I've noticed in your past posts that you're very good at debating. Debating with you is like a conversation with my father. He loves comparisons, principles, abstract concepts... he's great at making two different though similar concepts seem the same by breaking them down into the same category. You are too. While his arguments are logical, like yours are, they aren't practical enough sometimes. I can usually see both sides of an issue and argue either way, but in this case I just have to argue the practical side. Who knows, if you were offering the practical side, I might be doing the "but it's the principle" bit:lol:
So, here I present my practical view of things:
It doesn't matter that this government is bending to the will of the majority (and even that's arguable since women are the majority there and I haven't seen any polls looking at whether they want their husbands to be allowed to rape them). I realize that's the definition of democracy, but I think we all know this isn't what people have in mind when they speak of wanting to see democracy in other countries.
When this whole thing started, most of us knew this was going to be a long exercise in nation building. The Taliban was demonized in large part because of how they treated women. I mean, come on! The Burqas!!! The Burqas!!! Have you ever seen so many burqas in CNN before? Women's rights were a BIG part of the debate before we went. They weren't the main thing, but they were a big part of it. Now we're there. We've helped them to create a new government. Should we just pretend everything that new government does is ok with us? I don't think so. Using your abstract way of arguing, if we should allow this without protest then we should allow anything the majority wants. What if the majority want to exterminate a minority ethnic group? Should we say, "Well, that's technically democracy and since our land claims disputes aren't settled we better just stand by and not criticize"? If the principle is the most important thing, you could argue yes. It would be crazy though and just plain wrong.
Interesting, Tracy. But now I have a shock for you... possibly. I do not consider myself a democrat in any sense of the word. I do believe in an electoral system of sorts, and in rule by the people. That might make me appear on the surface to be a democrat. I also believe, however, that certain principles are inalienable irrespective of democracy. That being the case, I do believe in the right of a non-democratic branch of government (such as the monarchy in Canada for example) to override a law passed by Parliament, however democratic it might be, if it violates a certain principle of justice. For instance, the Queen, or the Supreme Court of Canada, should have the power to force Parliament to honour its treaties regardless of popular support for dishonouring them. It should also have the power to impose rules repecting the right of a person to not be forced to fund a religious institution against his will, as is the case with the Catholic School Boards in Ontario. It should also be able to place strict limits on the ability of Parliament to impose laws that impact directly on cultural freedoms (for example, only those parts of Bill 101 that can be argued to be necessary for the sake of efficient administration or safety should be enforced on the grounds of a need for a common language; this should not affect personal use where a common language is not needed for reasons of administrative efficiency or safety).
None of these ideas can be said to be democratic as they trump the will ofthe majority. Ironically enough, this was one of the intentions of a consitutional monarchy, whereby the monarch could trump abuses by the people and thus prevent democracy from degenerating into mob rule. Of what use is a Governor General if she just executes any law the mob passes?
This being the case, why would I want to impose democracy in Afghanistan when I don't even agree with it in Canada? Sure we coud have rule by the people and elections, but some kind of system must be put in place to protect the minorities. Clearly a democratically elected government cannot be relied upon to protect the rights of the minority, as it naturally imposes the will of the mob. So do we impose a constitutional monarchy? Going by how that has worked in Canada, chances are such a monarch would just end up being a figurehead who'd just agree to whatever the mob wants. Other alternative?
As a non-professed democrat myself, I'd likely impose a Parliamentary democracy in Afghanistan whose Constitution would be dependent on the General Assembly of the UN (though possibly a reformed UN). At the same time, in the interests of fairness, I'd likely do the same for Canada.This would restrict democracy to some extent in that at the UN, unlike in Canada or Afghanistan, there is no ethnic, linguistic, religious or other majority that could abuse democracy for purposes of mob-rule. This would mean that we would sacrifice sovereignty and democracy to some degree, though by no mean totally, in exchange for a system that could restrict mob-abuses of democracyand thus reasonably protect minorities. Of course the UN would need a military force of its own to inforce the UN Charter of Human Rights. Moderation, even in freedom and democracy, is key. Democracy taken to excess is as dangerous as dictatorship.
But clearly if we haven't solved the problem in our own backyard, how do we intend to solve it in Afghanistan? We've just created a democracy, and now it's degenerated into mob rule already, as it has in Canada. Yes, the women will suffer. But what's the alternative? The only alternative I can see would be to dismantle their democracy and introduce an alternative system. But seeing as how most Westerners worship mob rule... oh, sorry, democracy like sheep, they find themselves at a loss as to what to do. The system I'm proposing would be barbaric to them, anathema to what it is to be a Canadian, to worship democracy, sovereignty, and Canadian nationalism. I'm proposing moderate restictions on democracy (thusmaking Canada and Afghanistan less democratic) and sovereignty (thus preventing Ontario from imposing unjust religious laws relating to its education system, or Afghanistan to their women).
Which is more important, to protect the rights of gender, linguistic, religious and other minorities, or to defend extreme democracy (which essentially equates with mob rule)?
As a woman, Tracy, would you be willing to exchange a little democracy and sovereignty in exchange for protection if you were an Afghan, or would you defend extreme democracy and toral sovereignty at all costs, even if it meant that you cold be legally raped?
And what aobut Canada's indigenous peoples? Woudl they be willing to exchange some democracy and sovereignty in exchange for protection from the Canadian mob?
Of course the minority and the oppressed will always be wiling to exchange democracy for protection, but the majority will always defend extreme democracy and total sovereignty at all costs, precicely because it gives them dictatorial powers over the minority.
Essentially that's why I don't call myself a democrat and don't pretend to be one either. And yes, I'm borm and raised in Canada and my mother's side's been in North America for over 300 years. But I still don't consider myself a democrat. I see too many moral flaws in it.
