Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder .....at least this time we're going to wait for Castro to die. Does a lot of this sound familiar, though? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/30/after.castro/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ americas/06/30/after.castro/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By woody Yes, it sounds like what we did when we gave up on Vietnam. We gave up after the Bay of Pigs in Cuba.
Originally Posted By woody Since the Democrats want us to give up on Iraq, I guess it can happen in Iraq too. Just bring back another dictator. Forget the democracy although that was already done with THREE ELECTIONS!!! Turn back the clock, I suppose. And Kuwaiti just had its first election where women could vote and run for office.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Castro has been in power since 1959 and has shown no signs of stepping down despite being 80 and despite rumors of his deteriorating health. Castro's brother, Raul, is believed to be his successor. << Well if castro is 80, how old is his brother? This doesn't sound like much of a plan for the future of cuba.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Forget the democracy although that was already done with THREE ELECTIONS!!!> Although elections are necessary in a democracy, they do not in themselves make a democracy, certainly not a functioning democracy. This is a common misperception.
Originally Posted By woody Iraq is not the Soviet Union. It doesn't even compare, but I guess you think Iraq's democracy is no better.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The thing is, we don't know WHAT Iraq's democracy is going to turn out to be. They've only had all their ministries staffed for about a month. You seem to think that because they've had elections, they're there. That misunderstands what democracy is. The point is that elections do not a democracy make. Forget the Soviet Union - even countries that don't have sham or near-sham elections don't necessarily turn into democracies. Haiti's recent elections, though not completely clean (nor were Iraq's), passed muster with international inspectors, but look what happened with the governments thus elected. This has happened all over the world - basically good and fair elections that nonetheless did not establish true democracies, at least not for very long. To use the obvious example, even Hitler gained power through democratic means - and then created a one-party state. With the support of most Germans too, by the way. If Iraq decides to create a semi-theocratic state a few years after we leave, THAT will probably be with the support of most Iraqis. We have a democracy not just because of elections, but because of our Constitution, checks and balances, free press, an independent judiciary, etc. All things Iraq has either yet to establish or are fledgling, and which can be terribly fragile. It is quite premature to call Iraq a functioning democracy simply because it has held elections.
Originally Posted By woody The difference is America is sponsoring Iraq's democracy, which is what America did to Japan and Germany after WWII. So if there is any doubt, Iraq is better off with their democracy than any other. Even so, you're correct that Haiti isn't a good example. I disagree with America in proping up Aristide. This is definitely a blackeye and proves it doesn't always work. However, i think the stakes are much higher in Iraq and so far, the democratic elections look more fair than any previous elections in the middle east other than Israel or perhaps Turkey.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Even so, you're correct that Haiti isn't a good example. I disagree with America in proping up Aristide. This is definitely a blackeye and proves it doesn't always work.> It isn't just Aristide, it's his successors too. What matters is not the election but the commitment to democracy among the people elected, and the presence (or absence) of other necessary components of a democracy, as listed above (independent judiciary, free press, etc. And I should have added a military run by civilians and not entangled with the government per se.) <However, i think the stakes are much higher in Iraq and so far, the democratic elections look more fair than any previous elections in the middle east other than Israel or perhaps Turkey.> But again, that misses the point. The elections could have been completely blemish-free, and they are still nothing in themselves but elections, which is not the same thing as democracy. A much better test will come in the next election that the current ruling party loses. Zimbabwe is a good example of a place where elections looked good at first, democracy looked like it was taking hold... but then the ruler proved unwilling to give up power. Also, the major parties in Iraq are currently divided not so much by ideology (i.e. republicans and democrats), but by religious and ethnic affiliation. This has proved to be a disaster in other countries where this has been the case. And all this is not even to mention the poor chances for democracy if the sectarian violence continues after our troops leave, and/or if Iran exercises considerable sway with the Shia-majority government. The point is, it's too early to be declaring Iraq a democracy - elections alone do not a democracy make.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <To use the obvious example, even Hitler gained power through democratic means - and then created a one-party state. With the support of most Germans too, by the way.> Hitler was not elected by a majority of Germans; he seized power.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He did not seize power in a crude "coup"-like way - he tried that once and failed. The 1932 elections gave the Nazis 230 seats in the Reichstag, making them the largest and most powerful party, if not a full majority. This gave Hitler, as the leader of the largest party, the leverage to eventually persuade Hindenburg, however reluctantly, to appoint him Chancellor. As I'm sure you know, many parlimentary-style democracies rarely if ever have one party with a full majority; the leadership is usually that of the largest plurality party. Yes, there was plenty of backstage intrigue with Papen and others, but this was not a south american-style, storm the presidential palace power grab. After Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor, he got the Reichstag itself to essentially declare itself irrelevant, getting non-nazi parties to go along by declaring the powers "temporary" and "emergency" only. Only the Social Democrats dissented. Of course, as soon as that was done, the changes became permanent and Germany became essentially a one-party state. This was indeed popular with most Germans, who were happy to have "order" in place of the recent years of chaos. And certainly history offers many other examples of people who gained power democratically, in a more "purely" democratic way than Hitler, who after a while simply didn't want to give up power, and killed democracy in their countries. My main point remains: elections in themselves do not constitute a democracy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, and for that matter there's nothing in post 11 that contradicts what I had said earlier. Post 12 is a clarification for those who may not know the history as well as you and I; when one says "seized power," the usual image is not of the methods that Hitler used.
Originally Posted By woody >>My main point remains: elections in themselves do not constitute a democracy.<< No, but Germany's problem wasn't really the issue of democracy. It was about Hilter's foreign policy... right? And racism? Hitler had legitimacy to govern his country. Iraq is a different issue. There is democracy in Iraq, but Iraq is turning out to be a collection of self-governing states. Even if Iraq dissolves, Iraq will comprise of three states... Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>My main point remains: elections in themselves do not constitute a democracy.<< <No, but Germany's problem wasn't really the issue of democracy. It was about Hilter's foreign policy... right? And racism?> Among many other things. <Hitler had legitimacy to govern his country.> Well, sort of. He had the largest party, and was eventually asked by Hindenburg to be Chancellor. But soon after that he banished democracy and created a one-party state. So yes, democracy was a "problem" for him. But he's just one example of countries having elections, then the ruling parties doing away with any real democracy. <Iraq is a different issue. There is democracy in Iraq,> No. There have been elections. Elections do not constitute democracy in themselves. And Iraq still lacks many of the necessary components of a functioning democracy; even if that were not the case, it has had its present government for such a short time, that would be premature to call it a democracy at this point. <but Iraq is turning out to be a collection of self-governing states. Even if Iraq dissolves, Iraq will comprise of three states... Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.> That may well be what happens, and what form those three governments take is very much up in the air.
Originally Posted By seanyoda ^^ And then there would be the question of those three separate states coexisting peacefully.
