[Northern-Anarchist-X]

I will rephrase: Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships by foreign intervention. A dictatorship cannot be replaced directly with a democracy without disastrous results, unless a country is willing to forcibly uphold that government for multiple decades.

Like South Korea?

Or Russia?

Or Brazil?

[Fasces]

South Korea had an authoritarian government for two decades following the Korean War. Russia and Brazil both ended their dictatorships internally - they were not the subjects of nation building.

[Kaspar]

I agree with Fasces. The West's fetishism of democracy is extremely counter-productive, both for the the country imposing democracy and the country being imposed with democracy.

I would strongly support U.S. foreign policy if it aimed to replace dictators like Bashir and Kim Jong-il with other, more sane dictators. Even if they're just arguably more sane. It's a shame that this doesn't occur more often than it does.

And I also fail to see how any of the countries NAX listed are relevant to the scenarios being discussed here.

[danholo]

That would indeed be more honest. Democracy is a horrible export to oppressed people. You're think they're into democracy right after a taste of "freedom" i.e. chaos?

[Zoetrope]

Fasces

Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships by foreign intervention. A dictatorship cannot be replaced directly with a democracy without disastrous results,

What about Nazi Germany and Japan?


-

[Fasces]

Both were occupied for decades - and remain occupied. Japan also kept their Emperor.

Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships by foreign intervention. A dictatorship cannot be replaced directly with a democracy without disastrous results, unless a country is willing to forcibly uphold that government for multiple decades.

[Zoetrope]

Both were occupied for decades - and remain occupied.

But you claimed that foreign intervention couldn't change a dictatorship; obviously it can.

Japan also kept their Emperor.

So? Japan has had elected leaders for awhile now.


-

[Fasces]

... unless the countr[y/ies], in this case the Allies, are willing to forcibly uphold that government through occupation for multiple decades.

Why are you ignoring that?

[Zoetrope]

unless the countr[y/ies], in this case the Allies, are willing to forcibly uphold that government through occupation for multiple decades Why are you ignoring that?

Are you actually suggesting that if we withdraw US troops from Germany and Japan that Germany will go fascist and Japan will start flying kamikazee missions again?


-

[Fasces]

Not anymore, no. If Americans had withdrawn in 1940s or 1950s? Certainly possible.

[Zoetrope]

If Americans had withdrawn in 1940s or 1950s? Certainly possible.

That still doesn't change the fact that a foreign intervention changed two dictatorships.


-

[Fasces]

Why are you ignoring my statement? Since the beginning, I have said that unless the country who is intervening is willing to occupy the nation for literally decades, as was done in both Germany and Japan, any attempt at forcing a transition to a democracy will fail.

Dictatorships can only be replaced with other dictatorships by foreign intervention. A dictatorship cannot be replaced directly with a democracy without disastrous results, unless a country is willing to forcibly uphold that government for multiple decades.

[Mysynikof]

It is probably the truth that violence is the tool best suited to topple any government, dictatorship or democracy. In america, we have a high standard of living, and violent civil war, or revolution is not even considered. In fact, I don't think any industrialized nation with a high standard of living remembers how violence shapes policy.

I think that might be why we are on the internet discussing how to topple a dictatorship. In a third world country, or maybe seven hundred years ago, there would be violence instead. In north korea, there would have to be violence to overthrow the dictatorship.

But this is important. Because it takes violence to overthrow governments. But it takes more to create a good government in its place. I think that a good government can only be formed when a proper attitude is assimilated into the people's minds. There has to be an attitude with the people, a belief among the people that the government is there to serve the people.

For example, In the history of Muscovy, a large proportion of the peasant populace believed that the Tsar wielded absolute authority over the state. There was a saying among the peasantry, that "It is a long way to heaven. It is a long road to the Tsar." In english it doesn't make much sense, but in the russian, it essentially meant that the peasantry was simply the dark matter with which the Tsar was to mold for his own purposes.

this was very different from the lithuanian peoples just to the west of Muscovy, who had a completely different attitude. In lithuania, the people expected their leaders to improve their living conditions, or else they would be ousted from their titles. Interestingly, while it wasn't considered a democracy(the titles were hereditary), The kings of lithuania did not have free reign to spit on their peasants. And the peasants had much more power to bargain with their landlords.

I think that good government never comes from top down, or an outside source. Probably it starts when some innovator changes the collective minds of the people. For this to happen, there has to be communication. This is probably why free speech is so important a right, and is probably why government is so eager to limit free speech. When people are able to communicate with each other, it is much easier for the people to decide that they deserve better from their leaders.

Maybe?

[Zoetrope]

unless a country is willing to forcibly uphold that government for multiple decades.

Germany and Japan weren't occupied for multiple decades to keep them from toppling back into dictatorship, they were occupied because of the Cold War. Why they're still occupied today I have no idea.


-

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

I didn't understand the context of what you were saying, sorry. Mabad.

[redcarpet]

There has to be an attitude with the people, a belief among the people that the government is there to serve the people.

And deceitful propaganda can only go so far. A 'good' government rarely comes in the form of dictatorships. It's logical why Western societies are liberal democracies post-1945 and their governments aren't being overthrown;

People are mostly social democratic, want a welfare state, low crime rate, social mobility and world peace(or as much as possible). Oh, and tourism/holiday opportunities. Trouble is that atm the carbon, consumer, industrial economy is hardly the most efficient model. And most politicians are not willing to look beyond two terms into the future. So social capital, major economic and environmental transformation is not prioritised.

[danholo]

Maybe?

Indeed. People are different, no matter how much the liberal Western democratic religious try to believe. People need and want basic necessities but generally it comes from different motivations, beliefs and traditions. This is why people like independence, and shun cultural imperialism. A dictatorship generally isn't thing people choose, but even democratic decisions might make countries look completely different from each other.

[Fasces]

You cannot pretend that secular humanism would be universally embraced when implemented, redcarpet. You are redressing "We will be greeted as liberators" in a social-democratic flavoring.

Indeed, looking at measures like the Happy Planet Index, suicide rates, and depression rates, a positive correlation with authoritarian, traditional government emerges - the people in the West are unhappier, more prone to suicide, more prone to depression, and less satisfied with their lives in general.

[redcarpet]

You cannot pretend that secular humanism would be universally embraced when implemented, redcarpet. You are redressing "We will be greeted as liberators" in a social-democratic flavoring.

I haven't argued anything of the sort. Don't put words in my mouth please.

[Fasces]

People are mostly social democratic, want a welfare state, low crime rate, social mobility and world peace

If such a statement is true, it is logical to conclude that they would welcome the opportunity to be given social democratic institutions with strong welfare systems.

Such a statement is not true, and it is obvious that any attempt to force such institutions would be rejected, as they have been. The majority of people are not social democratic, but traditionalists - the tradition they adhere to being unique to each culture. This is why socialism will never prosper in America to the same level as libertarianism, even in times of economic distress. The Socialist Party in the United States effectively collapsed during the Great Depression, rather than get stronger as anticipated, and this remains true during the recession. Europe is unique in that the majority of its population adhered to humanistic tradition, but do not let Europe alone skew your perceptions of what people around the world want.