When the us intervenes to make democracy in Japan, they got on their feet and became a world power again. The same thing happened in Germany. The point is that democracy promotion in the past has always been a good thing, so why is it not now. It only promotes what is right.
We should because that is what i am learning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 111111111111111111111111 333 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3x x3 x x3x 3x3 x3x x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 x3 3x 3x 3x 3x s3 s3sd 3 d3 s3 z z3es3s di3 d s3 z s 3s s3
A lot of the people who say no are saying we shouldn't force our beliefs on anyone else. I agree. But promoting is different than forcing. Promote is correctly defined as to further the progress of something, support, or actively encourage. We should support and actively encourage democracy because democratic countries war less with each other, and create a more stable economy. It is helping people without forcing anything on them.
In the Middle East, many nations are war-torn by terrorist organizations and when people speak out, they are punished either by arrest or by killing. Minorities are being wiped out and only a democratic government can stop the blood shed. First of all, terrorist organizations are afraid of democratic governments, and secondly, people want to have the freedom of speech.
These are not U.S. values but human values. Yes, people and countries are different, but all people have the right to basic security and freedom. "Promoting" does not mean forcing or military intervention. It can and is done peaceably through aid that develops democratic institutions. The end result is more democracy which, by the way, serves U.S. security interest better than all the bombs dropped in the war on terrorism.
United States foreign policy can not have it both ways. The government can not wax poetic about "justice and freedom", while supporting autocratic and authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately, this is a standard that is hard to live up to. Many repressive countries have resources that we consume in high quantities, like oil from the Middle East.
From the President Bush speech in 2003, the CIA along with the US has gave the Middle East hundreds of millions of dollars to the Middle East to let them have a stable democracy. However, no significant impact happened. In conclusion, promoting democracy in the Middle East is kind of useless based on our history. Plus, there's more than just this. So therefore, we should not promote democracy in the Middle East.
We shouldn't have to force any political system on other countries. However, if we really believe being a democracy is the best way to govern then we should lead by example and have them want to be like us. That being said, it might take a while before we have it perfected. Will we be able to hold out..Will the world?
I do not think that democracy should be promoted abroad by the United States unless a country or a country's people asks for it. The United States may believe that we have the best way of doing things, but that does not mean it will work for everyone else. We have many problems in our own country that we need to take care of, so we should leave other countries alone.
It's not really the responsibility of the government to spread its ideals throughout the world. Add to that that I think Democracy is probably one of the worst systems ever, and you have why I don't think it should be promoted abroad by the United States in a nutshell. Space. Space.
The US Democracy is not perfect. They show great progress but they still don't take care of the people. They made them suffer by high taxes. Democracy means for the people, by the people which means the people rule and run the government through voting.
Here in the U.S. we like to promote individualism but when it comes to our foreign policies, aka nation building, it becomes completely hypocritical. Democracy isn't "one size fits all" and our Constitutional Republic, two parties version of it is just one amongst many. Not everyone wants to mimic our system because culturally speaking, they are not clones of us. They have different ways of thinking and national necessity may also dictate otherwise. As such, it is completely illogical and downright arrogant to expect them to adopt our version of Democracy without question.
I think the most effective method for the United States is to set an example. If the United States goes around forcing democracy on other nations and people, those nations and people will see democracy as a negative thing. The most effective means would be to set a passive example, where the people are free, happy, and successful. To bring to the world stage human advancement, like we did by going to the Moon. That is how you promote democracy and a free people with a free market.
In my opinion, I believe that there are many forms of national government that could be effective. It is in the interest of the United States government to promote any government abroad that encourages stability, prosperity, individual freedoms and human rights. There are dozens of Democratic states that have completely failed in just the last few years, while other types of government have remained effective.
My issue with Democracy is that, though it is the way things should be, it never can be, due to corruption and other such issues that plague all politics. The United States is not a Democracy. It is considered a Democratic Republic. It's a system that works, but it has issues with its own system, with corrupt politicians, and other things. Therefore, I think that the United States would not be a good country to be promoting Democracy. Though, there are worse examples out there, such as China.
With the current inflammatory situation in the Middle East, somehow, the United States feels that it must get involved in the business of other countries. We have no right to do this, because we are not mother or father to these countries. Other countries have already established their policies and how they deal with their people, and it is not our business to interfere, unless we merely supply humanitarian aid. However, supplying aid to people in other countries does not give the U.S. the right to go in and dictate what types of governments other countries should adopt.