Human Rights Watch Warns of 'Authoritarian Drift' in Turkey

[Razgovory]

The claim that democracy is a uniquely western concept is not supported by studies as there are well-working democracies in all parts of the world, except the Middle East, Central Asia and Central Africa. Here is the Economist's democracy index (from 2012, so some may be outdated e.g. Thailand) for example:

I would consider S. America Western.  I would also say that the other states with succeful democracies that have successful democracies have been dominated by Western countries for quite a while.

[Zanza]

There doesn't seem to be a clear link between having been dominated by a Western country and democracy though.

Algeria was an integral part of France and isn't considered a democracy these days. Benin or Malawi, which had much less colonial influence are democracies.
Cuba or Haiti were dominated for centuries by Western colonial powers and aren't democracies.
India developed into a viable democracy, Pakistan or Burma didn't despite all of them being part of the British Raj.
South Africa and Botswana developed into proper democracies, Zimbabwe - which has a comparable colonial history - developed into one of the worst dictatorships in Africa.

Taiwan or Mongolia were never dominated by any Western country and yet are proper democracies. Thailand - until the military coup this year - would have fallen into that category as well.

[Tonitrus]

I don't think anyone is arguing that "western dominance = democracy".

Sometimes chance decides as well.  And some of your "proper democracies", one could argue, are still in the probationary period for that qualification.  Or at least, the security of that democracy is fragile (and this is true of some nations in the West as well).

[Zanza]

I don't think anyone is arguing that "western dominance = democracy".

Fair enough, but Raz suggested that western dominance is a prerequisite for democracy. This is not the case. It seems helpful though.

[Viking]

There doesn't seem to be a clear link between having been dominated by a Western country and democracy though.

Algeria was an integral part of France and isn't considered a democracy these days. Benin or Malawi, which had much less colonial influence are democracies.
Cuba or Haiti were dominated for centuries by Western colonial powers and aren't democracies.
India developed into a viable democracy, Pakistan or Burma didn't despite all of them being part of the British Raj.
South Africa and Botswana developed into proper democracies, Zimbabwe - which has a comparable colonial history - developed into one of the worst dictatorships in Africa.

Taiwan or Mongolia were never dominated by any Western country and yet are proper democracies. Thailand - until the military coup this year - would have fallen into that category as well.

It's not really a matter of western influence, but rather if the people in the country have made the decision to adopt these western values.

Pakistan, Cuba, Algeria etc. all rejected the vast majority of the institutions the british, american and french colonial powers tried to impose, they took the police arm of the western administration and ended up with police states. India, Japan and (fuck it the french were crap at this, so nobody) did adopt the full set of western institutions while letting the individuals retain their own freedom to choose their own personal culture.

Japan is a very Japanese country with very Japanese people who have a set of western institutions that might look and feel alien to them in a sense but they are committed to them. They have adopted most of the important bits successfully while staying distinctly themselves.

Benin did have the peoples republic of benin, only abandoning it after the end of the cold war. In effect beginning the adoption of western values and institutions in 1989.
Malawi was also a one party state until the end of the cold war.

[DontSayBanana]

Isn't choosing your governors a human right?

No.

My view has always been that democracy and free speech are the most important bits. Without them human rights are paper tigers.

My view is that democracy is a means to protecting and enforcing human rights.  A very important means.  However, there are cases where a particular implementation or a particular administration can act to infringe on the human rights of others.  In severe cases, the right answer is to remove that government and replace it with one that will respect the human rights of all.  That government may not be democratic.

Democracy is not a panacea for human rights.

I wish the mouthpieces in Washington could wrap their minds around that.

Admittedly, the likelihood that human rights will be protected goes up with a democratic government, but history is littered with benevolent heads of state (usually monarchs) who've still managed to advance the cause of human rights for the people they've ruled.

Look at Sweden- they didn't even develop a parliamentary system until the 20th century.

[Syt]

Topical op-ed piece from Spiegel Online:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/syrien-irak-libyen-warum-diktatur-besser-ist-als-anarchie-a-994225.html

The gist: after toppling an autocratic regime, a functioning democracy might not necessarily follow (see Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, ...), and instead might create instability/a failed state that prepares the ground for extremist regimes (IS). Therefore it might be better for the West in terms of Realpolitik to keep a stable dictatorship around and try to push them towards peaceful change and reform, and having a functioning state needs to be a higher priority of decision makers.

[Razgovory]

Honestly, I thought we should have backed Assad to begin with.  We should be working with Syria and Iran on this, perhaps in exchange for the end of the Iranian nuclear program.

[Martinus]

Honestly, I thought we should have backed Assad to begin with.  We should be working with Syria and Iran on this, perhaps in exchange for the end of the Iranian nuclear program.

Well, that would be possibly reasonable. There is one more factor that deforms the Western (and, particularly, American) policy in the region to a great extent, though.

It starts with I and ends with L.

[Tamas]

Honestly, I thought we should have backed Assad to begin with.  We should be working with Syria and Iran on this, perhaps in exchange for the end of the Iranian nuclear program.

Well, that would be possibly reasonable. There is one more factor that deforms the Western (and, particularly, American) policy in the region to a great extent, though.

It starts with I and ends with L.

[Martinus]

Honestly, I thought we should have backed Assad to begin with.  We should be working with Syria and Iran on this, perhaps in exchange for the end of the Iranian nuclear program.

Well, that would be possibly reasonable. There is one more factor that deforms the Western (and, particularly, American) policy in the region to a great extent, though.

It starts with I and ends with L.

What? Working with Iran would be unthinkable from the US perspective and the only reason for this is the fact that Iran is a sworn enemy of Israel (the West is perfectly capable of turning a blind eye to even greater human right abuses by the Saudis, so it is hardly that).

[grumbler]

What? Working with Iran would be unthinkable from the US perspective and the only reason for this is the fact that Iran is a sworn enemy of Israel (the West is perfectly capable of turning a blind eye to even greater human right abuses by the Saudis, so it is hardly that).

  Iran has worked directly against US (and other Western) interests in all manner of areas, mostly having nothing to do with Israel. 

[Eddie Teach]

Israel certainly had nothing to do with them kidnapping hundreds of our citizens.

[DGuller]

The claim that democracy is a uniquely western concept is not supported by studies as there are well-working democracies in all parts of the world, except the Middle East, Central Asia and Central Africa. Here is the Economist's democracy index (from 2012, so some may be outdated e.g. Thailand) for example:

  It almost seems like there is an axis of authoritarianism, going from Russia/China all the way to Africa through all the Islamic lands.

[Tamas]

What? Working with Iran would be unthinkable from the US perspective and the only reason for this is the fact that Iran is a sworn enemy of Israel (the West is perfectly capable of turning a blind eye to even greater human right abuses by the Saudis, so it is hardly that).

  Iran has worked directly against US (and other Western) interests in all manner of areas, mostly having nothing to do with Israel.

Cut him som slack. He is living in Eastern Europe. Most everything is analysed there on the basis of "how could the Jews be potentially involved?"