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

In the UK & the West, we live in democracies. From an early age, we are brought up to believe that this is the fairest system of Government that safeguards the rights of the individual.

As Churchill said: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

He also said "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Notwithstanding this observation, we believe, almost with a fervent fanaticism, that democracy is the best system of Government. So much so that we will willingly slaughter, bomb and starve people in order to impose democracy. We're almost religious in our belief.

A much quoted "fact" is that democracies do not go to war with each other. Like Israel & Palestine or Lebanon I suppose. Wasn't Hitler elected in a free election?

I'm not for a moment imagining I can formulate a system of government that is "better" than democracy, but do we as democracies have the right to impose a system of government on other people because we adjudge it better?

Is democracy worth killing for?

Sometimes.

What Bush and Blair are doing in the Middle East is utterly, inexcusably wrong, despite the fact that they got rid of Saddam. Democracy, in its truest sense, means that a country is governed by the will of the people. However, a fact that surprises many middle class Westerners is that a majority of Arabs actually don't want democracy. If that is the case, then surely the most democratic thing to do is to not give it to them.

(Before anyone points it out, I am well aware that the Arabs who protest against democracy are those whose leaders have told them that democracy means Western decadence and godlessness. However, if they have such a view, then forcing them to accept democracy is a really, really bad idead, because they will just rebel against it. Everybody would be better off if we used words and reason rather than guns and bombs to introduce democracy).

Democracy *might* be worth killing for if some group is oppressed either by a powerful élite or by a foreign nation. In that case, the oppressed masses should use violence as a last resort, and it's probably a bad idea for any other people or nation to attack the oppressors without their aid being sought. This should not, however, prevent sympathetic nations from offering military aid.


Ireland's struggle for independance springs to mind. The Irish had been oppressed by the English for many years. They tried all kinds of rebellions, but nothing worked. Eventually, Irish gained some freedoms through the peaceful, democratic actions of Daniel O'Connell. Unfortunately, after he died, the independence movement largely turned violent again; this struggle culminated in the establishment of the Irish Free State by Michael Collins (see A17749515 ). Over the next few years, peaceful and democratic movements allowed most of Ireland to become a sovereign nation at last.

However, there is still serious violence going on in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that there is no need. Nobody is being oppressed up there, and politics is probably the best way forward to sorting out all the troubles up there.

So, while I can understand the reasoning behind the hsitorical violence, there is absolutely no need for what's going on today.

Similarly, the American and French revolutions were understandable, and perhaps even good ideas, as they were all about the common man fighting for his right to control the country. (Or at least the French revolution was. America's founding fathers have a few skeletons in their closets).

It's also extremely true that democracies go to war against each other. There were wars between Greece and Rome in the last few centuries BC - both empires were democratic. Similarly, America has waged war on numerous democratic nations over the years, but I don't have which countries to hand right at this moment.

I suppose in places like Lebanon, the mix of population groups makes politics of any kind tricky

However, I wonder about more homogeneous places like Iran. Whilst accepting that Iranians aren't actually Arabs, do THEY not want democracy?
Being lumbered with a theocratically stitched-up constitution, the powers of the voters there are limited, which is presumably one of the reasons why many of the smart ones are leaving for other lands, but if the constitution did allow a more liberal government to be voted in, would it not happen?

Various of the smaller oil-producing states seem to be slowly moving towards some kind of democracy. Though the people in control probably don't want the boat rocked too much, I assume that many of the electorate are cautious as well, if life is working out generally OK for them.

What isn't worth killing for these days?

But really, the "war" between Israel Lebnanon and Palestine are nothing like the "wars" between non-democracies that occurred in the 20th century. And they certainly didn't spark off a larger, wider conflict.

I don't think Hitler was elected. He was elected head of the Nazi party, and then as that party came to dominate power, he was eventually appointed chancellor. Maybe a minor point - at the end of the day there were still gigantic crowds cheering for him and what he said. But it is interesting to wonder what would have happened if he'd actually had to run against someone...

>>Wasn't Hitler elected by a free election<<

I've always thought that the point of democracy is that the whole potenyial electorate knows that another election is always on the way to enable the whole potential electorate to vote out a particular regime/party/leader if it is disatisfied with the job done. After Hitler was elected to power what was the sequence of democratic elections after this? And were the whole of the multi cultural German society still permitted to vote?

His Nazi stormtroopers frequently targetted particular groups of German society. Were Jewish Germans, German Gypsies, German homosexuals still permitted to vote? Those that hadn't been carted off to extermination camps that is.

Too right fighting the Nazis was worth killing for.

We never fought the Nazis because of their fascism though. We fought them because they invaded one country too many. Our govt gave every indication of not giving a flying fig about them being fascist and did deal after deal with them.

"Wasn't Hitler elected in a free election?"



No.

Every election that the Nazis seriously contested they used massive pressure with their private army. The really important elections where they introduced absolute power were conducted nothing like a free and fair election.

Fair enough It's not really central to the point anyway. Is spreading democracy worth killing for?

"There were wars between Greece and Rome in the last few centuries BC - both empires were democratic."

Greece was only truly democratic for a short time. The financial and military institutions were run by a permanent staff of experts, but day to day governance was performed by individuals selected in a lottery - their names were selected at random and they took office for a short time only. This is the only instance of democracy to have genuinely existed. Rome was never a democracy under the senate, and neither was it a democracy under the emperor/senate combination either.

In a word: no. Nothing is worth killing for, nothing gives one person the right to take the life of another.

Morning all,

Mr D Sorrry , i cannot agree. If someone was attacking my child or my partner with intent to kill them I would feel not only able, but obliged to kill him/her first.

To SWL's interesting question.

I suppose it comes down to whether one kills in defense of democracy , or as a means to enforce it.

Rather as my reply to Mr D , I can see the 'rightness' of killing in defense of democracy. Had we not done so in WW2 the world would have been a very different place, and probably abhorrant.

In previous threads ref Iraq and The Middle East I have said that it is wrong to kill people ( loosely termed as going to war ) to impose our ideas of how afairs should be conducted. It clearly is not working in Iraq, and yet Bush is intent on committing 20000 more troops, to solve a situation of 'our' creation.

It is patently clear that some groups of people simply do not accept or want what we call democracy. and therefore killing them to impose it is indefensible.

And when you look at 'our' system, why should others believe it to be the final answer?

Novo

<>

I think that the killing of another person is wrong, and will not back down on this. But yes, sometimes the end justifies the means, no matter how tenuously.

I was kind of with you until you said "So much so that we will willingly slaughter, bomb and starve people in order to impose democracy" - It's patently not true that most people in democratic countries would condone these actions to *impose* democracy. Democracy comes about through a lot of patient trial-and-error and it requires something of a cultural readiness to accept its limitations as well as its great benefits. The current unpopularity of the regimes who came up with this cockamamey idea in the first place should answer your question.

However, we might be inclined to condone such actions in order to *defend* our democratic rights. Quite patently, democracy (or more specifically, liberal republicanism) is a damn sight better than dictatorship, theocracy, facism, aristocratic or some form of soviet rule.

Your statement about Israel, Palestine and Hitler is a bit muddled. While not condoning the level and brutality of their response one bit, Israel were defending themselves primarily against Hizbollah, an undemocratic and quite fanatical regime within a state, and Hitler was thoroughly, utterly undemocratic once he took hold of the levers of power. Democracy is more than just being elected in a democratic election. It's about how you behave when you're in power and how you behave when access to those levers of power are taken from you in a future democratic election. Hitler evidently failed on both counts.

So no, we have no right to impose democracy, but we do have a duty to defend it.

"A much quoted "fact" is that democracies do not go to war with each other. Like Israel & Palestine or Lebanon I suppose. Wasn't Hitler elected in a free election?"

Well, Hitler was democratically elected and then openly dismantled the democratic Wiemar Republic and replaced it with a single-party state so it's contentious to regard his regime as "democratically elected".

As for "democracies never go to war with each other", this is an offshoot of the now-discredited "End of History" theory that was popular in the 1990s but fell apart after 9/11. There used to be a co-theory regarding international trade that claimed "no two countries with a McDonald's go to war with each other" but that collapsed after the NATO war against Yugoslavia (which had a McDonalds thanks to Milosevich's acceptance of international capitalism). Clearly, democracies can and will go to war with each other given the correct conditions. They are just less likely to because a) they tend to have power built on trade rather than force of arms and so it's rarely in their interests and b) they are never run by a single powerful figure who's whims dictate what happens and who has no parliament or senate to answer to.

"I'm not for a moment imagining I can formulate a system of government that is "better" than democracy, but do we as democracies have the right to impose a system of government on other people because we adjudge it better?"

As I've said before, you can't impose democracy on people - democracy is about the right to choose how you're governed and the very antithesis of imposition - the only people you can impose it on is their rulers. However there is the issue of whether it is right to fight democratic states that are illiberal (ie a reactionary or oppressive government rules by popular consent).

"Is democracy worth killing for?"

Of course. If you take the opinion that democracy is not worth killing for then you completely open it to attack from ideologies that have followers that *are* willing to fight and die. Fascism believed democracy was doomed because it was decadent and weak and unwilling to fight and the notion that democracies should not be willing to fight to defend themselves or their ideology is, essentially, an acceptance of this view.

"Democracy comes about through a lot of patient trial-and-error and it requires something of a cultural readiness to accept its limitations as well as its great benefits."

This is the argument John Wayne's Green Beret captain comes up with to explain the US refusal to support democracy in South Vietnam in his film "The Green Berets". It was reactionary and racist then and, I'm afraid, it is now.

Democracy simply requires an opinion on how your country should be run and the desire to make that opinion known via a vote. What is true is that there is a difference between "mature" democracies which tend, politically, to the centre and where the competing mainstream ideologies tend towards variations of a liberal concensus. New democracies tend to have parties centred around secarianism, tribalism and extremist ideologies and move towards the centre as experimentation and failure take their toll.

"I don't think Hitler was elected. He was elected head of the Nazi party, and then as that party came to dominate power, he was eventually appointed chancellor. Maybe a minor point - at the end of the day there were still gigantic crowds cheering for him and what he said. But it is interesting to wonder what would have happened if he'd actually had to run against someone..."

If I remember correctly, the Nazis eventually became the majority party in the Reichstag and President Hindenburg (a conservative who distrusted the Nazis and their far-right radicalism) was forced, against his wishes, to make Hitler German Chancellor. Hitler was nominally subservient to Hindenburg but when Hindenburg died shortly after Hitler became chancellor, he abolished the office of President of Germany, and combined the head of state with the chancellor to create the office of "Fuhrer". Having effectively consolidated power, Hitler instigated the Third Reich, started his persecution of the Left, homosexuals and ethnic minorities in general and ended all pretentions of the continuation of German democracy.

So, the Nazis were voted into the Reichstag democratically but proceeded to dismantle democratic Germany as soon as possible and never had to contest another election. Hitler took power via democratic means (which he abused) but was never directly elected.

I broadly agree but let me quickly clarify - I didn't say it needed trial and error and a cultural readiness in terms of "well, they're less civilised and less educated, so they can't and won't make this work", as that argument was pretty much the same as Britain's views of my country for a very long time...

When you state it's just an opinion - whose opinion? There needs to be a general consensus there, and that takes some hard work. Immature democracies are pretty fragile things, as we have seen.

A wise person once said "Its easy to find things people will kill for and you can find things people will die for but it's harder to find something people will live for"

Or words to that effect.

If democracy was so great and we know it isnt. Other people would be willing to die and kill for it EVERYWHERE.

Do we in the west really grow up on pro-democratic moral tales. When I look back an awful lot of the stories I first heard had princes and princesses as the heroes and heroines.

"We're almost religious in our belief." - What we do it once a week and take a collection afterwards ?

Hitler's persecutions started on economic concerns and his first target was the disabled.

Is democracy worth dying for ? No. Democracy is a form of leadership sold to the people as allowing them to decide their destiny. In reality they abdicate their right to freedom in return for letting someone else make their decisions.

However when this is the chosen form of tyranny by a people then no other has a right to enforce a different for of tyranny upon them.

Rule by majority is a spurious concept at the best of times. It assumes that all opinions are equal and represented. In fact we are usually given a choice between two camps and asked to pick which best fits our particular prejudices. In return for allowing them to decide our fate for the next 4 years they agree to allow us to pick from their gang of mates again at the end of that time.

Is democracy worth killing for ? Only if you're one of the people in power, or part of their elite group.