Democracy (Part 3 of 3)

I apologize for straying from the schedule the past week- it's mid-term season here at ol' FU.

SO. Democracy.
I've made a case that the two party system is fallible and that our electoral system is flawed. So then I ask:

Why do we impose this flawed system on to nations that do not want it?

Back in the hay-days of the Communist vs. Capitalist battle, America and other leading democracies tried to impose their system of government on developing nations, fearing if they did not, the big bad Communists would. There were 1st world countries (capitalism), 2nd world (communism) 3rd (neutral/ developing), and 4th (very, very underdeveloped) countries. Not much criss-cross; very black and white.

But America was petrified of Communism gaining power. For example, look at the China situation right around WWII. During that time period, before the rise of Mao, the Nationalist Party was at it's height of corruption. Since the 1850's, the Nationalist Party was renown for bureaucratic corruption that resulted in peasantry and lower class exploitation. Yet, when there arose a dispute in China after Japan's surrender of which government system would take over China, the US backed the Nationalist Party without a second thought. The US did not consider that perhaps the China Communist Party might bring some ideological balance; they sided with the party that would benefit their wallets in the free trade society, not necessarily the side that would feed their moral fiber.

**Disclaimer*** I am in no way advocating the violence and injustice that ensued during Mao's Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution; I am merely stating that the US did not consider that the Communist ideals in China were worth weighing*****

In more modern times, even though the Communist battle is over, the US and other big Capitalist countries still try to impose their brand of democracy on developing countries. In the Latin America's, in Central America, and in the Middle East- nearly every time the US or a similar country tries to impose democracy, there is blood, warfare, and only limited success.

Karl Rove spoke at the college I transferred from (Goucher). I was telephoned and told that apparently an Iraqi citizen spoke up in the Q&A session and noted that even though Saddam Hussein was a dictator and authoritarian, he felt safe. Now, with the Army running every which way, he was afraid to walk the streets.

I'm not saying that the US should step out of the Human Rights Arena; I'm actually proposing a more human right- friendly route. Perhaps America could separate itself from the narrow minded belief that democracy is the end all be all for everyone RIGHT NOW.

Democracy takes time, and unless done by its own people, democracy will surly not last. Would America be as strong if France fought the whole revolution for us, rather than being back up?

Of course not!

Democracy is great when it comes about naturally; when the people of a country stand up to a corrupt leader. It does not happen when larger countries see the developing country as a potential trade source or Allie, and thus then forces its system upon the small country. America should be a resource for those small countries that wise to pursue Western Democracy, rather than a nuisance that gives an excuse for unnecessary warfare.

Democracy is a wonderful vehicle; but not everyone drives a Volkswagen. Some people need BMW's or Chryslers. Some people need to lease a car, but in the end will buy it as their own.