Can non-Indo-European peoples ever be democratic?

[TCO]

This thread is rather deliciously un-PC.

[Bosh]

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

I'm still very very confused why you are comparing Japanese and Korean politics at all, they are very different. Japanese has mostly been one monolithic establishment party running things while Korean politics has been a wondrous stew of in-fighting, factionalism, outrageous corruption, wacky xenophobia, parties splintering and reforming, etc. etc.

If I could vote in Korea I'd probably hold my nose and vote GNP, which says a lot about how horrifically screwed up the Korean left is

[Q Classic]

I'm not comparing them to each other, for ****'s sake. I'm pointing out they're not "Western" democracies, but something Asian ones. Note--I'm not making a case for Asian values.

[TheStinger]

Botswana and Malwi are democratic and there are more in africa

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Asher
So Canada is more democratic than the USA, then.

Judging by your threads, you guys remove ruling parties before they even get a chance to mess up.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
How do you explain Slovenia then?

'Heavily influenced' by Indo-European ideas.

[Dauphin]

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

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The US had a much more controlled situation in Japan.

Japan was democratised because it was in the US interest to democratise it, not simply because Japan was under heavy US influence.

[Kuciwalker]

I agree, but I'm not sure how that related to my post. I was referring to the ability of the US to democratize Japan.

[Dauphin]

Given that you quoted my comment that "the US was well known for propping up regimes not very democratic as well", I assumed you were making a point that ability (including realpolitik) was the deciding factor on whether a country would be democratised or not.

[RGBVideo]

i've been thinking about how to answer, because debating w/ you will be useless

Originally posted by Q Classic
getting hysterical and defensive over perceived attacks, jerking off, insults

holy ****, this is a depressing reply

it was a big mistake to spent any effort in making a thoughtful answer to you.

won't make that one again.

[Zevico]

If people want liberal democracy, they will have it. If not, they won't. If they want illiberal democracy--that is, a state that the grants right to vote only to some and excludes others based on racial, religious or ethnic grounds, for example, they will have it. And if they want something else entirely, they will have it. The history of these countries is important in seeing whether they will have it or want it in the near future. In my assessment, some societies clearly do not want to govern themselves via a liberal democracy and will not want to govern themselves in that fashion for the foreseeable future. The source of that unwillingness to govern via a liberal or illiberal democratic state may well be cultural, but it is not permanent, just as every culture may change over time.

[Zevico]

Originally posted by Q Classic
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.

True. But I always thought that in defining the type of democracy we like, we refer to "liberal" democracy, "liberal" being meant in the classical sense of the word.

Freedom of speech, equal civil rights, representative government, an independent media and an independent judiciary. The latter two act as checks on the government. Did I miss anything?

[Q Classic]

Re: i've been thinking about how to answer, because debating w/ you will be useless

Originally posted by VJ

holy ****, this is a depressing reply

it was a big mistake to spent any effort in making a thoughtful answer to you.

won't make that one again.

Your "thoughtfulness" was condescending and nasty. Why are you surprised I replied with vitriol?

It helps that we've been in disagreements before where you've been worse than here. *shrugs*

[Q Classic]

Even by that definition, many liberal democracies restrict certain freedom of speech and civil rights; others representations are... inaccurate... at best; and independent media and judiciary, well, if you're lucky, you actually have that.

Like I said, most modern, Western democracies still fail at being liberal democracies. That doesn't mean that they're horrible countries or anything, or that they shouldn't seek the ideals espoused, mind you.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by TCO
This thread is rather deliciously un-PC.

As well as nearly complete BS. Many Indo-European people's democraciesn are a complete sham. Many Asian and African systems elect an d replace leaders regularly. Two of the biggest Government crises in Africa are a direct outgrowth of democratic voting and the peoples belief in that process (Kenya and Zimbabwe).

The answer in modern times, should be Non-Indo_Europeans seem increasingly capable of creating, sustaining and supporting their democratic principles. The "traditional" Indo-European republics are giving up more and more of their liberties and principles out of fear of the terrorists, becoming less democratic.