misunderstanding democracy

[DrBenway]

I've been reading comments like this in the news:

In an interview with Iranian television last week after returning to Iraq, the group's deputy leader, Abdelaziz al-Hakim, said, "We will first opt for a national political system, but eventually the Iraqi people will seek an Islamic republic system." Mr. Hakim said in that interview that the will of Shiites for an Islamic system would prevail in democratic elections, since they are 60 percent of the population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/international/worldspecial/23IRAN.html?ex=1051675200&en=6b52d3c2bcd59f24&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Many people appear to equate the concept of democratic government to the concept of majority rule. How might we make clear that the problem of a sustainable democracy imposes certain controls upon the notion of majority rule?

Perhaps, the emphasis ought to be upon the protection of human rights rather than democracy. By insisting that a government ought to exist to protect basic freedoms, such as freedom of worship, freedom of the press, and equality before the law without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex, a democratic system of government must emerge.

Soundbyte version: politicos ought to say "the U.S. is fighting for an Iraqi government which will protect basic human rights," rather than "the U.S. is fighting for democracy in Iraq."

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Perhaps, the emphasis ought to be upon the protection of human rights rather than democracy. By insisting that a government ought to exist to protect basic freedoms, such as freedom of worship, freedom of the press, and equality before the law without discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex, a democratic system of government must emerge.



If these ideas go against what the vast majority of the native people believe, are they not correct in accusing us of cultural imperialism?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Sundog
If these ideas go against what the vast majority of the native people believe, are they not correct in accusing us of cultural imperialism?
This is a very difficult problem, on a number of levels. Opponents to human rights will view the imposition of these values as cultural imperialism, and they are correct. However, the "culture" being imposed is not particularly American. It's the culture of the future, of a world where the rule of law governs rather than the rule of brute force.

Iraq must live within a community of nations. Most nations have been evolving toward greater and fuller acceptance of human rights, as outlined in the U.N. declaration. Most of us in America embrace those ideals, but we still have a ways to go when it comes to putting them into practice consistently.

Can we take at face value what "many" Iraqis claim to want right at this moment? It takes a bit of thinking and discussion to fully appreciate the consequences of certain decisions. Many in Iran who fought for an Islamic state, for example, are now asking themselves, "what were we thinking?"

There really is no hope for peace in the world, unless broad agreement upon some foundation for the value of the human being is accepted. As I oppose a future mired in armed conflict, I feel no moral qualms about insisting that any new government in the world take a stand for human rights, before being recognized as legitimate.

[Dancing David]

Hopefully a dictionary will clear this up.
We of course have a representative democracy where we vote for the person who will vote for us in decisions.
I hope we never get to the point where we have direct democracy. I can't imagine what would happen if we had a plebicite on every issue, I bet taxes would go down.
I had instructor in college who pointed out that even the Russians and Chinese had democracy as there was an up/down election on each candidate.
I think that americans mistake democracy for pluralism.

Peace
dancing david

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hopefully a dictionary will clear this up.
We of course have a representative democracy where we vote for the person who will vote for us in decisions.
I hope we never get to the point where we have direct democracy.
Representative democracy is still majority rule. It's the balance of powers between governmental branches that protects minority rights in the setting of majority rule.

[Richard G]

A Constitution is the key. Constitutional Republic.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Richard G
A Constitution is the key. Constitutional Republic.
Iraq under Saddam was a constitutional republic. The UK has no written constitution. Saudi Arabia's written constitution is the Qu'ran.

Thus I can't agree with you that "constitution is the key."

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Richard G
A Constitution is the key. Constitutional Republic.

Written by whom?

[LCBOY]

This a key issue for Iraq. Since the majority of Iraqis are Muslim, I have a feeling that they will want Islam as a major force in any government. The problems will come when certain democratic principles contradict the Koran. What should they do?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by LCBOY
The problems will come when certain democratic principles contradict the Koran. What should they do?
I think we ought to be clear that in this modern world, a legitimate government is one which respects the basic human rights of all its citizens, even minority citizens. We can point to the UN Declaration of Human Rights for a specific explanation of these rights.

We ought to tell the Iraqis they can have any government they like, so long as the UN Human Rights Declaration is not violated by the new government's laws or policies. If the Iraqis reject the notion of human rights, then we ought to oppose their new government diplomatically, economically, and perhaps, militarily.

Freedom exists within a particular structure. No one is free to destroy that basic structure.

Where the principles of human rights contradict the Qu'ran, the Islamists will have to invent fudge factors to resolve the contradiciton in favor of human rights.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I think we ought to be clear that in this modern world, a legitimate government is one which respects the basic human rights of all its citizens, even minority citizens. We can point to the UN Declaration of Human Rights for a specific explanation of these rights.

We ought to tell the Iraqis they can have any government they like, so long as the UN Human Rights Declaration is not violated by the new government's laws or policies. If the Iraqis reject the notion of human rights, then we ought to oppose their new government diplomatically, economically, and perhaps, militarily.

Freedom exists within a particular structure. No one is free to destroy that basic structure.

Where the principles of human rights contradict the Qu'ran, the Islamists will have to invent fudge factors to resolve the contradiciton in favor of human rights.

I agree with all your points. I'm pretty sure that right now Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many others do not follow the UN Human Rights Declaration. To muslims secular laws can never supercede Muslim laws.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I agree with all your points. I'm pretty sure that right now Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and many others do not follow the UN Human Rights Declaration. To muslims secular laws can never supercede Muslim laws.
I think there is an evolution everywhere toward universal human rights. The US continues to work out the meaning of equality in many areas. For example, we're not the same place as when my grandmother lived and women were deprived of the vote.

The rules keep evolving. What appeared valid when Saudi Arabia formed wouldn't be acceptable today. It isn't practical to take Saudi Arabia apart and re-form it today. We'll have to accept a period of gradual change from within for the Saudis.

Iraq has been taken apart and is reforming. All the more reason to define for the new Iraqi legistators the modern rules of democratic legitimacy.

[Dancing David]

Video cameras are important in the human rights movement. I wish that all people lived free from tyranny.
Oh well, would an enlightened monach be okay, if they met the criteria of human rights?
I think that what we have is democracy that is strained through a filter to prevent the 'tyranny of the mob', at first the founding fathers despised Wilson who was a *gasp* politician.
Peace
dancing david

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Oh well, would an enlightened monach be okay, if they met the criteria of human rights?

Yes.

I think that what we have is democracy that is strained through a filter to prevent the 'tyranny of the mob', at first the founding fathers despised Wilson who was a *gasp* politician.

You lost me. Founding fathers? Wilson?