3 ms·

I don't know how much research this requires, as someone who had a front seat for the conversion of Eastern Europe to democracy it all seems obvious to me. OBV

I don't know how much research this requires, as someone who had a front seat for the conversion of Eastern Europe to democracy it all seems obvious to me. OBVIOUSLY you need law and order to get democracy. Democracy is the pinnacle of a working society not the root cause of it. Now,people will often mistake the results of lawlessness and corruption as the reason peoples X just ain't made for democracy and freedom. I hope I don't have to explain how stupid that is. It is just as stupid at the theory that democracy would flourish in Afghanistan and Iraq with little to no effort, like magic!

bokonist 18y ago
Is democracy a means or an end? To me, it is a means - a way to achieve better government by making government more accountable. But you are basically saying, in order to have democracy, you already need to have good government. Well, if you already have good government, then what's the point of adding democracy? Why not just stick with whatever government is working so well?
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  I think most people in the West do treat it as an end. That is the only way to explain the passion people put behind their support for Democracy. When discussing policies, "anti-democratic" is used as a synonym for "bad".
- shiranaihito 18y ago
  Indeed, a wise and benevolent dictator could be much better than democracy in general. Besides, the democracy we have now in western countries doesn't really make governments particularly accountable. Compared to some insane African tyrant, sure, but as much as appropriate? Not even close.
- biohacker42 18y ago
  I think democracy is a means to preserve good government/stability. A means to guarantee sanity. With a perfectly functioning authoritarian government there's always the danger of it going to hell. A good king replaced by bad king, or what ever. With no checks and balances there's no guarantee things won't go crazy. And obviously authoritarian governments are almost never good, because they are by definition not accountable. But a functioning democracy, which functioning institutions and laws above individuals, that's a difficult system to achieve. In a very troubled part of the world, democracy is not something that just naturally wins over armed strong men.

bokonist 18y ago

Is democracy a means or an end? To me, it is a means - a way to achieve better government by making government more accountable. But you are basically saying, in order to have democracy, you already need to have good government. Well, if you already have good government, then what's the point of adding democracy? Why not just stick with whatever government is working so well?

jacoblyles 18y ago
I think most people in the West do treat it as an end. That is the only way to explain the passion people put behind their support for Democracy. When discussing policies, "anti-democratic" is used as a synonym for "bad".
shiranaihito 18y ago
Indeed, a wise and benevolent dictator could be much better than democracy in general. Besides, the democracy we have now in western countries doesn't really make governments particularly accountable. Compared to some insane African tyrant, sure, but as much as appropriate? Not even close.
biohacker42 18y ago
I think democracy is a means to preserve good government/stability. A means to guarantee sanity. With a perfectly functioning authoritarian government there's always the danger of it going to hell. A good king replaced by bad king, or what ever. With no checks and balances there's no guarantee things won't go crazy. And obviously authoritarian governments are almost never good, because they are by definition not accountable. But a functioning democracy, which functioning institutions and laws above individuals, that's a difficult system to achieve. In a very troubled part of the world, democracy is not something that just naturally wins over armed strong men.