Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?
Post Your Thoughts
yes...
Democracy? Yes. Freedom of religion? No.
Yes, but not without a sense of nationalism. Iraq currently has none and the United States can't give it to them. They need their own George Washington\
Dangit kevin That's a great point! why didn't i think of that?
no...
democracy is likened unto a wolf, a fox and a sheep voting on what they will have for supper. The sheep will quickly lose. democracy is likened unto a man and his dog out in the woods. the man gets real hungry. So he cuts off the dog's tail and cooks it and gives the bone to the dog. the forefathers knew about a democracy. that is why they created a republic.
Comment: I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. The United States is a democratic republic. Are you saying that democracy alone is a bad form of government? If you are then I would have to agree with you...to an extent. After a while democracy, alone, begins to falter, as seen in ancient Athens. But building a republic on the foundation of a democracy is a very strong government. If you could please tell me if this was what you were getting at, it would be greatly appreciated. David R
- Reply The United States is not a democracy, and "democratic republic" is not the right term either. The U.S. is a republic, a republic is called a "democratic" form of government, but it is not a democracy, and not very similar to a democracy. --TimSvendsen 15:51, 4 February 2007 (EST)
In democracy the people are the government, they propose and vote on the laws, and there is no elcted legislature. A republic is different. A republic is better then a democracy because it recognizes the fact that the people in general do not know enough to govern properly. In a Republic the people choose representatives who are (hopefully) better informed and know enough to do the job. A republic takes the strong points of democracy, (no tyrants, self government...) without some of the problems, (uninformed government, rule by popular opinion) and creates a better form of government. that said, this debate was meant to apply to all kinds of self government, and was misnamed, it should say: "Is it even possible to install self government in a Muslim country." --TimSvendsen 15:47, 4 February 2007 (EST)
Comment
- There is a phrase which has grown so common in the world's mouth that it has come to seem to have sense and meaning —the sense and meaning implied when it is used; that is the phrase which refers to this or that or the other nation as possibly being "capable of self-government"; and the implied sense of it is, that there has been a nation somewhere, some time or other which wasn't capable of it—wasn't as able to govern itself as some self-appointed specialists were or would be to govern it. The master minds of all nations, in all ages, have sprung in affluent multitude from the mass of the nation, and from the mass of the nation only—not from its privileged classes; and so, no matter what the nation's intellectual grade was; whether high or low, the bulk of its ability was in the long ranks of its nameless and its poor, and so it never saw the day that it had not the material in abundance whereby to govern itself. Which is to assert an always self-proven fact: that even the best governed and most free and most enlightened monarchy is still behind the best condition attainable by its people; and that the same is true of kindred governments of lower grades, all the way down to the lowest.
- —Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Dpbsmith 20:45, 4 February 2007 (EST)
