Democracy vs Realpolitik: Where do you stand?

[Cameroi]

i would support no state really, except to create and maintain infrastructure.
where i stand is that people use words to mean whatever they want them to mean, which makes them pretty meaningless.

i would not make war on any state just because i didn't support it though. nor for pretty much any other reason then to end an ongoing genocide or prevent one.
(which almost no war is ever actually entered into because of in this world)
well it gets a bit more complicated then that, but the most common excuses are typically the worst ones, which generally amount to greed, masqueraded as prejudice. that sort of thing.

[Minotzia]

My list was attacked because the countries listed were said to be "fake" democracies because they weren't "liberal." It's stupid to argue that a democracy must be liberal in order to be a democracy.

I don't think anybody is saying that illiberal democracies are 'fake' democracies. They're certainly not ideal and it's certainly reasonable to say that an elected government is not the only requirement for a democracy to be considered a 'real' democracy. North Korea can and does hold frequent elections, for example.

I think the only reason that Democratic Peace Theory holds any water is due to the fact that all of the "liberal" democracies happen to be Western at the moment. Peace between the US, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and European nations has a lot more to do with economic, political, and historical factors than to do with the fact that the people in these societies are given lots of freedoms.

The idea is that liberal democracies are more likely to develop economic interdependence, join in cooperative institutions (the UN, WTO, etc.), and identify positively with each other (due to liberal democratic normative factors). It's not that the domestic institution as an object is what causes the decreased likelihood of war.

A government elected by the people is the only requirement for a "real" democracy. It's a form of government defined by that one characteristic. To require anything else of it is ludicrous.

"Illiberal" democracies participate in the WTO, the UN, and develop high levels of economic interdependence with "liberal" democracies. The idea that they will be more likely to identify positively with each other most likely stems, again, from the fact that "liberal" democracies share common history and culture, not that they have more civil liberties.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I don't think anybody is saying that illiberal democracies are 'fake' democracies. They're certainly not ideal and it's certainly reasonable to say that an elected government is not the only requirement for a democracy to be considered a 'real' democracy. North Korea can and does hold frequent elections, for example.


The idea is that liberal democracies are more likely to develop economic interdependence, join in cooperative institutions (the UN, WTO, etc.), and identify positively with each other (due to liberal democratic normative factors). It's not that the domestic institution as an object is what causes the decreased likelihood of war.

A government elected by the people is the only requirement for a "real" democracy. It's a form of government defined by that one characteristic. To require anything else of it is ludicrous.

"Illiberal" democracies participate in the WTO, the UN, and develop high levels of economic interdependence with "liberal" democracies. The idea that they will be more likely to identify positively with each other most likely stems, again, from the fact that "liberal" democracies share common history and culture, not that they have more civil liberties.

Nope, that is the only requirement for a real republic.

Once democratically elected - if a government pursues policies contrary to the the will of it's people, and is not accountable to them, nor allows for their rule to be contested by rival factions; it ceases to be a liberal , or a real democracy.

[Minotzia]

A government elected by the people is the only requirement for a "real" democracy. It's a form of government defined by that one characteristic. To require anything else of it is ludicrous.

"Illiberal" democracies participate in the WTO, the UN, and develop high levels of economic interdependence with "liberal" democracies. The idea that they will be more likely to identify positively with each other most likely stems, again, from the fact that "liberal" democracies share common history and culture, not that they have more civil liberties.

Nope, that is the only requirement for a real republic.

Once democratically elected - if a government pursues policies contrary to the the will of it's people, and is not accountable to them, nor allows for their rule to be contested by rival factions; it ceases to be a liberal , or a real democracy.

Republics are one of the three forms of democracy.

"Illiberal" democracies are just as "real" as "liberal" democracies. Western values regarding liberty are not inherently superior to any other values.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A government elected by the people is the only requirement for a "real" democracy. It's a form of government defined by that one characteristic. To require anything else of it is ludicrous.

To suggest that North Korea is a democracy because it has elections is ludicrous. Either you have a very warped view of democracy or you're stubbornly being over-technical in your ontology.

"Illiberal" democracies participate in the WTO, the UN, and develop high levels of economic interdependence with "liberal" democracies.

Do you have any empirical evidence of this? It's hard to believe that people who spend their lives dedicated to arguing for democratic peace and neoliberal institutionalism have just overlooked this apparent fact.

Rather, you seem to be misunderstanding the theory. If you're trying to suggest that 'illiberal' democracies and liberal democracies have the same chances of going to war in regards to dyadic relationships, I'm going to ask for empirical evidence. If you're trying to say that liberal democracies aren't the only kind that engage in institutions and trade, then that's obvious and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Though, I have serious doubts the illiberal democracies tend to have 'high levels' of economic interdependence with liberal democracies.

The idea that they will be more likely to identify positively with each other most likely stems, again, from the fact that "liberal" democracies share common history and culture, not that they have more civil liberties.

Again, you keep objectifying things. 'Civil liberties' as an object isn't part of the theory. 'Liberal democracy' as an object isn't part of the theory. For some reason, you're separating 'common history and culture' from 'civil liberties and liberal democratic norms' when the latter is the former.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Nope, that is the only requirement for a real republic.

Once democratically elected - if a government pursues policies contrary to the the will of it's people, and is not accountable to them, nor allows for their rule to be contested by rival factions; it ceases to be a liberal , or a real democracy.

Republics are one of the three forms of democracy.

"Illiberal" democracies are just as "real" as "liberal" democracies. Western values regarding liberty are not inherently superior to any other values.

Oh for goodness sakes - if the policy makers stop being accountable to their population, and do not allow for democratic change should the people become fed up of them, or allow anyone else to contest their rule once in power, it is no longer a democracy. Effectively the people have voted away their democracy.

Just because the original decision to elect them may have been democractic does not mean it continues to be a democracy.

What is superior is subjective. I subjectively consider American and Japanese democracy to be better than Russian and Pakistani "democracy." The latter whose values, incidentally I, subjectively, think happen to suck.

[Aryavartha]

Pakistan is a perfect example of a democracy that represents the values of its people and has fair and open elective processes. Just because they don't take kindly to insulting Mohammed doesn't mean that they aren't an advanced democracy.

I am thinking you are joking....

Anyways..Pakistan instigated all 4 wars with India while being under a dictatorship, military or other. Jinnah being the original dictator, having assumed party head and legislative head and govt head positions all to himself without proper constitution or election. He started 47 war. Ayub, a military dictator started Op.Gibraltar that led to 1965 war. Yahya, another military dictator put down Bengali revolt causing 71 war. And finally Musharraf caused the kargil war.

Maybe if Pakistan was fully democratic in the beginning, there might have been less hostilities. But now it is all beyond salvage. Regular population itself has gone batshit insane with islamism and conspiracy theories and what not.

[Kursas Karaliste]

It's impossible to answer the initial question without any additional information.

"An oppressive autocratic military dictatorship willing to be your loyal ally" seems to be the most rational choice.

Essentially, only a fool would want to live in a world where your homeland is on the verge of war with all the other nations of the world, even though they are the perfect democracies.

Of course, it's all relative and depends on the bigger picture - the global balance of power and the interests of your own country.