This is a paper I had to write for my Political Science class. Being that I was assigned a side, I went with it. As much as I wanted to be in the middle about it.
Not all countries see democracy as the answer in changing government to stop terrorism.
Democracy gives person under its governance equal power. Setting their levels of “intelligence, knowledge, and moral character” to the sidelines of their right to equal power. This has not always been the uniform agreement. Those opposed to rule by the people firmly believe that security would be at risk if the people weren’t governed by a power other than themselves. Those for democracy believe that terrorist attacks on America will stop.
“Is it true that the more democratic a country becomes, the less likely it is to produce terrorists and terrorist groups?” F. Gregory Gause III, October, 2005.
World War I had many Americans believing that the centralized powers of the government in Germany was to blame for its repressive administrations.
2001, September 11 not only left Americans in fear for their life, it also had government on the quest to conquer “global terrorism” by enforcing the idea to change Middle Eastern countries into Democratic Governments.
Since the G. W. Bush administration, there has been a “war on terrorism”. The changes it did bring were for example: the new free government of Afghanistan, the campaign against domestic murders in Iraq, the end of large-scale violence and corruption of the Palestinian, demands of a free and independent people by the people of Lebanon, Suadi Arabia has municipal elections, Egypt has multi-party elections, and Iraq is writing a stable constitution.
Ion the flip-side, statistics provided in F. Gregory Gause’s speech stated that 296 terrorist incidents occurred in ‘free’ countries, 19 occurred in ‘partly-free’ countries, 138 in ‘not’ for countries. . . of those in ‘not-free’ countries, half happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. . .75% of the terrorism happened in India far from Kashmir resulting in the killing of the prime minister and the former prime minister. . .203 international attacks took place in favor I n India during 2000-2003. . . the U.s> said that only 32% of Lebanese were in favor/somewhat in favor of them. . . 4% in in the Saudi Arabian polls. . . Jordan polled in at 62% unfavorable, 48% in Kuwait, 61% in Jordan, 76% in Egypt, 87% in the UAE. . . one year later the polls stood at 93% unfavorable in Jordan and 68% in Morocco.
Many other statistics pointed to the role of clergy in political systems as favorable.
Bin Laden’s view on democracy say this, “
The interpretation of democracy in the fight against terrorism by former President George W. Bush was that, “decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability have only led to injustice and stability and tragedy.” He goes on to say that, “governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors.” To support this, he says, “Across the Middle East, a critical mass of events is taking that region in a hopeful new direction.” Former President G.W. Bush believes that there will be progress in the conflict of Israel and Palestine.
F. Gregory Gause III refutes by stating, “The emphasis on electoral democracy will not. . . serve immediate U.S. interests either in the war on terrorism or in other important Middle East policies. . . if the relationship between authoritarianism and terrorism were as strong as the Bush administration implies, the discrepancy between the number of terrorists incidents in China and the number in India would run the other way. . .” Gause claims that terrorism isn’t the product of result from conflict of government policies. And that it is rare that political agenda plays a role. If their goals were met through democratic politics than the attacks would then turn on democracy because the desired results didn’t arise. Also, these countries would be anti-American becoming less interested in co-operating with the U.S. In addition, these same changed governments, as Guase hypothesized, would more than likely produce alternate governments to meet their goals in which Washington would not want or hope for.
“… There is no good alternate at this point to working with the authoritarian Arab governments that are willing to work with the United States. . . It will take years for non-Islamist political forces to be ready to compete for power in these elections, and it is doubtful that this or any other U.S. administration will have the patience to see the process through. . . liberalism prevailed, ” because it’s competitor was communism.
Democracy isn’t suitable for every country. It works for us because we base the colonization and profession of our country (America) on it as a result of revolt against the government control England wanted to hold over us. The people of other countries should have the same choice within their own government but not forcibly by another country. Instead we should be supportive to a new government of other countries. Just as France had done for us during the war for independence.
Democracy is an interest to me in this aspect because, though I like democracy for myself and my country, I know that others have different views. It relates to me in this time of hard economy and slow (seemingly fast) change in government by President Obama.
The look at the effects of democracy is valuable to understanding the beliefs and views of other countries aside from ours. This debate is additionally valuable to politicians and citizens alike. I don’t fully think the statistics that support no-democracy in the fight against terrorism are unbiased. Though, they are a good place to start in understanding that Democracy is not the only answer. This is where more research should be done. The next step, I believe, is to understand the values of each foreign country and the collective thoughts of each countries citizens on what they feel needs to be changed. If democracy seems the best for one individual country, that is fine. But, we must remember that not all countries will view it that way and we should respect their views and support the changes in governments they see as suitable and progressive. Terrorism may cease if we don’t bully and instead support. Democracy or no democracy.
Taking Sides:Clashing Views on Politcal Issues, George McKenna and Stanley Feingold, Pp. 22-35