Democracy Fund

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.

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.

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.

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 democracies, essentially scoring them from 10 to 0 (10 being the highest, 0 being the lowest). In the study, it distinguished between full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. It found that of the 167 countries in the study (excluding a few microstates), 30 countries are full democracies, 50 flawed, 36 hybrid, and 51 authoritarian. So roughly 49.9% of the countries of the world are democratic (or at least loosely). I have to say though a corrupt democracy is no better than a authoritarian one, but I suppose a D- is still a rankable grade. And this is roughly equivalent to total world population (49.9%). So you could say that half the world in terms of countries and population are democratic. Interesting enough to point out though is that 14.4% of the world's population are fully democratic? and that's a deep minority. So going 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. Honestly, much like everything else the UN does, it seems like a waste of money though. I would imagine that it would support freedom radio, token works, good will gestures, etc. This could all be better spent by depositing it into a "reward fund" for countries (many of which firmly seated in poverty more than solid despotism) to collect in return for reaching major points of democratic accomplishment. Those countries under the heel of despotism need a lot more than a democracy fund? they need an army or at least arms and munitions to get the ball rolling. The United States is a perfect example of this, for without France, Spain, Netherlands, etc. the United States would have failed. And it would be unfair by today's standards to suppose the "people will rise up in response to tyranny." Modern weapons and technology could keep 95% of a rebelling population in check easily (i.e. Iraq Sunni/Shiite).

Is 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. Essentially, it all needs to be put down on paper because people forget very easily? even when it is on paper. And then when it is on paper, as it usually happens, something overturns it and we go back to square one. Iraq for instance is on it's 6th constitution in the last 100 years.

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

:shifty: