How long is acceptable to stabilize a large country after ousting a regime and starting a new government?
402927
it took Japan after WW2 a looooooooong time.
1144560
How long will people take to realize, that simply installing puppet governments in name of democracy will not empower or uplift people in that country, any more than Quisling helped Spain.\n\nAnd how long will people take to realize that capturing people and torturing people in gulags is not going to prevent real democracy from rising and destroying totalitarian puppet governments, any more than ithelped Soviet union crush democracy?\n\nAnd how long will people take to understand that no drop oil is worth shedding blood of your patriotic soldiers in a foreign country, even if they are ready to die for their country. \n\nAnd how long will people taketo realize that their hyocricy does not blind other people into accepting evil as good?\nAnd \n\nthat America can site promotion of democracy and its territorial integrity as the reason for attacking and killing in foreign lands 12000 miles away from its borders,\njust as \ndevil can site the scriptures for his purpose,\nAn evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek,\n a goodly apple rotten at the heart. \nO what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
204713
actually Austria until June, then Finland.\nit's a 6 months presidency
563376
I believe your question is in reference to the number of democratic states (as in countries, the more common use of the term 'state' worldwide -- not a state in a federal system or as a subunit of a larger country as Americans usually use the term 'state').  Let's also define democratization as a process of adopting open political systems in which citizens can freely select their leadership (usually through elections) and influence the policies of their governments.\n\nThere were three basic "waves" of democratization among countries/states.  \nFirst around the period of American Independence through the independence of many Latin American states.  Howewever, there was a period of "backsliding" as many countries' democracies broke down.\nThere was a second wave of democratization following World War I, as many defeated or newly formed states adopted democratic systems of government.  However, by the 1930s many of these again had disintegrated into other forms of government.\n\nThe most recent wave of democratization has been since the 1980s during which period first many East Asian and Latin American authoritarian states democratized.  This was followed by the very rapid collapse and democratization of communist states in Eastern Europe in 1989-91 and a handful of other countries during the 1990s.  And the question today is which of these will backslide?  Russia?  Belarus clearly already has.  Will others "backslide"?
849067
They should until the country is safe.  Can you say YEARS!!
85463
It depends on what you count as a country - is Germany, for example, the same country as it was 150 years ago, when it was much larger and encompassed many other lands?\n\nFor the sake of argument, let's say that a country is one that can show continuity of government - that is, not being taken over, breaking apart, or falling into anarchy.  Among the oldest countries would be:\n\nChina - The first king can be traced to approx. 1617 B.C.E.\nJapan - they can trace their monarchy (and thus the government) to approx. 270 C.E.\nSan Marino - was founded in 301 C.E.\nFrance - Can trace its roots to 486 C.E.\nVatican City - as a successor nation to the old Papal States, they can trace to around the 6th century C.E.
818635
I am not comfortable with giving the government, with all the screw-ups it makes on a regular basis, that kind of power. You cannot bring someone back from the grave.
748114
yes as long as it is a good constitution that involves giving home rule to all states in the union including the suppressed states eg Catalonia and also including all of the former soviet union.\nit will require a dictatorial government in the Early years to hold the country together
509328
Sounds good on the surface, but there is far too much room for abuse of power, as if the government isn't already abusing its power, but I won't go on about the obvious.\n\nShort answer: No.
305405
POLITICAL STABILITY is one of the pre-requisites for 'peaceful living'; but it does not mean that the peoples of the country enjoy the right to be free; namely North Korea, Cuba (dictatorships), Myanmar (military junta). Their peoples live amidst 'peaceful surrounding' but enjoy none of the liberties in a democracy.\n\nIt would be difficult to enjoy "absolute freedom" in these troubled times; perhaps citizens of scandinavian countries, switzerland, canada, new zealand, australia are the most fortunate.\n\nEven bastions of democracy like USA, britain, western europe are attempting to whittle away some personal liberties (sign of the times); mind you these are very stable countries.\n\nThe rest of us in asia will have to be grateful for whatever 'degrees of freedom' we have and thank god we have a peaceful country to live, work and play.
1042585
well no country is indeed totally free , but if you came with political asylum because your life a thread in your country makes no sense that you want to go back to a place you state was dangerous for your self.  i some times spend 14 hours of my days at school and i only have official vacations 1 week a year since i take every session  at school to go fast . but  is  not only hard here every other people need to work hard in every other country to be able to succeed you need to be patient and see things more logical
185846
It was an bad idea when it started and it is a bad idea now. When and if we leave it will go back to the way it was before. The strong will take control and we will be right back where we started with a dictator in charge.
818119
"How to Reduce the Size of Government"
1115154
C.  Lack of stability is not always a bad thing.  It means that thing can be changed (albeit for good or bad)  I would prefer to have both democracy and liberty, with the knowledge that things could be changed if the got bad enough.  Power to the people, in other words.  Of course, with a lack of stability comes the responsibility to be an active, participating citizen, less the fringe run away with everything.  Not a choice for the faint of heart, but a worthwhile one, nonetheless.
128807
Not for years.  The governments of too many surrounding countries have far too much to loose if Iraq becomes a stable democratic state so they will continue to fund and encourage the "insurgents".  However, the violence should lessen as the new government gets organized and the USA starts pulling out.
540759
1) convincing the people who have not experienced it that it is a good thing.\n2) making sure that power mongers don't taint it or try to take it over.\n3) making sure the neighboring aggressive countries don't see it as a sign of weakness and attack.\n4) making sure the older democratic countries who are "helping out" don't stick their business all over your country.
712094
the answer to your direct question-- is a definite NO. as to the thesis that accompany your question-- it all depends. not all countries are in the same "bag" --humans differ as to their origins ( I mean social and political) and their heritage and their experiences with different types of governments or rulers. we can not and should not over-simplify "democracy" that it is applicable "as is" to all countries. that is wrong and that is why we have so many issues and problems in countries where their applications is resented. to cut short a long conversation -- democracy is the best among the the worst alternatives. but it should be applied with degrees of latitude to that particular nation/government/population -- like all social remedies in life -- it will take time before it bears fruit. hope it helps.