Democracy is generally a good thing. It is generally better than the tyranny of a despotic ruler. Generally, not always.
Sometimes, democracy can bring about a worse tyranny. The majority can install a government that is oppressive of minorities. Without a real desire to limit the power of the majority and an iron clad agreement to do so such as a constitution with required judicial oversight, democracies may become more oppressive of minority rights than even some of the worst despotic monarchies.
Free elections result in the will of the majority of voters coming to pass. If the will of the majority is to assure rights and liberties for all, things are going to be just fine. If the will of the majority is to seek revenge against the minority that previously ruled, things are going to be very bad for the minority. If the will of the majority is to impose draconian religious restrictions, if you are not part of that majority and not interested in living under such restrictions, you might not like majority rule.
The situation in many countries in the Middle East today is as follows:
A nationalist, sometimes fascist, ruling party supported by a minority of the overall population, but which controls the military, is headed by a dictatorial leader. These nationalists face Political Islamist groups of substantial size.
Political Islamist groups are those seeking to install sharia law as the law of the land as opposed to modern civil (secular) laws. They also seek to coordinate their efforts across national boundaries in an effort to create a larger Arab led Islamic entity, sometimes called the “Islamic Caliphate.” Political Islamists often harbor dreams of restoring Islamic empires of the past and reclaiming for Islam lands lost to Western powers or to Western ideals.
A relative minority in most of the nations in the Arab world favors secular democratic principles and fewer still favor those principles in such a way that they would be willing to fight and die in order to protect the rights of hated minorities.
In the conflicts going on in most of the nations where unrest is found today, democratic protesters relatively few in number, are being backed by political Islamists who hope that by joining with the democratic protesters they might be able to overcome the rule of the nationalists. For those interested in freedom and democracy following the fall of nationalist governments, this should be of grave concern because the combination of democratic protesters and political Islamists working together will lead to the political Islamists coming to power and simply installing a different set of anti-democratic laws and oppressive rules.
The vital idea to note is that a modern democracy requires that the majority be willing to fight and die in order to protect the rights of hated minorities. No nation failing this test may call itself a free nation. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
The only way to avoid a tyrannical alternative to the nationalists dictatorships currently ruling in many Arab states is for the nationalists to work with those seeking democratic reforms and for the two of them to create together a free society that values and protects the rights of minorities.
Failing this, nations will simply move from one form of despotism to another, suffering and violence will continue, and the Arab world will continue to deteriorate further down a path of hopelessness and hatred.
“Political Islamists often harbor dreams of restoring Islamic empires of the past and reclaiming for Islam lands lost to Western powers or to Western ideals.”
.. see also the Will of Cecil Rhodes. he saw the writing on the wall: that Empire on which the Sun never Sets was on the wane / and the arrogant dreams expressed therein (“the extension of British rule throughout the world”) were those of a desperate man (albeit, an extraordinary Wealthy one). no doubt there were those within the British establishment – some of whom were anti-semitic to the core – who backed the Balfour Declaration, thinking they could somehow harness the energy of Zionism to their imperialist aims. ha, ha, and ha. Israel quickly became one of the most *self-reliant* states of the modern age, proving that it needs neither the British – nor the Americans, for that matter – to handle all obstacles (compare, for example, America’s success against third-worlders in 1967 vs. Israel’s).
Actually Pablo, the US won in Vietnam, then the Dems threw it away in a fit of petulence intended to hurt Richard Nixon. The 1968 Tet Offensive, portrayed by our wonderful media to Americans as a defeat, was actually a victory for the US-South Vietnamese alliance (the Viet-cong never recovered). Under General Creighton Abrams the allies steadily drove the North Vietnamese army away from the population centers and defeated it, capping that with the Linebacker II air offensive that finally brought the Northern Communists to an agreement. Then the US trecherously, at the behest of the Democrats, cut off the supplies to South Vietnam. It doesn’t matter how good an army is, if it has no ammunition, artillery shells, aircraft fuel, spare parts and other paraphernalia of war it will lose to its enemies. The 1975 campaign by the North was a conventional invasion with tanks, artillery, and all the other sophisticated weapons of a modern army of the time, but the ARVN could not fight them because it lacked munitions and supplies, cut off by the USA.
Compare what would have happened to Israel in 1973 without American munitions and weapons. You don’t have to guess, look what happened to South Vietnam once the USA cut off supplies to its army, as I point out above. And it is a mistake to think of Arabs in 1967 as some kind of Third-world guerillas. Arab armies had modern tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc, supplied by the Soviets (except for Jordan and Lebanon) in lavish numbers. The Arabs enormously outnumbered the Israelis in the equipment of war, and most of it was at least as modern, or in fact more modern, than most of what the Israelis had.
Israel won in 1967 because of better training and command, combined with an excellent plan for an attack on the Arab armies threatening to strangle Israel. Israel won in 1973 because of superior training, tactical skills, and, after a rocky start, command skills. But if the US had not resupplied Israel Zahal would have run out of ammo in the middle of the war, and that would have meant doom.
I see what you’re saying, but .. all the munitions/hardware in the world won’t make up for lack of Will (not sure i can blame the Democrats for the failure of the U.S. government to explain the *necessity* of said conflict to the American people). Fact is, North Vietnam lost maybe a million people throughout the course of the conflict. If it wasn’t entirely their “turf,” it was enough so that they felt something very real was at stake. Reality shouldn’t be something that requires Madison Avenue style packaging to sell: if it does, it isn’t really real, is it? But, um, as for Israel, Israel does what is necessary. If America becomes unreliable, if America wavers, Israel will adapt and overcome.
People tend to assume that universal suffrage automatically produces democracy.
Unfortunately not always.
One million four hundred thousand killed is the figure I’ve seen for the North Vietnamese, and 245,000 for ARVN. Plus there were grater losses after the war, from boat people and other refugees, “redeucation” of war prisoners, the standard Commie purges, et bloody cetera. There was also the Khmer rouge’s attempt to remake humanity by mass murder.
The North Vietnamese used conscription, harsh discipline, and the commissar’s pistol to motivate its soldiers. They did the usual Commie propaganda, of course, but I don’t think that’s too motivating. “Fight or your family goes to a concentration camp,” has a fair resonance in a Confucian culture.
The American people never opposed the war in majority, but the big mouthed elites did. The Dems were in charge of the governnment from 1961 to 1969, so they ought to have made the case then. The Nixon Administration took over in 1969, and in four years left RVN in pretty good condition, considering, withdrew the US forces, won against the North, and forced a treaty on it. Had the US continued to support our allies with logistical support, and air power if needed, there is no reason that RVN would not today look much like the Asian Tigers, a prosperous, new democracy approaching First World economic prosperity. That chance was lost by the Dems cutting off RVN in 1974-5.
I certainly hope Israel will adapt and ovecome, and that Israel realizes that America is unreliable. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is true. An American ally, no matter how loyal, cannot rely on US support. The aftrmath of Gulf War I in 1991, when the US left the Shi’a out to dry in the face of Saddam, shows that this weakness is bipartisan in character, even if the Dems are much less reliable than the Packs.