3 ms·

> Yep, see what happened in the Arabic countries (and some other countries outside of the Islam-sphere). I think we need to make a distinction here. See Egypt,

> Yep, see what happened in the Arabic countries (and some other countries outside of the Islam-sphere). I think we need to make a distinction here. See Egypt, for example. A secular military government was in power for decades long (with support from the west). Their "Internet generation" got together and managed to overthrow Mubarak, and call for elections. They had elections, and the most organized party (Islamic) was able to elect their candidate (Morsi). But because of the religious inclinations, the laicist sector of the society asked the military to overthrow the president again. Now the military is in power and killing islamics who protest against the coup d'etate (again, with support from the west). It's back to zero. So, Egypt attempt to adopt democracy and a more equalitarian state didn't exactly played out well. In fact, there, the government is a major chunk of the society (military control 30% of the economy). As it seems, democracy isn't the ultimate solution for every country.

mr_luc 13y ago
Apart from democracy, ie systems that let majorities of individuals pick either the laws directly, or the leaders, what system would be the 'ultimate solution' for any country? I agree that just because you get to democracy doesn't mean everything becomes peachy. But what other systems are better 'ultimate solutions' for given countries? Ie, maybe there's a country for which right now the most practical government is a Kingdom. King Ud helps the wagons run on time. What makes that government the most practical for that country right now? Are those factors changing over time? What will the 'ultimate' solution look like then? Honestly, I've heard this a lot -- even in amazing books like "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" -- and I'm never sure what the author intends to say.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  The biggest problem with political systems is that countries don't exist in a vacuum. For instance, it might be possible that Egypt successfully adopted democracy, even when a leader supported only by a sector of the society got elected. The very nature of democracy is forcing you to deal with different viewpoints on the political arena. But since that goes against the west agenda and the US finances their military, you end up with a dysfunctional democracy, and suddenly it's acceptable to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Today's world is interconnected so much that the very notion of sovereign countries is arguable.

mr_luc 13y ago

Apart from democracy, ie systems that let majorities of individuals pick either the laws directly, or the leaders, what system would be the 'ultimate solution' for any country? I agree that just because you get to democracy doesn't mean everything becomes peachy. But what other systems are better 'ultimate solutions' for given countries? Ie, maybe there's a country for which right now the most practical government is a Kingdom. King Ud helps the wagons run on time. What makes that government the most practical for that country right now? Are those factors changing over time? What will the 'ultimate' solution look like then? Honestly, I've heard this a lot -- even in amazing books like "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" -- and I'm never sure what the author intends to say.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
The biggest problem with political systems is that countries don't exist in a vacuum. For instance, it might be possible that Egypt successfully adopted democracy, even when a leader supported only by a sector of the society got elected. The very nature of democracy is forcing you to deal with different viewpoints on the political arena. But since that goes against the west agenda and the US finances their military, you end up with a dysfunctional democracy, and suddenly it's acceptable to overthrow a democratically elected leader. Today's world is interconnected so much that the very notion of sovereign countries is arguable.