Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

[Elok]

Re: Re: Re: you're sounding like a stupid, prejudiced old man

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed. Post-modern definition would likely involve the concept that whatever the people (or societies) considered to be a democracy is one.

No, that's too straightforward. The PoMo definition would include contexts and commentary on some kind of illusory "exploded" dichotomy.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Q Classic
If we presume an established, functioning Western idemocracy, we can expect to see two or more functioning parties that provide a decent opposition to one another;

and here's the weasel word i'm having an issue with: "decent". how decent is a "decent" opposition group?

the social democratic party governed Sweden for over 40 years and over 10 elections from 1936 on. did Sweden stop becoming a "Western democracy" according to your standards because the social democratic party was so qualified that it got such broad support from the voters?

Additionally, because it is a democracy, we expect that corporations and other plutocrats do not have undue influence over governmental policy, but

If people elect the legislators, then it is a democratic republic. You're describing corruption, which exists in all systems of government and varies depending upon what sort of people are legislating things.

also that the government is not so populist that it restricts liberties, rather than guarantees them.

IOW, a country isn't a democracy unless it's government supports laws which are more left-wing on a social scale of political compass from an arbitary point which you decide. Brilliant universal re-definition.

Japan and S Korea both fail this test because they do not have really have more than one viable, functioning party.

IOW, the governing parties are too qualified, because the are supported by too large % of the population in elections. NOT A PROPER DEMOCRACY!



people elect legislature. legislature elects the government. the government writes the laws that won't be passed without the support of legislature. where exactly is the non-democracy here, apart from not having exactly the same political culture of two parties of equal size and incompetence as in the USA?

Additionally, both countries are very strongly in the pocket of the major congolmerates which dominate their economies.

I presume you mean political corruption, e.g. corporations giving $ to members of legislature and government in exchange of influence in government. Normal symptom of democracy. Minimized with intelligent, vigilant voting populace which supports anti-corruption laws and supports political candidates who are free of corruption.

If you've got a problem with chronic political corruption, take it up to the voters. When looking for ways to cut down corruption in parliamentary system, an executive (elected directly by the people) with veto power is a good way to install another safeguard against corruption; executive can divert attention to scandals and increase pressure against corrupt invididuals with personal interests in the legislature, if the voters are smart enough to pick someone who's competent and patriotic enough to understand and abide by the long-term good of his nation.

In other words, the only reason why they're not governed more like Singapore is that they have populations at least an order of magnitude larger, with far more land area to deal with.

I understand that you are frustrated with business-as-usual governance of Japan and RoK. Do you have any suggested changes to constitution to make the system better, or are you just blowing off steam because the voters never pay enough attention to corruption when deciding what party to vote for?

That said, I still think it's a better system than what you hvae in China, for example, or N Korea. They are democracies

thanks , looks like I misunderstood your message

, but their actual operation is exactly why I qualify the term. To automatically assume that they function in the same way as Western democracies just because they happen have similar trappings is a fallacy

Every country has it's own culture which affects how politics is actually run; of course, countries which are culturally farther away from US are more different than countries which are culturally close.

You could be pretty surprised at how far from original ideals of jeffersonian democracy some countries in "Western" Europe have fallen during the last 20 years if you were to pay more attention to invididual countries.

to assume that Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore have democracies because of some "Indo-European" tradition is offensive; and to assume that non-Indo-Europeans cannot have their own variation is insulting at best.

"offensive" and "insulting" are certain sort of words. "stupid" is the sort of words I'd use.

Now that you put it that way, I had no idea aneeshm was a Nazi.

Well seems that he is, he just doesn't know it yet.

Indeed. Post-modern definition would likely involve the concept that whatever the people (or societies) considered to be a democracy is one.

how isn't this exactly what I wrote?

sounds like your [a person's] definition is the usual post-modern relativist tripe about "established, functioning democracy" which only "functions" if it ends up with leaders who share your [the same person's] world-view (never mind how the voting system works)

X defines concept A on an ad-hoc basis: whenever the results please X, X defines it as an A. Whenever they don't, X defines it as not an A.

-->

whenever X considers something to be an A, it is an A.

-->

post-modern relativist (bs), leading to endless filosofy gotchas with no intellectual value but plenty of intellectual penis-waving.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, that's too straightforward. The PoMo definition would include contexts and commentary on some kind of illusory "exploded" dichotomy.

I said 'would involve' that

how isn't this exactly what I wrote?

Cause its almost entirely the opposite (one person's view vs. the society at large's view of the term)

[Theben]

I'm still wondering where India fits in under this "democracy" standard.

[RGBVideo]

how isn't this exactly what I wrote?

(one person's view vs. the society at large's view of the term)

ah

thanks

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by VJ
and here's the weasel word i'm having an issue with: "decent". how decent is a "decent" opposition group?

the social democratic party governed Sweden for over 40 years and over 10 elections from 1936 on. did Sweden stop becoming a "Western democracy" according to your standards because the social democratic party was so qualified that it got such broad support from the voters?

Decent so as to provide a viable alternative. In Japan and SKorea, opposition parties often don't provide a viable alternative to the one in power. Such is also the case in Singapore, for much of Taiwan's history, and so on.

If people elect the legislators, then it is a democratic republic. You're describing corruption, which exists in all systems of government and varies depending upon what sort of people are legislating things.

People electing the legislators, yes. That doesn't give legislators a blank slate to then govern by edict--which is why signing statements and executive orders in the American system are so very dangerous.

Of course, that also completely avoids the point that in systems like Russia, there's "broad support" of the ruling party; in China and NKorea, people vote in great numbers for the ruling party.

IOW, a country isn't a democracy unless it's government supports laws which are more left-wing on a social scale of political compass from an arbitary point which you decide. Brilliant universal re-definition.

Bull-****ing-****. I am not saying that a more "leftist" form of government is better. I'm perfectly okay with how the Palestinian elections turned out, for example, as well as how the Iraqi ones did. They're not perfect, but they are legitimate steps towards a democratic form of governance. Do I agree with anything they've done so far? Not particularly. Frankly, I don't really care what their social stances are, by and large.

On the other hand, I find things like the Iranian election a sham--it is essentially a theocratic state with the majority of the power concentrated in unelected officials, with the trappings of a democracy. It's the same problem that I have with, say, China.

So **** off on trying to tar and feather me as some sort of leftist.

I won't deny that my definition is rather vague, but yours is far too reductionist, allowing undemocratic states like Cuba, China, Iran, and Russia to be considered democratic.

IOW, the governing parties are too qualified, because the are supported by too large % of the population in elections. NOT A PROPER DEMOCRACY!

If you think Japan and S Korea are governed well, then you clearly need to get your self-righteous head out of your ass. Sure, they're governed better than, say, Somalia and Afghanistan, but there's an enormous opacity in the workings of the government--opacity which prevents the demo- part of democracy (you know, the people) from often being able to effectively effect change.

people elect legislature. legislature elects the government. the government writes the laws that won't be passed without the support of legislature. where exactly is the non-democracy here, apart from not having exactly the same political culture of two parties of equal size and incompetence as in the USA?

So you're going to argue that China, Russia, the former USSR, Cuba, and NKorea are all democratic as well?

I presume you mean political corruption, e.g. corporations giving $ to members of legislature and government in exchange of influence in government. Normal symptom of democracy. Minimized with intelligent, vigilant voting populace which supports anti-corruption laws and supports political candidates who are free of corruption.

I don't just mean corporations giving money to the legislature. I mean actual collusion with the government in certain industries.

If you've got a problem with chronic political corruption, take it up to the voters. When looking for ways to cut down corruption in parliamentary system, an executive (elected directly by the people) with veto power is a good way to install another safeguard against corruption;

Then what of parliamentary democracies, where much of the power is vested in a Prime Minister who isn't directly elected by the people?

executive can divert attention to scandals and increase pressure against corrupt invididuals with personal interests in the legislature, if the voters are smart enough to pick someone who's competent and patriotic enough to understand and abide by the long-term good of his nation.

That's a big if.

I understand that you are frustrated with business-as-usual governance of Japan and RoK. Do you have any suggested changes to constitution to make the system better, or are you just blowing off steam because the voters never pay enough attention to corruption when deciding what party to vote for?

I'm arguing that aneeshm, the OP's post, claiming that Japan and SKorea have Western-style democracies is utter bollocks. It's a system that works for them; I do not believe they're truly democratic, but are somewhat close; I find their governance lacking, but tolerable.

Which was my original point about those two countries being used as an example--they're simply Western institutions bolted onto Eastern systems.

Every country has it's own culture which affects how politics is actually run; of course, countries which are culturally farther away from US are more different than countries which are culturally close.

Which, you ****, is precisely what I'm trying to say.

You could be pretty surprised at how far from original ideals of jeffersonian democracy some countries in "Western" Europe have fallen during the last 20 years if you were to pay more attention to invididual countries.

I'm well aware of it. My notion of democracy, vague as it is, has such a high standard that most countries have grave failings one way or another.

[Bosh]

In Japan and SKorea, opposition parties often don't provide a viable alternative to the one in power.

Um, what? The opposition party in Korea just won a resounding victory last year.

SKorean government has a HUGE amount of problems, (the Left party is a bunch of infantile hysterically xenophobic dickwads and the the Right is a coalition of corrupt plutocrats and leftover fascists) but one monolithic party monopolizing government hasn't been one of them ever since the end of the military dictatorship.

[Kuciwalker]

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

Originally posted by Dauphin
Not forgetting the US was well known for propping up regimes not very democratic as well.

The US had a much more controlled situation in Japan.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Sandman
Just modify Indo-Aryan to not include Slavs. Or Semites.

How do you explain Slovenia then?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
How about South Africa?

South Africa was for the longest period dominated by Western culture, I don't think they are really that "African" whatever that means.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


South Africa was for the longest period dominated by Western culture, I don't think they are really that "African" whatever that means.

They are getting there. Their parties are already tribal.

[GePap]

Senegal is a working democracy. has been for years. Last time I checked the bulk of its population isn't Indo-European.

[The Mad Monk]

I suppose a good measure of democracy may be how easily the "ruling" party is removed from power when they mess up.

[Asher]

So Canada is more democratic than the USA, then.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Bosh
Um, what? The opposition party in Korea just won a resounding victory last year.

Right, "party". Don't you just mean fans of LEE Myung-Bak after NOH Moo-hyun's disasterous leadership? It's not like his Uri party lasted long after his exit, anyway. Admittedly, the Grand National Party has lasted a lot longer than most...

SKorean government has a HUGE amount of problems, (the Left party is a bunch of infantile hysterically xenophobic dickwads and the the Right is a coalition of corrupt plutocrats and leftover fascists) but one monolithic party monopolizing government hasn't been one of them ever since the end of the military dictatorship.

No, that's more a reference to Japan. I might have made the waters murky when talking before, but.