Democracy, a universal value?

In his speech to the US Congress, Blair said that:

Quote[/b] ]

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taleban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's saviour.

Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit.

And anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defence and our first line of attack.

A common view is that other countries and culturs that don't have democracy are being denied it by ruthless rulers. But is that true?

If we look for instance at Arabic/Islamic cultures (certainly an unfair generalization, but please bear with me) we will find vast differences in social structure and organization compared to our european/christian. As one of Al-Jeezera's executives explained in an BBC interview: "The fundamental social structure in the Arabic culture is a strict hierarchical organization. At home the man of the house is the undisputed ruler. At work the boss is the undisputed ruler. And of course at governemnt level there is one undisputed ruler. This is the very foundation of our culture that is evident every part of the society. It is not imposed, it is an ideal. Those are our values and we are proud of them."

The modern European/Christian (a.k.a "western") values differ radically from that. We take pride in democracy, equality and the liberty of the individual.

If we take a look at muslim communities within western countries, one can see that they voulentarily keep their culture. Of course some adapt but many don't. That would rule out the theory that they are forced by their government.

So, my question to you is: Are the western values universal, or are they a question of culture?

----

Now for my second question, which is probably a bit more controversial: Assuming that it is a question of culture, is the western culture a self-destructive culture?

This has been worrying a lot of people in Europe resulting in a surge of popularity for anit-immigration parties. The assasinated Dutch right-wing extremist Pim Fortuyn said once:

"We don't want muslims in this country since they do not share our liberal humanitarian values."

What sound like a laughable contradiction may very well be a core problem of the western civilization, if values are indeed not universal but based on culture. The modern European/Christian culture advocates strong personal liberties and democracy (i.e majority rule). So our beliefs dictate that people have the right to their own religion and culture. At the same time the birth rate in many European countries is lower than the immigration rate - immigration from countries that have a different view on how society should be organized. Inevitably there will in the end be more people in the European countries that do not have a European culture as a foundation for their values. Our democratic principles dictate majority rule so by all logic in 100-200 years the EU might become "The Islamic Republic of Europe".

So, are our core values self-defeating? Do we need to step in and protect our culture by violating the very core of it? Or is this just a natural evolution of the society?

Tough questions, got me thinking.

I will post more later.

They are not universal!

The way families work in each and every cultural environment is a good reflection of which values are crucial and must be represented by the government.

The father, in most societies seen as the governing body, plays a key role in setting future perceptions of each and everyone of us. It is no surprise that in countries in which the "head of the family" is traditionally highly authoritative is more accepting/respecting strong and powerful governments.

The same is true for religion. Countries in which the father explains his rules for upbringing his children by refering to religion, then their leaders do the same to justify their actions.

Democracy for Iraq. BS!!! It is the same joke we heard about "antiauthoritative upbringing" in the seventies. It failed and the children turned out to be spoiled assholes. And considering political emancipation the Iraqis are still children.

And we all know what happened to former eastern countries that had to revert too quickly from communism to capitalism/demorcracy.

Question 1:

In my opinion there is no such thing as universal values, except those that are biologically set. Like naturally we have a blocking mechanism that hinders us from purposely harming other human beings. This mechnism can be overridden of course and its not set in stone, but its part of all human beings. (The exception proves the rule )

Thats why killing someone for a selfish reason is considered bad in all cultures I know.

So some biologically defined values are universal, but what we are discussing are culturally defined values. And those are by definition depending on the culture and society.

Needs to be thought through in detail I guess but I think thats what it comes down to.

Now question numero 2:

If our way of life is right and over time we evolve into something else "The Islamic Republic of Europe", well then that's the way it goes.

We can and will try to preserve our values. And I'm rather confident we will succeed, at least in the foreseeable future.

The end doesn't justify the means, so brakeing our own values to protect them will just make them fall faster.

A valid point tho is to make sure the people who join our nations actually participate in our society and the adapt at least the most basic of our values, as defined by constitution and law.

As enlightned and liberal we may be, compared to other cultures, our values still have teeth.

Im a bit busy at the moment and having read dnone of t he  thread ill say this about democracy,its the  best  new excuse for war since christianity

be back later.

Universal? No. A good idea? Yes. For all its faults, I doubt I could handle living in a non-democratic system.

As enlightned and liberal we may be, compared to other cultures, our values still have teeth.

Indeed. That is perhaps what will save us. We are so convinced that everybody else wants what we have that we not just don't feel it is wrong to shove our values down the others' throats - we feel that it is our duty!

It's fairly interesting from a historical perspective. A couple of hundred years ago missionaries were sent around the world to teach the poor heathens about Christianity so that we could save their poor ignorant souls. Now we do the same thing with democracy.

The funny thing that in both cases the intent is actually a good one - it's just that we can't imagine anybody not wanting what we think is ideal.

As enlightned and liberal we may be, compared to other cultures, our values still have teeth.

Indeed. That is perhaps what will save us. We are so convinced that everybody else wants what we have that we not just don't feel it is wrong to shove our values down the others' throats - we feel that it is our duty!

It's fairly interesting from a historical perspective. A couple of hundred years ago missionaries were sent around the world to teach the poor heathens about Christianity so that we could save their poor ignorant souls. Now we do the same thing with democracy.

The funny thing that in both cases the intent is actually a good one - it's just that we can't imagine anybody not wanting what we think is ideal.

It is not "us" that think that. It is the American government that think that about countries that are of interest to them.

I think that in average, Europeans would much rather erect a fortress Europe and keep everything out.

It is not "us" that think that. It is the American government that think that about countries that are of interest to them.

I think that in average, Europeans would much rather erect a fortress Europe and keep everything out.

Oh yeah, blame it all on us . Not like any European countries ever went off on any crusades (oops, that kind of slipped out).

@ July 22 2003,00:28)]

It is not "us" that think that. It is the American government that think that about countries that are of interest to them.

I think that in average, Europeans would much rather erect a fortress Europe and keep everything out.

Oh yeah, blame it all on us . Not like any European countries ever went off on any crusades (oops, that kind of slipped out).

I'm not blaming anything, I'm just stating facts.

Please tell me when the last time was that a European country went out for intervention in a foreign country? Falklands don't count because that was an invasion of European territory, Algeria doesn't count because that was the process of decolonisation and UN missions do not count either.

No European nation has pulled anything remotely similar to what the US has been pulling for the past 60 years, that is a historical fact.

@ July 22 2003,00:28)]

It is not "us" that think that. It is the American government that think that about countries that are of interest to them.

I think that in average, Europeans would much rather erect a fortress Europe and keep everything out.

Oh yeah, blame it all on us . Not like any European countries ever went off on any crusades (oops, that kind of slipped out).

I'm not blaming anything, I'm just stating facts.

Please tell me when the last time was that a European country went out for intervention in a foreign country? Falklands don't count because that was an invasion of European territory, Algeria doesn't count because that was the process of decolonisation and UN missions do not count either.

No European nation has pulled anything remotely similar to what the US has been pulling for the past 60 years, that is a historical fact.

Well of course you haven't, if you disqualify all the examples. How about France in Indochina? The British and French during the Suez Crisis? And of course the UN interventions, which you mentioned. You haven't changed at all, you've just gotten a pretty new seal to stamp on the same old bad habits.

It is exactly the same thing. The Americans are doing now what we have been doing for centuries. We share the same culture - they are our offspring. It's the same cultural sphere.

Now, could we leave the US vs. Europe slagging? The purpose of this thread is a discussion at a more general level. Not to point fingers at different countries for various specifics of historical events. Especially not for countries that share the same cultural base.

@ July 22 2003,00:40)]How about France in Indochina?

decolonisation

Indochine , or Vietnam as it's called nowadays was a french colony

@ July 22 2003,00:40)]You haven't changed at all, you've just gotten a pretty new seal to stamp on the same old bad habits.

Well, I disagree with that last statement.

I won't argue this any longer, I will let history speak for herself.

Surprisingly lately I have been noticing a few problems with a 'pure' democracy that will continue to get worse unless a different set of solutions is sort of forced upon the population. (yup)

So anyway, to keep it short, I do not believe there is anything like a universal value to democracy, it seems to be a stepping stone to a 'proper' way of government, it's certainly not a final solution.

by proper I mean sustainable for long periods of time without major issues like market crashes, rich/poor gaps, etc.

Things will continue to slowly degrade as they are, with democracy leading the way in power these days...

We still have no idea how to run this place.

The main problem with democracy is that (in theory) it enacts the will of the people - and we all know how stupid people can be at times. A famous comedian (can't recall who) once made the statement "Just think how stupid most people can be, and then think that half of those are twice as stupid as the rest!". Not to mention how easily the public can be lead like sheep by the media...you tell people in the news that something is a fact, the vast majority of people won't even question it...

Also, whenever you have elected officials, the most popular candidates tend to get in - and the most popular (charismatic) leaders are rarely the most intelligent or best suited to the job *cough* Reagan *cough*

Ideally the government should be there to serve the best interests of the populace, even if the best interests aren't necessarily the most popular choices. But we all know how badly communism and socialism turn out in the real world...

What is the solution? I have no idea...the way I figure it, I live in a democracy, and it's not too bad - I can maintain a decent standard of life and be reasonably happy, so I guess I don't have too much to complain about...

Yep I guess so Maj Fubar, but there are so many people who really can't maintain that standard. The instability of living in a democracy is really (literally) driving people insane. Even here in Canada... trust me, people are getting a "competition"/"survival of the fittest" overdose.

I do not believe that Western values are universal (actually, that much is self-evident... there are plenty of folks here who don't fully embrace them!), but I think they are more mature in terms of development than say, what most of the Muslim world today deals with.  Their society has not developed the way ours has, and I don't think we can expect it to simply adapt our standards overnight.  The same problem has been encountered everywhere the Western culture has attempted to spread.  It's not that the people don't want it, but their culture has not matured to the point where they as a people realize that they want it.

Of course, democracy as we know it now will not last.  I'd be a fool to think that we've found the ideal system.  In fact, I'd bet money that the monarchies of Europe in the middle ages thought that they had found the best system possible.  There will be a replacement for democracy, and I just hope that the world will be ready for it when it comes around (as it was obviously not for democracy... and still is not completely).

But as for the values that Western society is based on, I do believe that many of them are present in any individual, but not necessarily in the societies.  Any peasant in middle ages Europe would have been thrilled by the idea of freedoms, but societally, it was beyond them.  We have the same issue here because the societies in the world are not at the same developmental levels.  And the Western styles have been more successful not because they are really better (they were much the same in previous centuries), but because they have matured.  And eventually, I think the rest of the world will mature as well, perforce or voluntarily.

but that's just my prattle on the subject, I'm no expert. Heck, my thoughts above are scarecely organized (lots of respect to those of you who make coherent arguments online!)

"Are the western values universal, or are they a question of culture?"

No, they are not universal. They are a construct of our society, just as other values are the result of the society that created them.

Looking at other cultures our current system might be one of the better. I know I sure prefer it, but I would, wouldnt I? I have grown up in it, I am shaped by it.

I can see other ways I might prefer living though, but I dont know if thats another thread all together?

To answer the question in brief, no they are not universal.

"So, are our core values self-defeating? Do we need to step in and protect our culture by violating the very core of it? Or is this just a natural evolution of the society?"

Yes, it is self-defeating. Basing this on where I live, Sweden, I can only say that society in its present form is just organized anarchy at best. Yes, I live in a peaceful land with a stable government.

But, its a government ill equipped and ill prepared to handle problems coming from mass immigration of people from totally different cultures.

Its a government uncapable of prodiving its citizens with a fair and trustworthy legal system (I am not saying I could, just saying that the way it is now isnt working).

These two, combined, might be a crucial self-destruct factor. As more and more immigrants come in, and are not integrated properly nor recieving a proper welcome, more and more will turn to crime or to anti-government activity. A system unable to handle this immigration or the conflicts caused by it (both relating to problems within immigration communities and between immigrants and established citizens) will have a hard time keeping society running the way we are used to.

Note, to those trolling, I am not blaming immigrants. I am blaming the government for creating an immigration problem, that gives organised crime and international terrorists a basis of recruitment with the poor and discontent.

You are right. The way I see it, the problem with immigration in Europe is not so much the number of immigrants that come here, but their cultural and professional background. I think we could learn a lot from countries like Canada or Australia that base the decision who is allowed to immigrate on economic necessities. If immigrants are really to support our aging societies they will have to be able to stand on their own feet. But right now they are a bigger burden on our social security system than the indigenous population.

I guess what i want say is that - generally speaking - cultural differences wouldn't be that much an issue if people in other parts of the world would get their act together and develop some sort of working economy

I do not believe that Western values are universal (actually, that much is self-evident... there are plenty of folks here who don't fully embrace them!), but I think they are more mature in terms of development than say, what most of the Muslim world today deals with.  Their society has not developed the way ours has, and I don't think we can expect it to simply adapt our standards overnight.

I hate it when people bring this argument up. Religion does not make a culture. Religion is part of a culture.

Take the Muslims. Are all Muslims the same? Go to the US and ask some black Muslims about their attitudes on the world, their way of life etc. Then come to Britain and ask the Muslims here. Go to France and ask the Muslims there. Go to Morocco and ask the Muslims there. Go to Nigeria and ask the Muslims there. Go to Syria and ask the Muslims there.

Each and every one of these countries have a significant amount of Muslim citizens. Are the Muslims the same? No!!!!!! They are different! Their culture is that of the country they live/grew up in!!

The problem with the outlook on the Muslim world is that when someone mentions "muslim", in 90% of all cases they think Middle East and Mesopotamia and thereabouts. Unfortunately, the culture in those areas differs very significantly from what we would call Western Culture. The Western Culture embraces self-determination, believes in a free will and free speech. The people in the Middle East and thereabouts believe in despotic cultures, they are slightly nihilistic and have a clear cut culture where it is determined who gets to do what.

Similarly, the Christian Religion does not determine culture. Compare the way Christianity is practised in the US with the way it is practised in the Mediterranean. Then compare the cultures. Completely different.

Religion, therefore, is not what defines the culture. It is a part of different cultures that allows for these different cultures to have something in common.

Hi all

Quick declaration I am an Anarchist.

It is my belief that everyone is an anarchist just some wont admit or are not aware of it.

So obviously I have a view that democracy is not universal.

Democracy to me is just a social tool for gaining a concensus on rules and norms. (Laws and Culture) There are many other competing systems. All the good social tools seek to minimise destruction of life and property and maximise the number of people they benefit.

All social tools are a model of the real world and should not be taken as the reality. This is particularly true when the social tool becomes to rigid and inflexable. As social reality is not inflexable or rigid it is morphus and dynamic.

The American version of democracy is not the only one; most European countries have a version of democracy as do many South American a Few African and many asian countries.

Each of these versions of democracy have broad support in their culture and allow their culture and Nation State to work.

Democracy is founded on a falicy though.

The Majority are Right.

Secondly the modern view of democracy is not democracy but Representative Democracy.

It is founded in the physical imposibility of the mass being able or wanting to debate all issues.

So we abdicate our power and deligate it to others, our representatives to act on our behalf. We hope that they will act as they promissed in their manfesto and in the belief there vision of the world is roughly in line with our own; when an emergency arises we hope they will act along the lines we would and in the dynamic reality that exists they will stear the sort of course we would.

It is commonly accepted that they will not see the world exactly the same as ours (as I said the real world and people in it are anarchic so we use democracy as near fit model) So we allow our representatives a little lee way to make some mistakes.

We then have a system of checks and balances to remove or control errant representatives. In most democracies their are cabinets, multiple chambers, seperation of powers, independent judiciaries, laws limited terms of office and the ability to vote for another canidate once in a while.

It is these checks and balances that are the only advantage that democracy has over totalitarian regimes.

The problems that arise with any social tool are when it is Deified such as it being seen as a universal truth. Then you get the jihad of democracy as we atempt to take truth to the unbeliever.

I have never liked the concept of war for the truth whether it be the Christian Jihad against the Muslims in the 11th to 13th Centuries or the Muslim Crusades against the Christians from the 10th to 19th Centuries. In the modern era the Islamic Crusade against the west and Democracy or the mainly American Democratic Jihad against muslim countries even muslim Democracies (Iran has elections since they got rid of the Shah dont you know)

(Notice I deliberatley interchange Jihad, and Crusade to show they are the same)

Democracy is not a Universal Truth it is just a tool. Measure it on how many people it kills vs saves and lives it wrecks vs enhances the only true measures of a social tool.

Kind Regards Walker

Quote[/b] ]Democracy, a universal value?, Or the doom of our civilization?

Why can't it be both things?

Quote[/b] ]Democracy, a universal value?, Or the doom of our civilization?

Why can't it be both things?

Hi Leone

Because it is neither it is just a social tool. A bit like a wrench or a hacksaw stop deifying it. Just use it and if its broke fix it, if it dont fit use another tool and when its worn out throw it in the trash.

Kind Regards Walker

Quote[/b] ]Democracy, a universal value?, Or the doom of our civilization?

Why can't it be both things?

"Civilization" was perhaps the wrong term. What I meant was our western culture.

Also "value" is intrinsically something positive. While "doom" is negative.