The US must stay the course in Iraq

[johncmcleod]

I have always thought India is very lucky that it is a somewhat stable democracy. First off, there is a great amount of poverty, and that never mixes well with a democracy. It also wasn't industrialized, which leads to a society with rigid social classes, and in that case usually the aristocracy is the only class with any power. But most of all, India has two completely different religious groups. One would think that this would cause the democracy to fall apart with the two groups fighting each other, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

I believe this is for a few reasons. One reason is that the Muslims have always been the minority, and they have never had the strength to fight the Hindus. Another is that the Hindus are very tolerant. Additionally, the Hindu religion seems to mix with secularism a lot better. Islam has the "Law of God," the Quran, etc. which causes Muslim leaders to want to rule by these laws. And of course they can't because they are a minority. Another reason is that India started off becoming a country by uniting together for a common goal (beating the British). Now if Pakistan would have been included in this state, there would have been conflict. But Pakistan broke away.

I firmly believe that the Turkish model must be followed in democracy for Iraq. The reason it is hard to find a formula for democracy is that every country is different and has a unique set of problems and factors. Iraq is very unique, but the one nation that has an effective democracy that is very similar is Turkey. Does anyone else agree?

BTW sorry for bumping the thread if the discussion is already dead. I didn't get to read it until a couple days ago (and by then the discussion was pretty much done with), and right after I posted I left on two day trip and didn't get to follow up.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
There are a few instances of countries being able to abide by democratic rule without a period of recurring civil wars interspersed by the rule of dictators. India comes to my mind. The point EST makes about needing an army and police force who support democratic rule is a good one.

Does the US count, with just one?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Does the US count, with just one?

Most of the colonies had enjoyed a high degree of quasi-autonomous democratic rule for a long period of time before the American Revolution. The founding fathers were probably as experienced a body of parliamentary politicians as any other then existing in the entire world.

[Kuciwalker]

Was that a yes or a no?

[Dr Strangelove]

The latest word is that a number of the top ranking representatives on the Iraqi council are threatening to quit. I don't know how this situation can be resolved. Right now the British parliamentary system, complete with the option of removing the chief executive with a vote of no confidence sounds very attractive to me. We need someone with the diplomatic acumen to plunge into the fray and negotiate a solution.

[Ted Striker]

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Most of the colonies had enjoyed a high degree of quasi-autonomous democratic rule for a long period of time before the American Revolution. The founding fathers were probably as experienced a body of parliamentary politicians as any other then existing in the entire world.

Actually, it seemed that only white settler colonies had any substantial autonomy, compared to colonies that lacked significant white settler populations.