Should democracy be enfored on people??
960357
One of the fine points people fail to realize is that setting up a democracy is hard.  Really hard.  Just look at the United States: it took nine years as an ineffectual confederacy, seventy years of political ambiguity over regional over federal authority, many terrible compromises, and a civil war--that to most experts--that is considered the bloodiest civil war ever to be fought to get all the kinks out for us; and we originated the idea of modern democracy!  No, democracy--like any other idea system--should not be "pushed" on anyone unprepared.\n\nIf we was to be serious about seeding the idea of democracy, I think the following prerequisites would be required:\n1) A strong, charismatic, modest leader.  In the United States, we had George Washington, the general who led the Revolutionary Army (with the help of the French) to victory over the British.  His modesty and confidence in his cause was so great that he turned down dominion over the land he just fought for when the American kingship was offered to him, and this act helped to sway the people and give them faith.  To this date, George Washington is the only President to be unanimously elected and reelected to office.  Without his cult of personality and his humanity to turn down power when offered, the United States as is it known now would not have happened.\n2) A strong tradition of law and representational government.  Even though the United States is the first federal democracy, it is directly based on the principles of the British Parliament and British Common Law.  It is doubtful if the colonists would have accepted the new government if it didn't bear a resemblance to something they already knew.\n3) A desperate need to trust your own countrymen.  In the years following the Revolution, there was a real fear--that was well founded--that England sought to recapture the States and its resources and regroup it with its holdings in Canada.  The only way the former colonies would survive is together, even though the Southern States hated the Northern States' banking economy, the Northern States hated the Southern States use of slavery, etc., etc..\n4) A homogenized populace...at least originally.  Originally, the voting populace in America was white, Protestant Anglo-Saxon (or Western European) men; it would be daunting to face how a viable compromise could be made if multiple ethnicity's, both genders, and different perspective on religion and personal liberties had to be factor in at the same time the balance between the states and the federal government had to be hammered out.  Finally,\n5) A will to do it.  If England was the one that forced democracy on the colonies, it would have failed--it would have been an idea that the colonists did not want and was resistant to.  Revolutions of this type have to be bred from the inside, among the populace itself; it has to be the people's idea.\n\nI hope that helps.
803656
What may be (?) good for the US is by far not necessarily good for other countries. Before installing democracy in a country, that country must be qualified for democracy!\nAs we can see in many countries of the so-called third world, democracy american style there simply does not work. As a matter of fact, because of such democracy forced onto them, among others by the US, many of these countries ended up in plain chaos and anarchy!\nThe system of a country can work to the better of its people only, if this system developed from within and most always will fail, if it is forced onto a nation from outside (like from the US).\nLet the Americans live with their type of regime and give other countries a chance of their own! Eventually a nation may end up with a democracy even better than the one of the US, which is restricted to that check-mark on your poll-sheet!
865490
No ... How can someone force democracy on someone else? If it's forced, then is it really a democracy? If there is ever to be democracy or peace over there, then they will have to resolve it themselves.
743332
I agree with your view points, to an extent. But then what is democracy. Isn't it people's voice. If those elected do not just bother to hear you after the elections, what would you do. Well, you may say teach them a lesson in the next elections. That happens only if you are allowed to vote. Have you not seen what happened in the Chennai Corporation elections. A majority of the general public were are not allowed to vote. It was all booth capturing by Goondas of the ruling party. \n\nI want to do good things myself to keep my street clean and there are many like me in the whole of India. But, if the politicians threaten me not to do it, do you have the guts to go and given them the same kind of adivce?  They are not bothered about you and me since they have their own vote bank. Even if the general public do not vote in an election, the winner is decided by each party's staunch supporters. In such a scenario, your preachings won't work unless there's a complete overhaul of the whole electoral system.
380821
The last answer was closest to the truth. The question isn't should we, because we already do vote on it. When we elect our government officials, they in turn make vote in Congress and the senate. So we do vote but rather indirectly. Certainly we would all like to have a louder voice but that is the very drawback of democracy we only get one vote, the majority rules. No...we don't always THINK the majority is right but we have to live with it. It is best to accept it rather than contiually fighting against it.
625640
I would tend to believe that people should be informed before exercising democratic rights, but given the multiple forms of media available, literacy does not necessarily determine information.\n\nHowever, requiring basic media literacy would be nice.  But then public officials would have a harder time spinning information and may actually have to start being honest.
176783
I would think history would prove that yes, assassination, has been a real problem in our world - that people who are not in agreement with democracy use would be more likely to use assassination to bring about whatever their ideals are about.\n\nSo I would choose a case based on history, examples from history, where democratic leaders have been killed to prevent them from bringing about reforms that the people want.
107398
This is because there is no system that can ideally order society. Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy is not intended to give us "good" government, but to put some limits to the abuse of power.\n\nIt is important to recognize that democracy is not morally ideal. At the heart of democracy is the belief that if a majority is in agreement, it is legitimate to harm the minority. While a clear improvement over tyranny (in which the decision of a minority of 1 person makes it legitimate to harm the majority of all others), this coercive power is still cause for concern. For this reason, some countries (such as the USA) have created constitutions that set protect particular issues from majoritarian decision-making. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a super-majority. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but as a practical matter it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.
224363
Yes.  Democracy encompasses more than just geographical borders.  It is a philosophy that is largely built upon the foundation of law, and freedom of choice.  As long as men continue to value individual freedom and freethinking there will be democracy.  I don't foresee a world filled with dark, gothic, Batman-like figures devouring the poor without a fight.  That's how France and America became great anyway.  Don't forget.  Lights of liberty we all must be.
682414
Yes, that is the crux of democracy is a Govt. for the people,by the people and of the people.But the president administration doesn't seem to follow that, what with all of the secret dealings and spying on its own peoples.Passing laws and tax breaks that only benefit the rich.Elections are coming in Nov. for house and senate, hopefully there will be a change.There trying to come on strong now and act like they're "shaking things up" to me, it's a little to little to late.We need a Govt that listens to it's people and doesn't act like it's above the law and can make it's own rules as it goes.The founding fathers must be turning in their graves.
684468
The main and most important feature of democracy is:- Government by the people.\nSounds really good doesn't it?\nDoes it really exist? I don't think so only in name, the only time 'the people' have a choice is during elections for public office, you will vote for whoever you think will represent your particular station in life and your personal standards. Then what happens when your rep' gets elected? \nDo you then get to have a choice in whatever your rep' is going to vote for on your behalf? or will your rep' just do as he is told by his leaders.\nBefore I start getting mail telling me I must be a 'commie B' I am not trying to advocate a move away from democracy to any other system, but rather a big move towards more democracy, namely to get rid of our reps' that are obviously not conforming to the way we 'the people' want things to be done.\nI don't mean we should wait until their full term of office is completed, I mean have a method of getting rid of them almost immediately!   \nCould this be the reason that we don't have more referendums?
973550
Your premise is flawed. Criticism & dissent (not hate, silly) are essential to keeping a democracy honest.
821533
no one is happy with democracy. everyone fear.\n\nMany forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.
293425
democracy is the best, but could stand some improvement. it lets the people help decide what they want. beats having a million unhappy citizens
1133616
No to the theocracy in the US - but, in the same sense, I don't think we should push democracy on countries that will seriously be thrown into chaos as soon as it is introduced (USSR, China, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). I think it's very arrogant of us Americans to think our way is the best way for everyone - the only way democracy truly works is if it evolves on its own when people get tired of the way things are being run.
557116
where is democracy? out of 100 voters 50% give vote in that who get majority wins.finally a winner never get total majority. they just say the word to mesmerize public.don't think that way.
760455
You can not impose democracy by gun, simple as that. Democracy comes from within.