I believe our discussion on the validity of democratization has been adequately addressed by our class, but there are still a few points that I have been itching to get in.
The main consensus that we reached as a class was the idea that democracy is the goal that all nations should work towards. In reference to Doyle’s article, he establishes that democracy is not only this, but the governmental system that all nations will inevitably reach thus creating a state of “perpetual peace.” However, one of the main issues with elections and democracy is that it might not assimilate well with the nations that don’t reflect our individualistic ideals. From there arose the idea that the pro election arguments are mostly only valid for the already successfully democratized governments. Therefore the anti-election arguments supported the ideals of the nations that fit into the “other” category. However, when we boil this down, isn’t it essentially saying that the “other” cultures that do not uphold the same values as democratic nations are backwards and wrong?
The entire issue of democratization ultimately divides up the world into the democratic nations as good and progressive, whereas the others are neither as successful nor valuable. However, the anomaly that is hardly negligible is China. Their government radically differs from us, but succeeds to the point of (and a bit more than) United States. Is a federation of democratic nations really the way to achieve “perpetual peace?” Or is it the ability to successfully coexist with different governments, if that is even possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment