h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>turns out japan had democracy before the war as well

Not really, they just had a period after World War I where the old aristocracy lost some of their power and power transferred to the diet and a multiparty system but there was no universal suffrage and no genuine democracy. In fact this short-lived period (nicknamed Taishō Democracy) might have lead to a genuine democracy but was scuppered by reactionary elements who put a stop on further liberalisation with the Peace Preservation Law of 1925. There were further attempts at some kind of multi-party system but they eventually ended with the rise to power of the militarist and nationalist Right in the 1930s. Essentially, what happened in Japan was very similar to what happened in Germany.

When genuine democracy did appear it appeared because the Americans imposed it, via peace terms, on a country formerly ruled by a rightwing militarist regime they'd just defeated. And it all worked out rather well which, as I argued, probably explains why the Americans thought similar experiments would turn out the same way.

Actually, as an addition to the "Japanese emperor as living god" thing I remember reading once that when the emperor made his famous "think the unthinkable" broadcast to the Japanese nation telling them they had to surrender (these words weren't just rhetoric, the Japanese mindset at the time genuinely found the notion of surrender unthinkable) a group of Japanese imperial troops actually tried to storm his palace. I've never found out 1) how true the story is and 2) what they were storming the palace for. Since the Japanese troops were supposedly conditioned to be absolutely loyal to the emperor I can only assume that they thought it was an imposter or the fact that their living god who would never surrender was telling them to surrender completely messed up their worldview and made them go crazy. Anyone able to enlighten?

<<In fact this short-lived period (nicknamed Taish&#333; Democracy) might have lead to a genuine democracy but was scuppered by reactionary elements who put a stop on further liberalisation with the Peace Preservation Law of 1925.>>


<<The General Election Law (&#26222;&#36890;&#36984;&#25369;&#27861; ,Futsu Senkyo H&#333;?) was a law passed in Taish&#333; period Japan, extending suffrage to all males aged 25 and over. It was proposed by the Kenseito political party and it was passed by the Diet of Japan on 5 May 1925.>>wiki

looks like a donkey smells like a donkey

does it matter how long and why

germany and japan were democratic before the war.

"does it matter how long and why"

Yes it does, actually. Take Iraq for example, they didn't have any sort of parliamentary system before independence but they did have the beginnings of political pluralism and secular politics. For Saddam Hussein to ban and persecute all those political parties they had to exist and be operational in the first place. One of the reasons Rumsfeld et al were so sure democracy would work there is because the country had such a reputation for a lack of sectarianism and political sophistication. Turned out that Iraq had largely gone, killed-off or forced-out by the most part after over 30 years of Saddam. Countries and people change under totalitarian regimes.

"germany and japan were democratic before the war."

Germany was, yes. Japan to some extent (I was wrong about the suffrage thing, so you can have that, assuming wiki isn't fibbing) although political parties (the communists in particular) were persecuted thanks to the Peace Preservation Law and the Japanese establishment obviously disliked the explosion of leftwing and liberal political activity of the 1920s and early 1930s.

This also from wiki:

"Overall, during the 1920s, Japan changed its direction toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential. *These shifts in power were made possible by the ambiguity and imprecision of the Meiji constitution, particularly as regarded the position of the Emperor in relation to the constitution*."

I emphasised the "These shifts..." bit because this was the problem with calling pre-war Japan "democratic" in the same way Germany had been. Officially, the country was ruled by the emperor and so Japan's experimentation with consensual politics was easy to overturn. This didn't change until a new constitution was put in place, imposed if you like, by the occupying United States.

So democracy had ended there by the 1930s, as it did in Germany. When democracy proper appeared in Japan (and re-appeared in Germany) it was because it was installed by allied forces.

There was a reason for this which was that the regimes in question had such a hold on the people that it was assumed that they would need to be re-educated in order to join the new world order. It was assumed (rightly or wrongly) that if Germany and Japan were left to their own devices following defeat the regimes would probably continue. With Germany, it was thought that the entire country needed re-educating since they were regarded as a fundamentally warlike people who when experimenting with democracy had simply voted themselves back into dictatorship (not really true, as I said, but that's for another time...) so the allied powers didn't only install democracy but, to some extent, imposed liberalism on the German people. With Japan they imposed pacifism (a very short-sighted move in my opinion but, again, that's for another time...) and Western-style constitutional democracy and, importantly, removed all the emperor's power. The fact that the Japanese took this so well and that their relationship with the occupiers was so good seems to have taken the US generals by surprise.

Additionally:

"you cannot impose democracy, it has to be fought and earned by a population that wants it."

(Taff, posting 2)

"first of all the population must want it, then they have to fight for it, so they earn it, then they will apreciate it, with stories like, "your grandad took a bullet in the shoulder so that you could vote"

it cannot be imposed from outside because stories like "lots of arrogant forign soldiers died so you could vote, and dissmantled our tribal ways at the same time" wont stir the blood of the population"

Taff, posting 6)

So, you've established that in order to have democracy a country has to fight for it and gain it itself otherwise it's invalid and (more importantly) won't work because there's no national heroic legend of the self-sufficient struggle against dictatorship.

Then you say:

"germany was a democracy,(how else did the nazis come to power) and was liberated in 1945 after 12 years of nazi rule"

Yes, but *they didn't liberate themselves*. What happened was that some "arrogant forign (sic) soldiers" came along and installed a democratic system. The Nazi regime was not overthrown by the Germans, nor was the militarist regime and Meiji constitution overthrown by the Japanese. So, the fact that these countries had democratic (or pseudo-democratic) systems before WWII is utterly irrelvant according to your *own logic and own claims*. But these systems, installed from without and not after protracted internal liberation wars, and yet both Germany and Japan are model democracies.

"But these systems were installed from without and not after protracted internal liberation wars, and yet both Germany and Japan are model democracies."

As it should have read. I'd ask for an edit function but it would fall on deaf ears.

Looking at the fits and bursts transition from rule by absolute Monarchs to the wide (but NOT universal) sufferage we have in the UK Id have to say no Democracy cant be imposed.

As its been shown here even where the final push came form occupying forces the countries in question have been fairly close to the tipping point already.

"you can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink"

However if you do want ti to drink helps if the water is fresh and tasty and the horse is thirsty.

I think it would be far easier to induce and encourage a democratic movement in North korea and virtually impossible to impose one in Afghanistan.

I have to try to get children adn adults who are averse to learning to learn basic skills. Shouting 3x19 is 57 wont help telling them I'mm cheating at darts because they cant keep score makes them want what I have to offer.

"Looking at the fits and bursts transition from rule by absolute Monarchs to the wide (but NOT universal) sufferage we have in the UK Id have to say no Democracy cant be imposed.

As its been shown here even where the final push came form occupying forces the countries in question have been fairly close to the tipping point already."

Germany and Japan were not "close to the tipping point". Whilst a large number of Germans disliked the Nazi regime, Nazi indoctrination and the innevitable appeal of its nationalist rhetoric and racist mythology meant that a large number of Germans were still loyal to the totalitarian regime. Japan was even further from democracy since, even during its experiment with Parliamentary and multi-party politics 20 years later, the supremacy of the emperor had guided much of Japanese political life. It took a foreign power to remove the old constitution and have the emperor deny his "godlike" status which removed a major barrier to Japanese being able to govern themselves rather than live under a god-monarch.

"I think it would be far easier to induce and encourage a democratic movement in North korea and virtually impossible to impose one in Afghanistan."

I'd say the opposite. Afghan's have been more than happy and willing to vote whilst North Korea's internal security is so strong there's next to no internal dissent possible (it's been argued that no real internal dissent exists in North Korea although I've no idea how true this is) and certainly no foreign power is likely to be able to encourage it from the outside, it's not the same as with previous Communist states (eg the USSR and Czechoslovakia) where there were known dissenters and dissident groups. If North Korea's government collapses it's more likely to be due to the regime being economically unable to support itself than through a revolution.

"20 years earlier", I meant to say.

I am surprised no-one has mentioned the EU.

Initially set-up as a 'common market' it has morphed into a true governmental parliament making laws, setting taxes, making it's own money and when the people of certain countries who have referenda on constitutions reject it tell them to try again until they agree.

I was going to ask yesterday without seeing this thread when and how did the European parliament start to evolve and get the power it has got now?

So to answer the OP: 'democracy' can be imposed by stealth.

The other question is: does true democracy exist? When a party can get in with less than 50% of the total true vote of a country? Moving the discussion a bit; I would be happy if voting was compulsory IF there was the option to vote 'none of the above'

Now whether if the 'none of the above' win the parliament becomes based on proportional representation based on how people voted for parties I do not know.

Of course, the big problem is that the people who can change this are the people who don't want it i.e. 'our servants' the politicians.

"I am surprised no-one has mentioned the EU.

Initially set-up as a 'common market' it has morphed into a true governmental parliament making laws, setting taxes, making it's own money and when the people of certain countries who have referenda on constitutions reject it tell them to try again until they agree.

I was going to ask yesterday without seeing this thread when and how did the European parliament start to evolve and get the power it has got now?

So to answer the OP: 'democracy' can be imposed by stealth."

The EU is a funny one. I don't think it can be described as a "government" or a "state" in the way, to use an obvious example, the United States can. The EU is really a loose confederacy held-together by common purpose and common interests. If, for example, Germany France and Poland all decided to leave tomorrow there'd be nothing the European Parliament could do about it because there's no fully-functioning European "government" to prevent them and (more importantly) no real apparatus to prevent secession.

When it comes to things like the EU constitution, this isn't a case of a powerful Brussels overriding national governments (as tends to be the case with the more absurd europhobes) but national governments being disinterested in opposing EU policy. European "integration" is basically happening because there's not enough national resistance (if much at all) to membership of the EU and so national governments don't feel the need to rub their allies and trading parties up the wrong way.

If there ever is a functioning European "state" it is only likely to come-about as a result of Europe feeling threatened by an external force.

"The other question is: does true democracy exist? When a party can get in with less than 50% of the total true vote of a country? Moving the discussion a bit; I would be happy if voting was compulsory IF there was the option to vote 'none of the above'

Now whether if the 'none of the above' win the parliament becomes based on proportional representation based on how people voted for parties I do not know.

Of course, the big problem is that the people who can change this are the people who don't want it i.e. 'our servants' the politicians."

Well, when most of us (myself included) say "democracy" we really mean "representative, constitutional government". The "we call ourselves a democracy but such-and-such a party got in without the majority of the vote!" isn't a good argument (although people drag it out at any opportunity): a party doesn't need a majority of the vote in most countries to win an election, it just needs a larger one than its opponents. There are also situations when so-called 'minority' governments form where a party is in government but has no overall parliamentary majority, a problem usually solved through forming coalitions.

"(as tends to be the case in the imagination of the more absurd europhobes)", as that should have read.

Depends where the tipping point is Zagreb.

Consider that the people of of Germany had moved from Rule by a Monarch to Democracy to Toatllitarianism and then back to Democracy. On the back of such recent changes it can be seen that as a whole Germans were used to changes and despite any commitments were able to function and get their head around such changes.

While it may not have been as easy for the population of Japan to let go of their Emperor/God ideas they were educated enough and possesed a sophisticated infracstruture that enagled them to function in a democratic society.

Afghanistan is largely lacking in any of the elements which make for a stable democracy. North koreans on the other hand are used to being run by a central authority despite not having any say in who is in chrage of the their country. Afghanistan remains too tribal and fuedal in the way it is run and the people do not have the capacity to accept or run a pluralistic democracy.

"While it may not have been as easy for the population of Japan to let go of their Emperor/God ideas they were educated enough and possesed a sophisticated infracstruture that enagled them to function in a democratic society."

And then...

"North koreans on the other hand are used to being run by a central authority despite not having any say in who is in chrage of the their country."

What's the difference?

Incidentally, it was believed during World War II that both the Germans and the Japanese were used to being given orders and fundamentally authoritarian peoples, much as you claim about North Korea.

"Afghanistan remains too tribal and fuedal in the way it is run and the people do not have the capacity to accept or run a pluralistic democracy."

So why, when given the opportunity to vote in the Afghan elections did the Afghan people vote? Why didn't they reject a system they didn't have "the capacity to accept" (and don't you think that's rather a haughty, even racist viewpoint?) and just grab their guns and start fighting it out? How come democracy has worked successfully in African countries where, before independence, European rightwingers argued that it would inevitably fail because Africans were fundamentally tribal and lacked the political sophistication to implement a system which Europeans had developed over centuries.

>> ...inevitably fail because Africans were fundamentally tribal and lacked the political sophistication... <<
(So were we all)

There's another view, more realistic IMO.
My father was moderately senior in Kampala at one time, training his juniors. Came the time that TPTB decided that it was indeed Time, he returned to UK convinced there'd be trouble.
"Why? You've trained them, they're quite capable"
"Those are, just perhaps, but the country as a whole isn't. If they want *our ways* they need at least one more generation of admin and especially schooling, to settle in.

If, indeed, all those places do want our ways, it takes time to settle. There's a lot to lose.

The violence and horrible murder in Nother Ireland this weekend shows just how thin the veneer of democracy is.True the spark was a football match but the powder keg is the age old tribal rivalry which has been playing it self out since long before democracy got a foot hold in these islands

Im not being racist about this. Im well aware of how violent and tribal the political scene is in Jamaica and there as here there are a number of what you might choose tocall "races" involved in the democratic process.

Sure the Afghans were happy to vote, but they voted on tribal lines. There we see groups who seeing that they didnt get what they wanted through the ballot box went back to tribal violence, dont we. The biggest part of taking up democracy is being willing accept an outcome you might not have voted for with equanimity and patience till the next election. Is that what's happening across Afghanistan?

"Incidentally, it was believed during World War II that both the Germans and the Japanese were used to being given orders and fundamentally authoritarian peoples, much as you claim about North Korea.

Well whoever claimed that, to quote Shaggy, "it wasnt me".
What I did say is that they were already used to being centrally governed and not being a nation of semi-autnomous feifdoms with a recent history of regional rivalries and fueding. Much like by the time democracy developed here in the UK the idea of a central authority was well established. I am not attempting to make any claims to a hive mentality or automatons following absolutley and unquestioningly any orders given. I hope that is clear now.

Yopu appear to have misunderstood the point I was making about Japan and North Korea. I am saying there is little difference *structurally* between them, yes the spirit and style of administration is different. In Japan the system is that decisons are made by an elected central government as opposed to a despotic dictator, but that this similarity makes it easier to erase the difference if it were possible to depose Kim Il Jong and impose democracy.

"The violence and horrible murder in Nother Ireland this weekend shows just how thin the veneer of democracy is.True the spark was a football match but the powder keg is the age old tribal rivalry which has been playing it self out since long before democracy got a foot hold in these islands"

Democracy is about more than just political quietism, it's about the rule of law and a state that can support democracy. Even if in tribalist regions (like northern ireland) there is a volatile political situation democracy can still work if the state can maintain law and order.

"Sure the Afghans were happy to vote, but they voted on tribal lines. There we see groups who seeing that they didnt get what they wanted through the ballot box went back to tribal violence, dont we. The biggest part of taking up democracy is being willing accept an outcome you might not have voted for with equanimity and patience till the next election. Is that what's happening across Afghanistan?"

The main insurgency in Afghanistan by a long shot is the Taliban who were never remotely interested nor supportive of the elections in the first place (largely because democracy goes against their Islamist ideology). If the Afghans vote along "tribal lines" then that's irrelevant, democracy is about voting for who you want. If you vote for a religious party then that's fine, if people decide to vote communally then we also have to accept that. This is the problem with the "impose" thing, we can't impose democracy on people because it's about letting them choose but if we tell them they can't vote "tribally" or "communally" because we don't think it's politically healthy (and we're arguably right - look at Northern Ireland) then we *are* imposing on them and may ultimately be working against both their interests and our own.

"What I did say is that they were already used to being centrally governed and not being a nation of semi-autnomous feifdoms with a recent history of regional rivalries and fueding"

But the Japanese and Germans were "used to being centrally governed" by the time the allies installed democratic governments and constitutions on those countries. Handbooks for British troops in Germany stated that they should issue orders to German civilians firmly and authoritatively since this was regarded as something Germans had long become used to. The only way to determine whether a country is ready for democracy is to ask them to vote and see if they do - we have no right and are in no position to theorise over them, their opinions or their "cultural development" on their behalf.

Of course, there's also the need for a strong state with the rule of law that will uphold the democratic constitution. That's a different thing altogether...

<>

rwanda
mau mau
idi amin
the congo
mugabe

how many bloody coups have been in affrica, how much corruption, how many democratically elected leaders have become tyranical despots???

"how many bloody coups have been in affrica, how much corruption, how many democratically elected leaders have become tyranical despots???"

Same as "civilised" Europe not that long ago, then?

Democracy's actually worked out pretty well in a lot of Africa. Botswana has a stable, multi-party system and a strong economy (Botswana's a good one to pull out when some chinless rightwing blogger starts spouting about the "wretched state of africa"), Nigeria has a democratic system after a history of dictatorship, as does Ghana and (famously) South Africa. The lack of democratic tradition in Africa doubtless helped that continents various tyrants (as did the the early enthusiasm for Marxism which created a lot of single-party states with Soviet backing) but the Africans have shown considerable enthusiasm for democracy - look at the amount of opposition to Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe for example.