While I agree with you, I personally think that countries like Iraq work better with them than without.Saxifraga wrote:BasariStudios wrote:Might be controversial to say this and i know some people will go against me
but i call this the Fruit of the double edged sword called Western Democracy.
I still believe people should be under dictatorship. Humans are too stupid and
out of control to govern them selves under Democracy. And when someone
does this under the Democratic Law you send those people to vacation with
Gym, Pool, Tv and Food...no, you hang them in the Middle of the town.
What has a form of creating a government to do with a single sick individual?
A dictatorship is only good as long as "you" are the dictator or someone you like. What about a dictator who hates music like Taliban?
Reading such ludicrous crap makes me cringe.
Nedim you are in dire need of some political education.
Here in Germany you would be regarded as veerrryyyy right wing.
So many warring factions, as soon as there's so called democracy in a place like Iraq, more bloodshed ends up happening to minorities (or by minorities scared of the majorities) than happened under their dictators.
I'm not saying I think a dictator is a good idea, far far from it, I'm just saying that I suspect it was easier to walk around Iraq under Sadam than it is now for the vast majority of people.
And when you have different religious or tribal factions, usually the biggest gets voted democratically in and the smallest ones are then open to exactly the same abuse that happened under their dictators or often even worse with a form of civil war replacing them.
Problem is, a mindset gets into peoples head (usually put there by the west) that if they overthrow their leaders, everything will be fine when the reality is, that's when the problems often really start. What actually happens is the warring group that's the biggest, gets into power and usually oppresses the rest (completely different to democratically elected groups in say the US or UK, in these countries we are talking tribal or fanatical religious groups). Then the rest want this government out as much as they wanted the dictator out and soon realise that this promise of a better land was just a fantasy.
Look at Egypt with their current leaders, what will sadly probably happen in this country is that strict Islamic law will be enforced on the entire country whether people want it or not, the form of islamism will be more and more fanatical and you will end up in a situation where woman are barred from working etc and someone has their hand cut off for stealing a slice of bread. And as for people of other religion's living under such rule......
Or to put it another way, the dictators are overthrown usually with the help of western governments but are often replaced with people who are far worse and often end up being dictators anyway.
I'm not saying dictators are a good thing in any way shape or form, I'm saying that sometimes when a country is made up of warring factions, free democratic elections just leads to more bloodshed. and while sometimes this is short term such as when Yugoslavia broke up (not forgetting the 100,000s of thousand who died in the process), often the bloodshed continues for decade after decade.
Often the same can be said for those countries that gain independence from western countries, Zimbabwe springs to mind.
Trouble is,. like 99% of politicians anywhere, people usually want to run countries for power and control and are usually more interested in keeping those likely to vote them out, either suppressed in order to remain in power, or to give short term economic goals so that in 3 - 5 years time they get voted back in, knowing full well that what they are doing will have a real decremental effect on the long-term stability of that country or economy.
In the west we do it with tax cut promises, public services or whatever, in many other countries they do it by violence and intimidation and often the ones that overthrow the previous ones, end up just as bad.
Mind you, if we take the deaths of everyone since the end of world war 2 (not counting ww2) and added up which country has killed more people in other countries, if a western country like Britain or the US didn't come out top, I would be extremely surprised. Even more so if you take into account western governments intervention and encouragement to overthrow leaders etc.
And I could have probably filled the server up with factual examples just from the US and the UK alone, we are talking literally millions of people killed as a result of our two countries interference, siding with one side or another, arming one side, invading somewhere or whatever.
But then we have to ask ourselves what true democracy is.
In the UK thousands of voters never get their voice heard/taken account of. If you don't support one of the two main parties, you may as well not bother. We end up in situations where the governments running the country get far less than 50% of the electorates vote. So if less than 50% of the people who voted wanted this government (any government), is it really democratic just because they got the biggest percentage.
And what about that percentage that will never wants the major parties in power. Their voice is never ever heard and they live their entire lives with virtually zero say in how things are run and their real life experience of democracy is them never getting anything they want.
I don't have any answers, I wish I did.
This is my opinion, again I am not sighting one party over another, or one country over another, but even I would be surprised if this wasn't counted as political, sorry, delete if you wish.
