
So basically, it's not irrelevant. It's very relevant.

Either one agrees with the original comment that nepotism is a sign that democracy cannot function properly, and that means BOTH Pakistan and the USA are dysfunctional, or one uses that list of names as a counterexample to show that yes, democracy can work despite some nepotism.

I personally don't even know which way I'm leaning, but you can't say "it's irrelevant because the USA has a cult of the personality syndrome" while saying the same about it being irrelevant in pakistan because they might have some sort of cultural quirk that makes it just the same over there.

What I wanted to do, I guess, is point out the obvious double standard and say how hypocritical it seemed to just blurt out "Pakistan's democracy can't work because there's nepotism!" while at the same time say "The USA has nepotism too but it doesn't count because it's us!".

So yeah. Either the US democracy is dysfunctional as well, or neither are dysfunctional and nepotism can be fitted in democracy. I don't care much which. But don't judge others harsher than you judge yourselves.

So basically, it's not irrelevant. It's very relevant.

Either one agrees with the original comment that nepotism is a sign that democracy cannot function properly, and that means BOTH Pakistan and the USA are dysfunctional, or one uses that list of names as a counterexample to show that yes, democracy can work despite some nepotism.

I personally don't even know which way I'm leaning, but you can't say "it's irrelevant because the USA has a cult of the personality syndrome" while saying the same about it being irrelevant in pakistan because they might have some sort of cultural quirk that makes it just the same over there.

What I wanted to do, I guess, is point out the obvious double standard and say how hypocritical it seemed to just blurt out "Pakistan's democracy can't work because there's nepotism!" while at the same time say "The USA has nepotism too but it doesn't count because it's us!".

So yeah. Either the US democracy is dysfunctional as well, or neither are dysfunctional and nepotism can be fitted in democracy. I don't care much which. But don't judge others harsher than you judge yourselves.

I can't express my thoughts on the difference and I'm leaning on thinking, in actuality, that there's little difference between the Bush dynasty and the Bhutto dynasty, or the Nehru or Aquino or whatever political dynasty - perhaps someone else can.

Yet the article I linked to is a better expression of why I say democracy won't work for some time in Pakistan and, to be fair, I pointed to nepotism as one result of this societal issue not as sole reason.

Yet the article I linked to is a better expression of why I say democracy won't work for some time in Pakistan and, to be fair, I pointed to nepotism as one result of this societal issue not as sole reason.
Well, it's entirely possible that democracy as we know it here can't work well over there, but that'd be due to factors other than nepotism.

Still, would you not agree that the presence of this same nepotism in the US (and to a lesser extend Canada, what with Justin Trudeau being polled as a viable candidate for Prime Minister office) is a telling sign that democracy is in poor shape even here?

Well, it's entirely possible that democracy as we know it here can't work well over there, but that'd be due to factors other than nepotism.

Still, would you not agree that the presence of this same nepotism in the US (and to a lesser extend Canada, what with Justin Trudeau being polled as a viable candidate for Prime Minister office) is a telling sign that democracy is in poor shape even here?

I sure would.

I'd say that there's an ideological hijacking of both parties in the US, heightened in contrast with each other. I wonder when it started, where the seeds lie - is it the New Deal, is it the Kennedy's, is it Vietnam or is Reagan the start point?

Whatever it is, it's led to a cabal of thought in each party that has been championed by Bush-ites in the Republican and, I feel more as a reaction to the R's rather than initiated, by Clinton-ites in the D's.

I feel the Reagan-Bush philosophy has been entrenched, more solid, however although, hopefully, we're seeing its dying days as the likes of Rumsfeld and ye olde VP leave, although I'm sure their influence will remain.

My main problem is that I'm not American so I can't get an intuitive feel for what I'm, poorly, saying. I almost feel like heading over there for a couple of years to get a better feel for what I think are extraordinary times in America in a political sense.

I really haven't captured my thoughts well here, disjointed rambling from lacking coherent thoughts on the matter but it's got my brain going on the subject.

I'll have it solved for you all soon :)