|Originally posted by Nick1986|
Nation-building only works if the population consents to it. You can't force democracy on the people, they must choose it for themselves. America's failure to recognise this means Iraq will eventually slip into anarchy or be ruled by another dictator unless the people can be persuaded by their current leaders that democracy is a good thing that brings about better living conditions
Yes and no. For the population can be forced or manipulated to do whatever the government desires if the latter are willing to suffer the consequences of a minority who reject the effort. You are correct in a generic sense that democracy can not be forced...yet history shows over time... that given time... and when a genuine republican or even socialist democratic effort at reform is instituted... that most do see it's value and will adopt it's premise.
In the case of Iraq; insufficient time was devoted to the indoctrination of the extant native leadership and more importantly their ability to defend that which it is they are attempting to create or were dictated to create. All the while juxtapositioning the concerns of the minority rejectionists and the efforts of neighboring states to either halt the process or corrupt it to their own version and international and or regional desires.
All in all a goddamn mess the recreation of nation states.
Especially that region.
Because there is no real prior historical relationship with modern democracy to be found there, in any significant terms or in any real desire to be promulgated by the locals en mass. Prior to the turn of the 20th ce...or even after. And since has indeed been either the era of the regional strongman or a modified version of royalty. That was created by varying non-regional states who allowed for it's/both creation as a means of controlling outside interests developed there for their use and not necessarily those of the populace in place. The results of those failures merely prepared the continuation of the same or created a religious fundamentalist, tyrannical, state mentality and government... all still in opposition to the tenets of democracy.
But as you should know... the Brits have had the longest and more relatively successful (and I realize that's debatable as to the definition of success) in this stuff. And even then, after decades or longer of presence in some cases...still never achieved the end desires of the initial intent.
Why? Because of inherent cultural differences, bigotry etc...and or manipulation of the subject peoples for the control of resources or as a result of a particular ideology they (or the Americans in this case) wished to create. Equally as a result of their 'contextual era' recognized supremacy.. in world affairs..(even if the same was only viewed thru their own eyes) for what ever reason...that subsequently was rejected by the natives for any other number of reasons to include a recognition and reverence associated traditionally within and for their historic development and culture.
Iow. it ain't over simply because the Americans started the process and now leave.
Nor was it for any outside nation state involved in colonialism or the new version we seen being prepared yet today.
Should be fun to watch.
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 02-Nov-2011 at 03:18