These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
A 500-word essay extolling its virtues and vices
Published on November 23, 2005 By singrdave In International

Here is the promised essay for my Norwich University Master's degree program in Diplomacy:
Comments and criticisms are welcome. Honestly they are.

{singrdave}
Norwich University application essay
23 November 2005

The question of spreading democracy is on the minds of Americans these days. Is our American way of life the greatest thing around? Is democracy truly the best form of government for all the world's inhabitants?

Democracy encourages intelligence, equality, and creativity, for its success requires much of its constituents. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that the states of newly independent America needed to band together to form a union. The question facing their burgeoning nation was whether or not men could be trusted to lead their own people. To lead from within was the goal of this kingless new nation, where the ultimate responsibility would be to provide good governance with a mandate from the people rather than from an archaic right to a throne.

To be successful, democracy should be homegrown, not exported. While democracy brings with it freedoms that oppressed people do not enjoy, history favors the country which brings about its own internal changes. Democracy's ends do not always justify the means, as seen in recent news events. Cruelty, inequality, and bondage reign in nations without freedoms. One alternative to democracy is fierce and scary. The Stalinist state is seen as the most extreme example of totalitarianism; the term has come to encapsulate all that is evil, cruel, and hegemonic. This bipolarity between totalitarianism and democracy created a natural antipathy between America and the Soviet Union. By fighting totalitarianism, we tried to establish democracies.

The problems with democracy are also in Hamilton's seminal work. To allow men to choose their own collective destiny, they will inevitably begin to voice criticisms of that which is for the public good. Whether these negative passions bring an honest quest for understanding or a slap to the back of the head is up to fate.

Democracy has not always stuck, especially in places where the government was not seen as legitimate. In Nigeria and Zimbabwe, presidencies are mired in controversy while the countries rage in civil war. In South America after the Cuban Revolution, democracies collapsed when the leaders were elected by small margins or were appointed to fill a vacancy when a more legitimate leader died. According to Princeton professor Nancy Bermeo, leaders in failed democracies polarize themselves to one view or another, thus engendering extremism and revolution. Democracy is not always perceived as the best or most exciting form of government to choose.
Clearly, democracy does not guarantee success. Lack of democracy does not guarantee failure as a state, either. Iran does not subscribe to democratic ideals. They feel theocracy is their ideal form of government, and the Iranians seem to be doing just fine. Another example of a thriving nation is China, which has had a communist government since the early twentieth century. Despite human rights abuses, most notably the crackdown on dissent in Tiananmen Square, it is seen as a worker-friendly global powerhouse taking its first steps towards a capitalist society.

Clearly, democracy in the right hands can bring freedom and enlightenment. However, not successful countries are democracies. The stirrings of democracy should not be foisted upon an unsuspecting country; the populace should choose freedom for themselves.

Comments
on Nov 23, 2005
Not bad
on Nov 23, 2005

However, not successful countries are democracies.

YOu may want to work on that sentence.

on Nov 23, 2005
Also, I don't know if you have a word limit


500 word limit. I came in at 526. I would have loved to have expanded it to encompass more. I'm sure I'll get my chance later on in the courses. This was just my admissions application.

"However, not successful countries are democracies." ...You may want to work on that sentence.


Yeah, that was an oops. But it kept my word count down!
on Nov 23, 2005

One alternative to democracy is fierce and scary. The Stalinist state is seen as the most extreme example of totalitarianism; the term has come to encapsulate all that is evil, cruel, and hegemonic. This bipolarity between totalitarianism and democracy created a natural antipathy between America and the Soviet Union. By fighting totalitarianism, we tried to establish democracies.

Yeah, that was an oops. But it kept my word count down!

Might want to cut down on the totalitarianism there.

on Nov 23, 2005
The only thing I haveto say about that is this:

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.
Winston Churchill
on Nov 23, 2005
Do you really think the Iranians are "doing just fine"?

Theocracies don't have a particularly good track record, whether Islamic or Christian, tending to be rather intolerant of opposing points of view, internal or external, to put it mildly.

These days, only those who have endured oppressive regimes, secular or religious, and have then tasted the freedom of a democratic republic have any real sense of how superior is the latter. Those of us who've never known anything else tend to take it for granted and profoundly underestimate our good fortune. Should we "force" democracy on other countries? No, and we are not - we have lifted the threat of despotic coercion and given the Iraqi people the opportunity to choose their own form of government.

However, I fully expect the media to call whatever happens in Iraq a "failure" - anything less than a clone of the US system and its values will be grounds for the claim we should never have gone in (& by implication, "wasted our time, money and soldiers' lives"), and if that is exactly what results, we will be accused of "forcing" our values down the throats of the Iraqis who (in the infallible judgement of the media) didn't want it. The media fully intend to have their cake and eat it, too. We'll never see a 72-point headline celebrating success in Iraq, no matter what.

I bring Iraq into the discussion because there is no other contemporary context in which the question posed would even come up.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 24, 2005
The question facing their burgeoning nation was whether or not men could be trusted to lead their own people.


The obvious answer being no. But what alternative? In a democracy, you're led by....men leading the people. In a republic.......men again. Communism? Men. Feudalism.......men. Totatlitarianism........Man. Theocracy...........technically God, but amazingly enough he doesn't seem to be communicating to those countries to all individuals on a one on one basis, just through......you guessed it, men.

"And the blind shall lead the blind, and both shall fall into the ditch."
on Nov 24, 2005
Do you really think the Iranians are "doing just fine"?


Yes, I think the Iranians are scoring quite well on their externals. They have a pretty sound economy, good oil exportation rates (without being a member of OPEC), and they are pretty liberally minded for an oppressive religious regime. They have an almost transparent record of somewhat open elections.

So they crush internal dissent and have a ruling group of clerics who wield the actual power in Iran... we can't have our cake and eat it, too, you know.
on Nov 24, 2005

So they crush internal dissent and have a ruling group of clerics who wield the actual power in Iran... we can't have our cake and eat it, too, you know.

They have a cancer that is eating at them internally.  and the scary part, is they have a Nuclear program.  They have lasted 25 years, I dont see them around another 25.  Not in this form.