I think it depends on what the citizens in question consider to be 'peace'; it doesn't always have to be analogous to our idea of simply lacking conflict. There is something safe, almost nurturing, about totalitarianism. We look upon our government as a proxy for ourselves, complete with self loathing. In many nations that self-loathing leads them to want something more reliable, like a caring father that will chastize them when they stray.

Take the long history of revolution in Russia. For decades anarchists and other interests had tried to overturn the government, and failed miserably. The problem was, after hundreds of years of tzarist russia, the people didn't feel safe WITHOUT someone lording over them and keeping them poor. To the average serf the concept of self-rule was chaotic and frightening.

People trying to introduce self rule seemed to be THREATENING peace. Sure, they starved sometimes, and they were sent off to war sometimes. In the morning when they got up, though, they knew who the tzar was. Stability is a kind of peace, even when what can be counted on is usually misery.

So when Bush talks about Democracy, I think he is making the same mistake that the revolutionaries in Russia made. I don't believe for a second that the average North Korean living now would feel more "peace" if they suddenly adopted more democratic government. They look at their government and see stability, and they look at other asian nations where the legislators get into fistfights and see chaos.

It's like the phenomenon of spouses who become so accustomed to abuse that later they don't function well in relationships without it. I think given time, people can understand, but I'm afraid it will also mirror the Russian system, where they have to spend decades in a quasi-representive, just-as-repressive and abusive government as Russia did in the Soviet Union.

Democracy does not automatically lead to peace. Democracy, as it was developed, was an outgrowth of the working and landed classes' desire to protect their own interests. They saw that flighty or too-powerful kings could take their stuff away without a second thought or any owner redress, so the strong middle class banded together to form an elected government, by the people and for the people. (And I am not necessarily talk ing about the United States here, though George Washington was the first ever elected head of government in world history.)

So, as you say, when Bush talks about democracy, he is making some mistakes. He is assuming that people naturally cry out for democracy. Well, it may or may not be true, but in America, France, Britain, and most other democratic nations, they achieved their democracies through a long, bloody internal struggle against the monarch. It was self-determination that brought our democracy. It was not foisted upon us by some well-meaning foreign nation. The democracies that exist today have it because they wanted it, and are therefore well-disposed to sorting out their differences through the ballot, not the bullet.

For instance, look at the recent Canadian elections: they had problems with their head of government and they wanted a replacement. Did they rise up in a bloody junta or coup to oust their leaders? Nope, a vote of no-confidence was tallied and the government changed hands. So there were two willing participants: the elected and the electors. A bloodless, non-violent change of power. Not so in Latin America (the so-called "banana republics"), Africa, or Eastern Europe, whose corruption-ridden nations are still chafing at the recently-loosed bit of Communism. You can bet that change of government is not accompanied with peace of any kind.

So to answer your question, democracy and peace are not hand in hand. But conversely, they are also not mutually exclusive. The Iraqis are a lot closer to freedom than they were under Saddam, and a lot closer to peace than Israel, whose arch-rivals just freely elected a group of barbaric savages into power.

Democracy in and of itself does not.  Do you doubt that if expedience dictated, that Evita would not have used war to keep her power?  Democracy makes it harder.  But not impossible.  The spanish American war was a war of aggression on America's part. Pure and simple.  And while we can knit pick and say that America is a republic, not a democracy, I dont think that is germaine to your question (for the anal retentive of us, perhaps you should say Democracy/Republic).

But for the non AR of us, Democracy is a great inhibitor.  But man is man, and nothing will stop what some see as a right.  There are less when you have a D/R.  But we know it is not eliminated.

Why not communism? it works with China...

China isn't really communism. It's a perverted form of communism that just apes the same system of government they've had for a thousand years. Big thugs beat up little thugs beat up even smaller thugs who take their wrath out on the people who get them in trouble. Wait, I guess that pretty much does describe functional communism...

though George Washington was the first ever elected head of government in world history.)

Not so. If we discount the Papacy, for much of its history a secular monarchy as well as a position of religious leadership, that still leaves the elected Polish monarchy from 1572 until 1795 when the country was finally swallowed up by its neighbours. Although the 'electorate' consisted only of the nobility, this was very widely interpreted at the time to give a franchise of about 500,000 people (and George Washington was not elected by universal adult suffrage either).

The decision by the British (elected) parliament in 1689 to take the throne from James II/VII and give it (jointly) to William III and Mary II also established the principle that parliament(s) could choose who would occupy the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland (at that time separate kingdoms sharing the same monarch).

Going back much further, the Anglo-Saxon kings of England and the High Kings of Ireland (Ard Rí Éirinn) were also elected.

An example of an elected head of state who wasn't a monarch is Oliver Cromwell. Admittedly, he was elected as Lord Protector in 1653 by parliament, rather than by a general election of the whole populace, but that parliament had itself been elected - not a million miles away from the principle of an Electoral College

Of course, these people were all elected for life, so you could argue that George Washington was the first 'fixed term' elected head of state, but that would be to ignore precedents going back as far as Cincinnatus who was twice (458 B.C. and 439 B.C) elected dictator (in its original meaning of 'commander-in-chief for a fixed term only') of the Roman Republic. After his fixed term was up, he then retired to his farm. Lord Byron was so impressed when George Washington also did the same in 1797 that he called him "the Cincinnatus of the West"

Reply By: Chakgogka

Hey, where you been?  Awfully quiet of late, but glad to see you back, and with another very interesting history lesson!

I had a little hissy fit over one of Modman's graceless and unkind "San Francisco is a sewer because it's full of butt fuckers" rants and wondered for awhile if JU was really a 'good match' for me ...

Still curiosity drew me (quietly) back and before I knew it my fingers were tapping again ...

Republic, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, all will work if EVERY citizen commits wholeheartedly to this form of government. Unfortunately the problem lies in the selfishness/ignorance of man and man's capability to live accordingly. Democracy isn't the answer. If people can't learn to live at peace (by definition is harmonious relations) with their own neighbor how can we expect peace as a nation? They don't see that their own hate tears at the flesh of others. To think we are going to make peace is absurd but leaving the country the way it was I don't agree with either. I personally am very torn about this.

AD

Still curiosity drew me (quietly) back and before I knew it my fingers were tapping again ...

Dont leave! Your posts are like the cherries in the JU Fruit Cocktail!

But perhaps it takes a generation for social change.

In my opinion, you’re dead on here.

It takes a few generations to make a good strong Democracy. That is one that will survive during the hard times as well as the good. Germany after WWI or Russia after the fall of the Tsar is a good example of Democracies that failed, because bad times followed their construction. While Germany after WWII, South Korea and Japan had Democracy forced on them, all had good economic years afterwards. The Key to Iraq is a good economy or a population willing to dig its’ heels in (Like France's rocky past with Democracy).

But it is undeniable that when a country remains a Democracy for over two or three generations, it is hard to turn back to anything but a Democracy. Democracy is almost like a drug.

I have no problem with the Palestinian’s or Serbia’s choice of leaders. But they must be willing to except what comes with electing such groups into power, and be willing to vote (or force) that government out the next election.

But it is undeniable that when a country remains a Democracy for over two or three generations, it is hard to turn back to anything but a Democracy. Democracy is almost like a drug.

Actually, other than America, that has yet to be observed, and even here it is not a given. I do not consider socialism to be democracy. More of a geriatric democracy. I wonder if any democracy can stand or will always be sucked into selfishness.

I do not consider socialism to be democracy.

But in my opinion Socialism is not on the same scale as being a Democracy.

Socialism is on the economic scale, not what type of ruling scale a country has.

The economic scale will have Socialism, Capitalism, Marxist and a mixed economy. This is judged by how goods, service and property are controlled by either Government or private citizens.

While Democracy falls under Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Party system, Theocracy or Despot. This is who runs functions of the Government and how they are chosen or appointed.

A country can be a Monarchy/Capitalist, Party system/Socialist, Despot/Marxist, or Republic/Socialist. But there are always shades between each type of Government.

The US is a Republic/Capitalist, the old USSR was Party system/Marxist, pre-WW2 Japan was a Monarchist/Capitalist, and France is a Republic/Socialist. There has not been a true Democrat/Capitalist sense ancient Athens.

Dr Guy

I'm not sure what type of scale you use and how Socialism falls into it. But I would be interested in learning how your perception of Socialism effects weather a country appoints leaders as a Democracy.