Does the U.S. have any place in determining whether a country is "ready" for democracy?

I never really understood why we have a say in things like this. Great Question. We are allowed to have nuclear weapons but others can’t. We wouldn’t want other coutries messing with our vote or political system, yet we feel entitled to dictate how other countries should do it. If I was on the outside looking at the US I think my perception would be so different than how I believe America to be.

The comparison is what really made me think about it – the comparison seems incredibly apt. I’ve found that statements about how a nation proceeds with it’s attempt to enact democracy to be distasteful, but the comparison made me have one of those “Hmmm…” moments.

Personally, I don’t think any country has any place in determining whether another is “ready” for anything. The UN, maybe, by consensus, but not just one country, regardless of how powerful it is.

I don’t think there’s any place in North America that’s ready for democracy, nor ever will be. So such pronouncements are pretty ironic, no?

@WasCy – only if people in North America generally understand the meaning of “irony” – which I doubt they do. ;-)

Well, as the Creator, Holy Guardian & Eternal Bastion of Freedom & Democracy, I think the United States of America is …duuuuuuh! Obviously the only nation on Earth capable of making such judgement.

And remember folks, it’s not Freedom & Democracy™, unless it’s Capitalist & Corporation-friendly!
How do I know? COZ UNCLE SAM SAYS SO…

If America had never meddled in many internal fights in countries around the world, I believe the world would be in much better shape. Certainly, Iran would not have turned to the Ayattollas.

People who meddle in other countries seem to have no understanding of how things will turn out as a result of the meddling. Almost universally, it seems like it has turned out the opposite of what was intended. You’d think that would make us change our foreign relations policy, but…. no.

It looks like maybe we have finally learned. If we are meddling in the revolutions in North Africa, we are sure doing it on the QT. Well, we would. Actually, probably are. Probably trying to identify potential leaders and allying ourselves with them. I hope not.

I firmly believe we will be far better off if we keep our hands off and let each country sort themselves out without our influence. I don’t believe they might try to punish us for supporting Gaddafi in the past, or whatever. I think they’ll want our trade and maybe even cooperation in rebuilding the economy. People who do things with free choice are almost always more committed to that course of action than those who are being coerced.

So, no. We have no business meddling in their democracies, if only because we don’t know how to do it effectively. You can pretty much say that we should do the opposite of what the meddlers want to do.

Lol…yes, If that country has something the US wants….Presto…..That country is “ready” for democracy wither they want it or not….

The problem with Empires’ ideological drive is that they are often very centralized and based upon the home culture. If you could even pretend for a moment that the system in America “works” for America, that doesn’t mean America knows what’s best for everyone else.

When the British Empire was in India, originally, they pretty much got on well with the locals. Basically what the Empire meant was that everything stayed exactly the same, with the same laws, the same government, the same rulers, but those rulers had to pay taxes to the British, they had to allow British traders and developers access, and they had to provide soldiers for the British.

Nobody was too upset about this, because the British fiercely protected their interests, meaning that there was basically nil chance of a neighbouring kingdom or China or Russia or France or Portugal or Netherlands etc. even thinking about attacking them.

Now, in my opinion, the people who fucked all of this right up are the missionaries. From the mid-Victorian period, the British Empire began to play host to some extremely moralistic forces, who believed – genuinely believed – that it was Britain’s Mission from God, to go and bring light to the heathens, by converting them to Christianity. This wasn’t exclusive to Britain, but as the Superpower, it was most significant.

Now, much to the chagrin of the merchants, who were only interested in making money, and just wanted the locals to get on with their lives and carry on doing what they were doing, hordes of missionaries descended on India and set about harassing the local population, who began to see the British as on a mission to destroy their culture.

Now the government and the financiers and the merchants didn’t want this at all, but the missionaries kept going, and the animosity kept growing, until it culminated in the “Indian Mutiny”, where many many Indian soldiers, both Hindu & Muslim, took up arms against the British, when they’d heard rumour that the cartridges for their rifles (which were ripped open with ones teeth) were sealed with both pork and beef fat. This seems improbable, but whatever the case, this rumour catalysed the release of a great amount of pent-up resentment against the British, as the Indians saw it as the most disgusting direct assault against both of the major religions, and so against the Indian people themselves. It was the ultimate demonstration of their ignorant sense of cultural superiority.

The Indian Mutiny was a disaster, and British India was never the same. But it wasn’t the government, it wasn’t the traders, it wasn’t even the mega-rich corporations, who ruined it for everyone…

It was the meddling, moralising, not-even-your-father-and-I-still-know-best missionaries.

The U.S. alone, has no place, determining such things.

The idea that they aren’t ready for democracy is silly. Like they’ve perfected monarchy or dictatorship somewhere?

No. Countries are sovereign. It is not the U.S.‘s business.

And what is the alternative to democracy?

@flutherother – why is that question germane?

@iamthemob Because a country must have some form of government. If it isn’t democracy what is it to be. Look at the alternatives. Democracy may not be perfect but it’s better than anything else we have dreamed up.

I think the U.S. needs something like the Prime Directive from Star Trek.

@incendiary_dan Believe me, many people wish Gene Rodenberry ruled the world.

No. It’s about time the US stopped playing world policeman.

The US and Europe can have an opinion because when offering help it is important to understand what is needed most. Democracy doesn’t happen overnight. It was a new experience for Germany in 1918. And it only started working after 1949.

Democracy is about the mindset of people. Teachers play a key role.

The US and Europe can have an opinion because it’s in our interest to assess the risks associated with potentially failing democracies.

The United Nation can ask nations to act as policemen to deal with certain situations. We failed in Rwanda. But we succeeded in Kosovo. We should not fail in Libya in case the Libyans can’t get rid of their tyrannical regime and massacres continue to occur.

The former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan asserted that the U.N. Security Council is “the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force.”