Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

[aneeshm]

If we look at the spread of democracy around the world, the only places it has managed to get a foothold and last is in the countries inhabited by either ethnic or cultural Indo-Europeans. Starting in antiquity with Athens, evolving in Rome, surviving the onslaught of the Church and breaking through in England, continuing with America, then slowly spreading all over Europe, the democratic ideal has toady finally managed to spread itself to all places whose heritage is either ethnically or culturally Indo-European. All the lands either conquered, colonised, or culturally assimilated by the descendants of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European are now democratic.

Indonesia, being dominated for over its entire history by the Indo-Aryan ideals of its cultural superior in the North (India), has recently managed the transition. In the tiny nation of Bhutan, which was until recently a full-fledged monarchy, the King himself decided to shift to a democratic system. Australia, being similarly dominated by the western branch of the Indo-European tree, is another example. South Africa, another state with massive Indo-European influence, is democratic today.

However, all attempts to spread the same ideals to peoples who are not ethnically or culturally Indo-European have failed. Africa - the entire continent testifies to this fact. The Arab Muslim world - another subcontinent where no democratic idea penetrates. China - they decided that state-corporatist fascism was better than democracy.

The only counterexamples are Japan and South Korea - and both are or were massive strongholds of Buddhism, an Indo-European offshoot.



This raises an interesting question - is there something about the cultural attitudes of the Indo-European countries which somehow makes democracy "work" in those regions? Is there something embedded in Indo-European thought that allows democracy to survive and thrive? Is it that all attempts to broaden the democratic circle beyond this group are bound to fail? They have so far, at least.



Thoughts?

[RGBVideo]

is this a troll thread?

[aneeshm]

No, just a completely random thought. I could be completely mistaken. But I thought it was an interesting line of inquiry, so I threw it out here.

[Dauphin]

Are the Japanese Indo-European?

[Asher]

Can Indian people be democratic?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Are the Japanese Indo-European?

The only counterexamples are Japan and South Korea - and both are or were massive strongholds of Buddhism, an Indo-European offshoot.

[Fake Boris]

Shame on me for reading Aneeshm's post to the end, though.

[Dauphin]

Exactly, he provided his own counter-examples. So what's the point of the thread?

Perhaps it's the usual reason....

[Zkribbler]

For democracy to flourish, the culture must embrace the notion that the individual is supreme. For example, there can be no such thing as a theocratic democracy. If God's spokerspersons on Earth rule, then the people cannot. Once this concept is accepted, then democracy can grow.

Muslim Turkey is democractic but only because the nation insists upon a division between the state and religion. In other Muslim states, either the dictates of the religion or the dicates of the "leader" must be followed.

India and Pakistan both arise from similar history and were both colonies of Britain. But while Jeda wanted a nation centered on Islam, Gandhi and Nehru wanted a multicultural nation. India's respect for the individual's right to choose his or her own religion has allowed it to remain a democracy, while Pakistan flirts often with dictatorships.

[aneeshm]

Thinking a bit more about this, Indo-European ideas do not seem a necessary condition for democracy being received well. They, however, do seem sufficient. Ideas?

[Sandman]

How come those massive strongholds of Buddhism, Burma, Thailand and Tibet, aren't so democratically hot?

[Felch]

Japan is democratic thanks to the timely intervention of a little boy and a fat man. It had been Buddhist for a long time before that.

[Q Classic]

Re: Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

Originally posted by aneeshm
If we look at the spread of democracy around the world, the only places it has managed to get a foothold and last is in the countries inhabited by either ethnic or cultural Indo-Europeans. Starting in antiquity with Athens, evolving in Rome, surviving the onslaught of the Church and breaking through in England, continuing with America, then slowly spreading all over Europe, the democratic ideal has toady finally managed to spread itself to all places whose heritage is either ethnically or culturally Indo-European. All the lands either conquered, colonised, or culturally assimilated by the descendants of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European are now democratic.

Well, that depends on your definition of "democratic".

Indonesia, being dominated for over its entire history by the Indo-Aryan ideals of its cultural superior in the North (India), has recently managed the transition. In the tiny nation of Bhutan, which was until recently a full-fledged monarchy, the King himself decided to shift to a democratic system. Australia, being similarly dominated by the western branch of the Indo-European tree, is another example. South Africa, another state with massive Indo-European influence, is democratic today.

Indonesia's "democracy" isn't the shining example you think it is. Nor is Bhutan's.

However, all attempts to spread the same ideals to peoples who are not ethnically or culturally Indo-European have failed. Africa - the entire continent testifies to this fact. The Arab Muslim world - another subcontinent where no democratic idea penetrates. China - they decided that state-corporatist fascism was better than democracy.

That's more likely due to failed economic or unbalanced policies in the African and Arab states; the former due to chronic, endemic mismanagement which destroyed any opportunities for a growing middle class, and thus democratic reform, and the latter due to the "beverly hillbillies" effect, where sudden and dramatic wealth has prevented any sort of middle-class reform movement from gaining ground.

That said, a middle class isn't always in favor of true democracy; take a look at Thailand, where they were the ones behind rather anti-democratic protests.

China and Southeast Asia lack the historical movements that led to Western democracy;

So why is Taiwan a relatively successful democracy? Or Singapore? Sure, the latter's a one-party state, but essentially so is Japan, and so was Mexico until recently. But in Singapore, the people are content, their economy is strong, and they regularly vote to retain the party in power.

The only counterexamples are Japan and South Korea - and both are or were massive strongholds of Buddhism, an Indo-European offshoot.

Bull****. You don't really know what you're talking about here. Yes, they're vibrant "functioning" democracies. Or, in other words, western institutions bolted onto more traditional, eastern structures.

Japan's one-party state preserves the illusion of democracy with a parliament and multiple parties, none of whom have ever truly posed a threat to the established order in the LDP--which has more or less been nothing more than a loose coalition of factions that do back-room deals with each other without much public input. (There are signs that this is changing, but "change" in a country like Japan means that it's likely to be at least two or three decades off.)

South Korea is a racuous democracy with no constant notion of political parties; rather, "parties" are formed around politicians due to anti-democratic back-room dealing and gamesmanship. If you think the American lobbyist system is bad, you have no concept how endemic influence is in Korean politics.

Additionally, it wasn't the Buddhism per-se that guided them--Korea's Yi Dynasty, which ruled from about 1400 to 1910 was more influenced by Neo-Confucian thought (which did bring in elements of Buddhism, but was more driven by non-Indo-European, Eastern/Chinese thought), and Japan has always been more syncretic, with Shinto being the one being slightly modified by Buddhism.

The reason why those two countries have a modern, "Western-style" "Democracy" is not because of the influence of Buddhism, but because of the overwhelming influence of the United States in the post-WW2 period.

This raises an interesting question - is there something about the cultural attitudes of the Indo-European countries which somehow makes democracy "work" in those regions?

There is a strong emphasis on the individual as opposed to the society at large in Western European societies, but you don't find this in many other democracies.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Sandman
How come those massive strongholds of Buddhism, Burma, Thailand and Tibet, aren't so democratically hot?

Because aneeshm didn't do his research and wanted to use the bull**** argument that things from India, like Buddhism and the dalits necessitate awesome things like democracy and sexism.

[Felch]

Re: Re: Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

Originally posted by Q Classic
The reason why those two countries have a modern, "Western-style" "Democracy" is not because of the influence of Buddhism, but because of the overwhelming influence of the United States in the post-WW2 period.

I think I put it more succinctly, but this is cool too.