Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (480472)	10/24/2003 4:52:14 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The general had the power, but he was a Turkish General, right? Yes. Sounds like Turkey's democracy was not imposed externally, but through a process that evolved internally No process, really. A couple of people, notably Ataturk, decided that Turkey would be a country run by democracy. I think what helped was the extreme docility of a population that just came out of totalitarian rule (which has parallels with the Iraqi situation). Another great plus was that they had just won a series of near-impossible victories (ex: in Gallipoli against English/Australians)fighting off invaders on various fronts, in Ataturk's leadership. They worshipped the guy (still do, as a matter of fact) and whatever he wanted would go - that is why they are EXTREMELY lucky he didn't just want his own kingdom. What I'm talking about is one country imposing their form of government on another. In this case a democracy That is of course not easy at all. Come to think about it, I don't remember a single country who has managed to impose its governance over a nation with its own traditions of governance, since missionaries met natives. There is an automatic reaction to such an attempt from outsiders that would probably be extremely hard to impossible to overcome. I would be happy to see this attempt succeed - Iraq as the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, full success of imposition of democracy on a divided nation with tribal traditions of governance (i.e. consensus building among tribes) rather than democracy (i.e. rule of the majority over the minority - this is what it looks like to them). I just don't see it as a likely outcome. One parallel with the Turkish example might be that the population is stupefied after Saddam's long rule. Most of them might actually be grateful to the US for disposing of him (although this sentiment is visibly eroding every day), and might follow its lead in forming their future.