Historical "good guys"

[Max Sinister]

I'd have preferred if we could vote for several options. I'd have voted for the Greeks, Social democracy, though early Christianity, early Islam and Confucianism weren't too bad either. Even the US are "good guys" for a long time of their history, though not today.

 

[MrP]

Early Islam doesn't have a single vote? How can that be? It's the only one bereft!

 

[Tacitus]

I'd have preferred if we could vote for several options. I'd have voted for the Greeks, Social democracy, though early Christianity, early Islam and Confucianism weren't too bad either. Even the US are "good guys" for a long time of their history, though not today.

Hmmm. The US are not good guys today. Why is this so? Is it because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or is there some over reason behind this statement? If it's because of Iraq, then could you honestly state that Saddam's Iraq was a "good guy" while the occupied and newly democratized Iraq is the historical "bad guy." Maybe both the US and Saddam's Iraq are "bad" but many could argue that the latter is far worse than the former.

 

[Leo Caesius]

If it's because of Iraq, then could you honestly state that Saddam's Iraq was a "good guy" while the occupied and newly democratized Iraq is the historical "bad guy."

I don't think that Iraq is the sole reason for international ill will against the US, but it came to me as news that Iraq has been democratized.

Which qualities of a democracy are found in Iraq today?

• Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership -- Check
• The right to private property and privacy -- Check
• A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights -- Not yet.
• Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law -- See above
• An independent judiciary -- See above
• A system of checks and balances between branches of government -- See above
• Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest -- Sadly, no.
• Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources -- Nope.
• Freedom of association -- No (not with martial law and all that).
• Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities -- Nope
• A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society -- Definitely not.

It should be interesting to see what kind of constitution the new government drafts. That will address a lot of these issues that are preventing Iraq from being fully democratic.

 

[Hermanubis]

I Voted for The Roman Empire, sense The Byzantine Empire is not on the Poll, so the Roman Option most include them too…


(I would have voted for Napoleonic France and USA if the Poll was multi-optional; and why can’t we vote for post-Constantine Christianity? Medieval Europeans aren’t so bad, once you get to know them… )

 

[Wendell]

I don't think that Iraq is the sole reason for international ill will against the US, but it came to me as news that Iraq has been democratized.

Which qualities of a democracy are found in Iraq today?

• Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership -- Check
• The right to private property and privacy -- Check
• A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights -- Not yet.
• Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law -- See above
• An independent judiciary -- See above
• A system of checks and balances between branches of government -- See above
• Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest -- Sadly, no.
• Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources -- Nope.
• Freedom of association -- No (not with martial law and all that).
• Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities -- Nope
• A broadly and deeply entrenched civil society -- Definitely not.

It should be interesting to see what kind of constitution the new government drafts. That will address a lot of these issues that are preventing Iraq from being fully democratic.

How many of those were implemented in West Germany and/or occupied Japan within two years after the war's end?

 

[Leo Caesius]

How many of those were implemented in West Germany and/or occupied Japan within two years after the war's end?

I don't know when the German or Japanese constitutions were drafted, but both countries had a functional middle class and civil society, two essential prerequisites for a democratic society which Iraq completely lacks.

For those reasons alone it's silly to compare Iraq to Germany or Japan. There are many more reasons not to go there, but those are probably the best.

In any case, you're quibbling. Either Iraq is "democratized," as Wozza claims, or it is not, as I am claiming.

 

[Tielhard]

How can you tell unless the pair of you agree on a definition of democracy?

 

[Wozza]

In any case, you're quibbling. Either Iraq is "democratized," as Wozza claims, or it is not, as I am claiming.[/QUOTE]

Did I claim this? Probably? It is probably more reasonable to claim that Iraq is in the process of becoming a democracy, and certainly is has had a "democratic" election.

I agree that comparisons with Japan and Germany are not necessarily good. Japan was highly factional, with the more liberal faction backed by the Emperor. The German middle class were pro-constitutional.

However. pro-liberal and pro-constitutional urges should not be confused with being pro-democracy. A good example of this is Oppenhoff, who the Americans made Mayor of Aachen in March 1945.

 

[Tielhard]

So Wozza what is democracy?

 

[Wozza]

Why do you have to ask difficult questions?

We can say what it is definitely not - despotism where the state belongs to a ruling individual. (Though this applies to numerous systems)
We can say that it is not aristocracy or oligarchy - the state is not run by a relatively fixed elite - in either the people's interests or their own.

It is a state that exists for the general interest. It is a state with an open elite where the views of the people are strongly represented in decision making.
This pre-supposes both a degree of unity, and paradoxically a degree of atomisation amongst the people - political parties should not really divide along clan/tribal lines (see Iraq!)
of the people,. by the people and for the people sums it up.

Neither the US nor Britain is a pure democracy (see monarchy, House of Lords and electoral college, and a tendency for political elites to emerge from certain groups) but both governments are clearly democractic in purpose and function.

 

[Tielhard]

I note in passing that Leo could think democracy were something completely different.

I also note that your definition is a sub-set of my own but that some of what you say is outside my idea of what a democracy is.

Without agreement on what democracy is what point is there in the argument?

 

[Wozza]

I note in passing that Leo could think democracy were something completely different.

I also note that your definition is a sub-set of my own but that some of what you say is outside my idea of what a democracy is.

Without agreement on what democracy is what point is there in the argument?

There are features which indicate a democratic system.

Are you saying there is no such thing as democracy because we cannot agree what it is? Or simply that it is a difficult debate.

I might ask you at what height the sky starts, how it differs from the air at ground level and so on. People would have different answers, yet plainly there is a sky, it is blue and aeroplanes can fly in it and we breathe it in. Once deprived of access to its air we die.

Not being able to decide at what height it starts does not change its properties.

 

[Tielhard]

"Are you saying there is no such thing as democracy because we cannot agree what it is? Or simply that it is a difficult debate."

Neither, I am saying if you do not define and agree what you mean by democracy then the debate is essentially meaningless.

Consider, if I define 'tar' as sticky black stuff beleiving you do too and you define 'tar' as a member of the RN believing I define it this way as well. We can have a debate about how well 'tar' keeps a sailing ship together. We can interact and answer one anothers points from our different perspectives. We might get confused at points but the debate can proceed. The debate is however meaningless as we are talking about two very different things.

So too your debate over democracy.

 

[benedict XVII]

"Are you saying there is no such thing as democracy because we cannot agree what it is? Or simply that it is a difficult debate."

Neither, I am saying if you do not define and agree what you mean by democracy then the debate is essentially meaningless.

Consider, if I define 'tar' as sticky black stuff beleiving you do too and you define 'tar' as a member of the RN believing I define it this way as well. We can have a debate about how well 'tar' keeps a sailing ship together. We can interact and answer one anothers points from our different perspectives. We might get confused at points but the debate can proceed. The debate is however meaningless as we are talking about two very different things.

So too your debate over democracy.

But I thought this was how any debate is happening? We shouldn't be debating anything any more, then? How boring!

 

[Leo Caesius]

Well, whatever your definition of democracy may be, unless you're willing to set the only prerequisite to be a pro-American faction being in power, I think we can agree that it will be years before we see it. The rebuilding is a necessary first step, but the organization in charge of that is a hopelessly corrupt, shambling monopoly. A little competition would help pick up the pace and keep Halliburton on its toes, but unfortunately the conditions currently prevailing there make it an unfriendly environment for business. And that's another thing - you cannot have a fully participatory government without first making sure that the people have a way of participating. If the country is run by a close-knit cabal of wealthy westernized Iraqis while 95% of the country lives beneath the poverty level, then you don't have a democracy. You have Haiti. We also need to rebuild the civil society which Saddam was in the process of dismantling during his last years in office and which we dealt the final blow to. Both of these things will take decades.

This is complicated by the fact that we cannot prevent the flow of insurgents into the country, and so even if we were to pacify the local populations, we'd still have suicide bombings and the like - not exactly conducive towards the establishment of democratic institutions.

As I said before, I'd like to think that the constitution will make a big difference in the direction of Iraq's development. The Iraqi barlaman has been given the opportunity to lay the foundations for its country's future, and I will be watching this very closely.

 

[Faeelin]

How many of those were implemented in West Germany and/or occupied Japan within two years after the war's end?

How many Americans and Japanese and Germans were dying daily two years after WW2 ended due to guerillas?

Anyone?

 

[Wozza]

How many Americans and Japanese and Germans were dying daily two years after WW2 ended due to guerillas?

Anyone?

Surprisingly few, none I think but there may be exceptions. However the length and sheer thoroughness of the war partly explains that.
Also guerilla operations against overwhelming force have a largely psychological purpose. Allied willingness to hold down Japan and Germany was pretty clear.
Perhaps a more interesting parallel is the twenty year anti-soviet partisan war in the Ukraine?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Surprisingly few, none I think but there may be exceptions. However the length and sheer thoroughness of the war partly explains that.

The Iraqis have been at war for 12 years.

 

[Wozza]

The Iraqis have been at war for 12 years.

Not against the US though (I can see you might argue otherwise), a lightning conquest simply left untouched resistance, with no central authority to order surrender.

External support would also be a key factor I did not mention.