In response to Brian - Full post here
Question: Is it morally permissable for a autocrat to hold his position as king but try to spread democracy?
I would say, firstly, that it's a bit unfair to assume that democracy is a good thing, because I don't really think it is. The whole 51% trumps all policy is rather lousy. But apart from that, I would say that it is a moral thing to do, if the king knows it will have the largest effect. It may not, however, be the most fair, or the least hypocritical thing to do. I feel that it would be less hypocritical and probably more effective if he lead by example. I am guessing that most people would call him out for his hypocrisy and then refuse to change themselves, because of that.
I think that becoming a democracy and attempting to spread it could cause a country to become like America and vote to force democracy on other nations or cause it to vote not to spread it at all - not that I think the latter is a bad thing.
I don't think the primary problem is democracy itself, but the unintended consequences of such a globalization oriented political regime. In Iraq, for instance, the spread of democrazy (as a tardy alleged justification) was responsible for over a hundred thousand deaths and the complete derailment of a society that was finally getting back on its feet. There's hardly a single professional left in Bagdad. The spread of "Democracy" scared them all into other nations that weren't at war with the most frightening nation in the world. If a country is ready to adapt, and so are their leaders, then democracy will eventually follow.
ReplyDelete