Why do they even bother with 'exporting democracy'?

Post Reply New Topic

They don't even have it themselves with the electoral college and a minority of the country controlling the senate, and they want to 'export' it? Sure, many many don't even bother and claim it's just a 'republic', but no, if a nation isn't a democracy then it's government by oppression.

we are a kakistocracy that fancies itself as a shining nation on a hill, we are seriously dunning-kreuger.

One does wonder what would happen if one of our client states, like Iraq, were to copy every detail of how we "do democracy". Like have an election, but NOT allow the people of the capital city of Bagdad to vote at all (as we did with the District of Columbia for centuries), or allow the folks in that city to vote, but deny them representation in their national assembly (as we do NOW with the residents of DC). If Iraq were to do that their elections would be branded as "a fraud, and a mockery".

Or if Iraq, or Afganistan, were to hold a national election, BUT...you folks cant vote directly for your candidates! You have to go through something called "the Electorial College" first, before you actually elect anyone! Because voting directly would be TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY...cant have THAT!

The track record of exporting Western democracies to other countries has - at best - been a mixed blessing. It has succeeded somewhat well in central and Eastern Europe, somewhat less so in Latin America and Asia and even less in Africa and the Middle East.

Back in the 1990s, several economists pointed out that democratization was not - as previously thought - a prerequisite for economic growth - instead countries were likely to adopt democracy after they had already begun to become more prosperous.

With the rise of China, however, even this insight has lost validity: China is stronger than ever, and shows no signs of adopting a Western model of democracy. On the other hand, India is a democracy - albeit a flawed one - and it will eventually overtake China as the most populous country in the world.

That being said, the US model of democracy is a somewhat unremarkable one, so if one *had* to export democracy, it might be better to use some Western European countries as a model.

If I were to trade the democracy of my country of Denmark with that of the US, it would almost feel

Exporting Democracy is the preferred term, but what they're actually exporting is the pyramid scheme that is our economic model.

People are too stupid and evil, so America is a REPUBLIC.

This.

They call it exporting democracy when they are overthrowing governments that are not playing along with the wallstreet governed economic system, regardless of ehether the recipient country is already democratic or turns into a dictatorship through this delivery of democracy - Chile 1973 still being the prime example of an elected government overthrown with CIA support, followed by dictatorship. You can find lots of pictures of the dictator Pinochet happily shaking hands with American Presidents and British Prime Ministers.
"Exporting democracy" means "enforcing economic control".