Democracy vs Realpolitik: Where do you stand?

[Hathradic States]

Pfft. America wishes it had a leader with the balls I have.

Well Obama is black, so good chance they're probably bigger.

True...

[Genivar]

Mine, America.

Ehhh... Not quite. Obama's pushing to get Mubarak out, we supported the Soviets against the Nazis, and I've never heard of an American plot to overthrow France. Seems like a dumb idea, really.

We supported Saddam against the Nazis. And we like to overthrow democratic latin american nations.

[Rolamec]

Ehhh... Not quite. Obama's pushing to get Mubarak out, we supported the Soviets against the Nazis, and I've never heard of an American plot to overthrow France. Seems like a dumb idea, really.

We supported Saddam against the Nazis. And we like to overthrow democratic latin american nations.

Oh c'mon Genivar, this isn't new. EVERY country has done it, the idea of an enemy of my enemy is my friend. It only makes sense at the time. We were allies with the Russians and the Chinese during WW2, we supported the Vietnamese against the Japanese, the Maquhalfdfd (pre-terrorist arabs) against the Soviets, every single goddamn nationdoes it. why is this exclusively americna?

[Rolamec]

Well Obama is black, so good chance they're probably bigger.

True...

And that's how you win a debate, boys and girls...you invoke the race card.

[Minotzia]

Ehhh... Not quite. Obama's pushing to get Mubarak out, we supported the Soviets against the Nazis, and I've never heard of an American plot to overthrow France. Seems like a dumb idea, really.

We supported Saddam against the Nazis. And we like to overthrow democratic latin american nations.

What's that got to do with anything?

And since when is democracy the holy grail of civilization?

[Waterlow]

Realpolitik seems to have merely deferred, not fixed, the problems its advocates have sought to address. That said, democracy's all well and good but it often functions poorly if the populace are insufficiently educated and legal structures, etc. are not powerful enough to rise above political instability.

[Rambhutan]

Realpolitik just creates bigger problems in the future when only narrow nationalist interests are taken into account. If you believe in democracy for your own country you should not interfere in democracy operating in another country whatever short term benefits you think it might bring you. Fair dealing works best at all levels of life. Perhaps the history buffs could provide a list of wars where two democracies go to war with each other.

[Tergnitz]

Interesting topic, really makes you think.

Personally I chose, 'An oppressive autocratic military dictatorship willing to be your loyal ally.' Which I guess indicates that my own opinion falls on the realpolitik side. I'd prefer a world of oppressive states which suit my own national interests than a world of nations which share my democratic values but are all hostile competitors. Survival of the fittest and all that I guess.

[Haor Chall]

The real flaw in the idea behind the poll is in suggesting that realpolitik wouldn't align with promoting democracy.

I have no interest in favouring democratic governments for "moral" reasons, but there are compelling arguments that supporting dictatorial regimes to further national interests is both less beneficial than supporting a democratic regime and far more likely to backfire in the future.

[Minotzia]

Realpolitik just creates bigger problems in the future when only narrow nationalist interests are taken into account. If you believe in democracy for your own country you should not interfere in democracy operating in another country whatever short term benefits you think it might bring you. Fair dealing works best at all levels of life. Perhaps the history buffs could provide a list of wars where two democracies go to war with each other.

1992 War of Transnistria (Russia v. Moldova)
1995 Cenepa War (Peru v. Ecuador)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 1996 (Israel v. Lebanon)
1998 Kosovo War (Kosovo v. Yugoslavia)
1999 Kargil War (India v. Pakistan)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 (Israel v. Lebanon)
2008 South Ossetia War (Russia v. Georgia)

And these are but a few in the last two decades.

[Georgism]

I am an amoral anti-moralist anti-religious agnostic-athiest transhumanist physicalist anarchist laissez-faire radical, and so I do not see how an totalitarian state would be aligned with me.

It wouldn't have to be provided you were in the minority.

[Basementees]

You may select up to 6 options

Aren't there seven options??

[Lackadaisical2]

You may select up to 6 options

Aren't there seven options??

Yes, but selecting the last option and any other option on the poll is nonsensical.

[Xarithis]

These:

"A somewhat friendly (mostly neutral, really) state whose elections and government are marred by widespread fraud and corruption, respectively, while dissidents and reformers frequently 'disappear.'"

"An oppressive autocratic military dictatorship willing to be your loyal ally."

"An oppressive theocratic ogilarchy with zero civil rights, but whose interests align with yours."

They may not be the freest of nations, but so long as they continue to support me/us (or at least remain neutral) while the democracies oppose me/us, I would reciprocate these stances.

[Volnotova]

1992 War of Transnistria (Russia v. Moldova)
1995 Cenepa War (Peru v. Ecuador)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 1996 (Israel v. Lebanon)
1998 Kosovo War (Kosovo v. Yugoslavia)
1999 Kargil War (India v. Pakistan)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 (Israel v. Lebanon)
2008 South Ossetia War (Russia v. Georgia)

And these are but a few in the last two decades.

None of those are democracies; they aren't even republics.

They are (authoritarian) constituional aristocracies pretending to be democratic or republics.

[Meryuma]

Since when is there such a thing as a "fully democratic state"?

1992 War of Transnistria (Russia v. Moldova)
1995 Cenepa War (Peru v. Ecuador)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 1996 (Israel v. Lebanon)
1998 Kosovo War (Kosovo v. Yugoslavia)
1999 Kargil War (India v. Pakistan)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 (Israel v. Lebanon)
2008 South Ossetia War (Russia v. Georgia)

And these are but a few in the last two decades.

None of those are democracies; they aren't even republics.

They are (authoritarian) constituional aristocracies pretending to be democratic or republics.

Claiming that aristocratic republics aren't republics reeks of no true scotsman, and this is coming from someone who has stated numerous times that representative democracy isn't.

[Arilando]

I only support states that serves justice.

[Angleter]

I'd generally practice Realpolitik with the goal of enhancing Britain's position and influence in the world- but I would encourage democratic reforms had I the power to do so.

[Volnotova]

Claiming that aristocratic republics aren't republics reeks of no true scotsman, and this is coming from someone who has stated numerous times that representative democracy isn't.

It depends on the definition of republic.

If in a republic the people vote(to some extend) who they want to have as their representatives then most of the countries in the world can be listed as republics.

If a republic is a system were the people or atleast a majority of them have supreme control over the government then there exist no republics in this world; only constituional aristocracies.

And a representative democracy does not exist; in a democracy there is no ruling class, period. If there is a ruling class then that is called aristocracy.

[Georgism]

It depends on the definition of republic.

If in a republic the people vote(to some extend) who they want to have as their representatives then most of the countries in the world can be listed as republics.

I always thought that a 'republic' was just a nation without a monarch *shrugs*

If a republic is a system were the people or atleast a majority of them have supreme control over the government then there exist no republics in this world; only constituional aristocracies.

What about when a majority of those who vote support the elected government?

And a representative democracy does not exist; in a democracy there is no ruling class, period. If there is a ruling class then that is called aristocracy.

Explain please.

[Volnotova]

I always thought that a 'republic' was just a nation without a monarch *shrugs*

That is sometimes used as a definition too.

What about a majority of those who vote support the elected government?

Still constitutional aristocracies; if there is a ruling class composed of a small group of political elite then it is aristocracy; whether this ruling class is supported or not doesn't matter.

Explain please.

Aristocracy is a system where a small group of political elite rule the people(commoners).

And thus, depending on your definition(the first one in this case) republics are aristocracies.

However, if you use the second definition then most of the countries on this planet can simply be described as constitutional aristocracies.

Democracy is a system that could basicly be described as "rule of the people" and thus not some kind of privileged small group of political elite that either happen to be voted into their seats of power or they because simply gained their titles at birth(or were given by an autocrat or an existing group of political elite).

Atleast, that is if you define democracy as being incompatible with authoritarianism and seperate from autocracy, theocracy and aristocracy.

And thus you might as wel argue that because states are inherently authoritarian(because else they couldn't rule in the first place) institutions: Democracy is anarchy.

If you have no problems with applying the label "democracy" to constituional aristocracies by argueing that "the governing is derived from the people/there are ellected representatives in charge, ect." then you may as well apply the label to former and existing countries such as Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea, Mao's China(and modern china), US, UK, ect(Every country on the planet that has people in charge of decission making and government policy) - for they are all ruled by "people"(even if that means an autocrat or a small group of privileged political elite).

A third option is that democracy is inherently impossible, as you may argue that you can't rule without authority. And in an authoritarian society not everyone can rule(as that would defeat the point of having an authoritarian system); and thus democracy is inherently impossible(atleast according to this definition).

Pick your choice: Democracy is anarchy, all countries that have people in charge of the decission making are democratic(and thus you are saying a republic is as democratic as an autocracy) or you have to say that democracy is inherently impossible.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

uhhhhhh...what kind of country am I running?

[Georgism]

If you have no problems with applying the label "democracy" to constituional aristocracies by argueing that "the governing is derived from the people/there are ellected representatives in charge, ect." then you may as well apply the label to former and existing countries such as Nazi Germany, USSR, North Korea, Mao's China(and modern china), US, UK, ect(Every country on the planet that has people in charge of decission making and government policy) - for they are all ruled by "people"(even if that means an autocrat or a small group of privileged political elite).

I see.

However Nazi Germany, the USSR, etc didn't have free and fair (that is, without vote buying, without banning parties, without ballot rigging, etc.) elections.

Being able to vote for your new leaders every so often as we do in the UK is a type of (representative) democracy. It does have aristocratic tendencies, of course - that's the point.

[EnragedMaldivians]

1992 War of Transnistria (Russia v. Moldova)
1995 Cenepa War (Peru v. Ecuador)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 1996 (Israel v. Lebanon)
1998 Kosovo War (Kosovo v. Yugoslavia)
1999 Kargil War (India v. Pakistan)
Israeli-Lebanese War of 2006 (Israel v. Lebanon)
2008 South Ossetia War (Russia v. Georgia)

And these are but a few in the last two decades.

None of those are democracies; they aren't even republics.

They are (authoritarian) constituional aristocracies pretending to be democratic or republics.

Athens vs Syracruse.

As for the poll:

Democracy vs realpolitick are not mutually exclusive, but I beleive that democracies can overthrown in two instances, in the context that it would not bother my conscience: - 1) where it threatens the stability of the international system (regardless of whether or not it poses a threat to my own geographic region/nation), 2) When it threatens my nation. - and also perhaps, if it would severely threaten the functioning of the global economy.

In those two (three?) instances, I would support complacent dictatorships.

[Volnotova]

Being able to vote for your new leaders every so often as we do in the UK is a type of (representative) democracy. It does have aristocratic tendencies, of course - that's the point.

As I said, that is called a republic. A representative democracy is a contradictio interminis if you define democracy as being ncompatible with authoritarianism.

If, as I described earlier, do find democracy perfectly compatible with theocracy, autocracy, aristocracy and their many variants then it isn't even neccesary to say "representative" democracy, you might just as well call it a representative republic(depending on your definition) or simply; a republic.