Democracy Fund

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

With the creation of UNDEF (United Nations Democracy Fund) we may see the promotion and encouragement of the spread of democracy throughout the world. It used to be doubted whether democracy was meant and could be attained in each and every nation of the world, but now there is a Democracy Fund supporting the idea of development of it. Though it is a new project it has many projects and now democracy has been deemed a universal value for all.

My question is not whether it is able to be accomplished, but rather, should it be done at all? If so, how? How should it not be done?

To what extent is democracy a universal value? Are the universal values of democracy equivalent to the definition we culturally ought to ascribe it?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 861 • Replies: 5

No top replies

@Holiday20310401,

Will it be the type of promotion and encouragement of the spread of democracy as witnessed in the U.S. over the last half a century? Personally, I can't stand the idea of democracy promotion because it is usually pushed by the international community, which is selected by dominant economic forces. Thus, a democracy will only be promoted if it supports the status quo--nothing more and nothing less.

I would say that democracy is not a universal value, and that it seems that authoritarianism of some sort is more authoritarian. The United States is very authoritarian when it comes to foreign affairs. Thus, the numerous terrorist groups formed and supported by U.S. secret forces and the many wars fought in the last half century. When the figure often held up for democratic ideals is not very democratic, it seems that the outlook on democracy is weak at best.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

I suspect that the UN understands by "democracy" not necessarily the American model, but a general principle that a government should be responsible to those individuals it governs and that it should respect what it has defined as universal human rights.
Given the history of the modern world and the various attempts at political solutions it relates, it seems unarguable that any of these has been better than that subsumed under the general principle of "democracy" and that of all the attempts, it offers the best hope for the attainment of perpetual peace and human dignity.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;143777 wrote:

With the creation of UNDEF (United Nations Democracy Fund) we may see the promotion and encouragement of the spread of democracy throughout the world. It used to be doubted whether democracy was meant and could be attained in each and every nation of the world, but now there is a Democracy Fund supporting the idea of development of it. Though it is a new project it has many projects and now democracy has been deemed a universal value for all.

My question is not whether it is able to be accomplished, but rather, should it be done at all? If so, how? How should it not be done?

To what extent is democracy a universal value? Are the universal values of democracy equivalent to the definition we culturally ought to ascribe it?

There are so many democracies all-ready...The fact a country is socalled democratic doesn't garantee good government. The money could be better spend on studying to prevent collapsing mondial system.

Singapore is not a democracy, but a respected member of the UN.

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

I think that, in theory, a democracy fund of sorts is at least a good thing. I support democracy because of all the available forms of government, democracy affords the best conveyance of populist will and unitary government. But those two things that I cite are relative to the country in question. If some other form of government does just as good a job as democracy does as far as providing guarantee's as far as elections, civil liberties, function of government, political participation, and political culture, it would have to be given serious consideration.

However, one simple fact is that a democracy fund could be considered little less than a subversion of authoritarian regimes fund. Democracy and authoritarian regimes are definitely at odds with one another, and there may be the case that some authoritarian regimes enjoy a majority of popular support (although I would not venture to guess who would favor such a form of government). This in turn yields issues in political philosophy such as state sovereignty and reasons for intervention in those sovereignties (i.e. jus ad bello/bellum) to assert democracy and so on.

The Economist did this really interesting study on democracies a year ago and compiled an index of democraciesgoing back to the subversion fund idea, the minority is really giving it their best shot. BTW, USA ranks 18 in the list, Sweden and Norway at the top, and North Korea at the bottom.

Should the UNDEF be done at all? Although I have mixed feelings on the issue, I have to say that I would support the fund if anything because it is at least giving it a good attemptIs democracy a universal value? At least to democratic countries it is. LOL! Honestly, the value of democracy is relative. Even within the scope of full and flawed democracies as well as hybrid regimes, there is a great deal of difference within each democracy. In an interesting little historical instance, take the United States and Iraq. In the conceptual period when" top minds" were debating on how to set up the country, form its government, etc. the issue came up as to territories and state formations. The United States was the first to step up and say there is no way Iraq will be divided up into independent states bonded in a federal government (let alone utilize bicameralism). The US learned (and is still learning) the hard way what happens when you give the right of state action under constitutional authority. And I would imagine that were that the case in Iraq, there would have been civil war in, at most, a few years from foundation.

But I equate democracy with constitutions. Democracy must be built on precedence in order to affirm rights inalienable to the people. Natural rights and so on are all well and good as far as the American constitution is concerned, but I fear that the conceptuality in our own democracy does not apply to everyone else.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;143989 wrote:

I think that, in theory, a democracy fund of sorts is at least a good thing. I support democracy because of all the available forms of government, democracy affords the best conveyance of populist will and unitary government. But those two things that I cite are relative to the country in question. If some other form of government does just as good a job as democracy does as far as providing guarantee's as far as elections, civil liberties, function of government, political participation, and political culture, it would have to be given serious consideration.

However, one simple fact is that a democracy fund could be considered little less than a subversion of authoritarian regimes fund. Democracy and authoritarian regimes are definitely at odds with one another, and there may be the case that some authoritarian regimes enjoy a majority of popular support (although I would not venture to guess who would favor such a form of government). This in turn yields issues in political philosophy such as state sovereignty and reasons for intervention in those sovereignties (i.e. jus ad bello/bellum) to assert democracy and so on.

The Economist did this really interesting study on democracies a year ago and compiled an index of democraciesgoing back to the subversion fund idea, the minority is really giving it their best shot. BTW, USA ranks 18 in the list, Sweden and Norway at the top, and North Korea at the bottom.

Should the UNDEF be done at all? Although I have mixed feelings on the issue, I have to say that I would support the fund if anything because it is at least giving it a good attempt.

Is democracy a universal value? At least to democratic countries it is. LOL!
Answer given in Question

But I equate democracy with constitutions. Democracy must be built on precedence in order to affirm rights inalienable to the people. Natural rights and so on are all well and good as far as the American constitution is concerned, but I fear that the conceptuality in our own democracy does not apply to everyone else.

I do not believe in building a democratic society in a century; let a-lone 20 years.

:shifty:

0 Replies

Democracy Fund

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know