Can democracy be won without a gun?
 

I think you are wrong, you should take a deeper look at the fall of apartheid in South Africa (where international preassure and economic sanctions lead the De Klerks abolishment of apartheid), or Ghandi's peace movement in India, i think you'd be surprised, even though i am aware that the violence part isn't exactly black and white

perhaps the Solidaritet movement of Poland, who played a great part in the fall of the Iron curtain, could interrest you aswell...

a more intressting story is the democratization of Turkey, until recently Turkey at a bad reputation at best, on it's human rights accord, if you take a deeper look at the progress made within the past 10 years, it's amazing, and pretty much all of this can be attributed to turkeys aspirations to join the european union (mostly for it's economic benifits for Turkeys troubled economy)

To a lesser extend, this is the case for Croatia aswell

This has in essence become the language of the EU's foreign policy, instead of using guns, the EU plans to use it status as the worlds greatest economy (in gdp) to presure goverments to respect human rights, for great economic rewards, this policy is still in it's infancy, and won't be effective before the EU constitution is inacted, but i believe it holds great promise...

Using economic leverage as a crowbar to help foster democracy...

That's actually a pretty damn good idea. It would only work if the economic powerhouse nations actually stick to their democratic ways, though. If one of the economic leaders decides to turn their back on democracy, i don't think simple commercial leverage will stop them. But for all the emerging nations, this is actually a really freaking good idea. :up:

I just wish the EU was less of a beaurocracy and more of a democracy.

me too, but I believe it will come with time

On an ealier note, the democracy for money concept becomes even more interresting when you consider that the EU's foreign aid dwarfes any other with a yearly donership of 29.5 billion dollars (or 26 depending of whose numbers you use) compared to the US' 11 bio USD, and unlike the US numbers military and private contributions are not included in the EU numbers.

it get's even more interresting when the EU development assitance it tied to, and i
quote
and are n o t tied so that the receipiant has to buy goods from the donor

I think that latter quote is too much of a dream. I would be ecstatic if it happened, of course, but it just won't. The EU, good samaritans though they may be, are not powerful enough to bring that about. There's just too much of it around, and with governments like China and the USA working against that, it's just too hard.

I disagree, the reason i refered to the constitution before is that it will strengthen the EU in areas like this...

a dream? not at all! Scandinavian countries and serveral others, allready ties their donorships to respect for human rights and introduction of democracy - that's not a dream, it's politics - when the whole of EU's massive donerships are tied to some specific criterias regarding democracy and respect for human rights, alot of countries who depend on this aid (and they do!) will be forced to alter their politics.

Granted, this probably won't work all to well, for different reasons, in North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe, but it will, and to some extend allready does, work in alot of countries.

I think you're a cultured, well-read guy, but as someone who has lived most of his life in a third-world country, I still belive what I said in my first post is right. The ratio of poor people to rich people in Peru is still about the same, and I doubt it is much different in most other third-world countries. How is the EU going to change the politics in a country like Peru? They can change them to some extent, but the rampant corruption that hinders progress in this country won't change, simply because of the mentality.

Taxi drivers in Lima like talking about two things: football and politics. Whenever I get in one I try to steer the discussion into politics, and most of the times I ask this question, and ask for an honest answer, I get the reply "yes, I probably would". The question is, "If you were president, or mayor, or somewhere high up in government, would you steal money?" I don't ask why, I just tell them that it's a terrible attitude.

I think they have the attitude because they feel the country owes them something. As they've had such hard lives and barely manage to scrape a living with little or no help from the government, they feel that if they were in power they would get something for themselves. Even many classmates from school freely admitted that they would probably steal money (which is the main type of corruption), and they haven't exactly had a hard life (my school was one of the most expensive in Lima).

It's just the mentality. Peruvians are selfish by nature, and I think it would be extremely difficult (read: virtually impossible) by a foreign body such as the EU to change that. It's very, very sad and I often wish I made a good politician so I could do something about it because I honestly believe I would not be corrupt. Yes, power corrupts, but I really do believe I would not be tempted by it. I wish it could be different, but I see little or no possibility of it happening.

This is Peru, and the situation won't be the same in other under-developed countries, but they'll all suffer from some similar "disease" which hinders their progress.

Maybe I'm too negative, but I think I'm quite observant, and after 18 years of observing, I don't think my country has much hope of changing.

I think we might be talking of two different things....

Im NOT talking about economic development, that's a different matter, while economic prosperity and democracy sometimes walks hand in hand, they are not interdependant, many african nations have a reasonably well functioning democracy but are very poor, another example could be india - a developing country by most standards - and still has a reasonbly well functioning democracy...

what im trying to say, is that EU can preasure countries to respect equality for women and minorities (by law), prohibit death penalty, secure free elections, etc., something that is specific and measurable...

e.g. if a country holds an election and international oberservers cry foul, the EU could demand a reelection, or withdraw it's donations or impose economic sanctions...

or vice versa, if a country holds a free election, acknowleged by international observers the EU could reward this by beginning or increasing it's donorship to that nation...

i don't believe that to be utoptian

the us has been sanctioning Cuba for years and it hasn't done any good to change the situation there.

yes, that's all fine, I can see your point. But I was referring to this quote:

I mentioned that in Peru corruption is one of the biggest problems but should have said that a result it is one of the main reasons why poverty does not decrease. Eradication of poverty is an impossibility simply because of the mentality of the people, which will not end corruption, which will have the direct consequence of not helping to eradicate poverty.

Could it be that the US bombastic approach to Cuba is a wrong one? trying to invade a country to topple a revolution brought about by it's own population, wouldn't exactly be my way of doing it...

well being me, i was focusing of the last part of the quote :D

Depends on who we're talking about.

End of Story.

nope because the concept of Democracy is built on the gun. Certainly seems so over the last 5-6 years....

deleted post

you miss my point, even sanctions against iraq didn't work. The idea that you can break someone by not trading with them is flawed. Sometimes force is neccessary.

I do believe that democracy can be won without a gun, but it will take far longer, which leaves the question of weither(sp?) more people would die due to the longer gestation period that would be needed to establish a democracy via non-violent ways or in a fight to overthrow the pre-existing government(this is, of course, assuming that the pre-existing government is one that oppresses its own people, like the Iraqi Government did under Saddam). If the government is not oppressive, and is in fact fair to those who live in the country, force is not neccesary, it will eventually lead to democracy, it might just take a while.

I believe it depends completely on the situation. 50 years of pretty much complete economic and political isolation and North Korea is still nowhere near democracy.

Canada.

i guess it is possible but that'll be a longshot.

:D

Yes we Canadians don't need those metal things that fire other little metal things.. EH!

Of course not. We take the trash out for you. Lucky you. Must be JUST like living with mommy and daddy, huh?

What comes for free is worth what you paid for it.

Okay.. I was just joking, there's no need to take swipes at my Country.

BTW.. for the record, alot of Canadians have guns too - we just don't use them the way some Americans do.

Just because our gun murder rate is low, doesn't mean we're gun free. I know how to shoot a glock too (seriously, don't fuck with me!).

So if you have beef with Canada.. go fuck yourself!

Can't we all just get along :D

What a useless statement!

So, I guess your saying that most Canadian gun owners are not criminals like the minority of American gun owners that are?

This is just as legitimate:

BTW.. for the record, alot of Americans have guns too - we just don't use them the way some Canadians do.


So is...

BTW.. for the record, alot of Canadians have guns too - we just don't use them the way some British do.

BTW.. for the record, alot of Canadians have guns too - we just don't use them the way some Germans do.

BTW.. for the record, alot of Canadians have guns too - we just don't use them the way some Iraqis do.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

I just meant criminals in the U.s. have alot easier access to guns.

Then they shoot each other.

As for Germany.. Britain..

U.S. has more deaths from guns than any other country by far! Check the facts.

It's not the ammount of guns that is so different, it's the way they are used.

Still, don't get me wrong - much love to the U.S.
I have friends and family there too.

If you were joking, then you have my apologies.

Sometimes, it is difficult to ascertain the tone that a message is written in, and misconceptions can arise. In this case, I was out of line.

It's all good.

Group hug :D