Steissd -- I don't pretend to know much about pre-war Japan, but I did listen to an interesting discussion about it the other day in which it was said and agreed that Japan had in place quasi- if not actual democratic institutions which could be built on. Democracy in Japan can be credited only in part to American intervention.
Tartarin, there were certain elected institutions in Japan, but the official ideology of the emperor being a deity did not leave much room for civil freedoms and dissent. Japan was the only country in the world that claimed that it was ruled directly by god (one of the many gods in the Shintoist pantheon, but by all means, a supernatural creature): none of the other dictatorships have ever claimed their ruler being a pagan god or even a prophet of the monotheistic God. Such approaches were allegedly carved in the citizens' minds. And it took less than a decade to make Japanese political system to be similar to the European one...
Steissd -- This is an excerpt from a political speech in Japan which lays out the case pretty well:
Quote:Rather, I ask you to go back in your minds to the "freedom and people's rights" movement which began in 1874 -- the seventh year of Meiji -- as Asia's first demand for a Parliament chosen by the people, and which surged up from the grassroots in opposition to the government of the Meiji oligarchs to become a true people's movement, with broad and deep roots. We aim to be the legitimate successors of this massive people's movement.
Among participants in this grassroots movement of the early Meiji were the nameless youths who thrilled to the words of Patrick Henry, that fighter for American independence: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" There were, as well, the countless men and women to whom was handed the torch of reform, and who earnestly desired to carry on the incomplete reforms of the Meiji Restoration.
At each turn in the development of party politics in Japan -- Taisho democracy, the Showa reform movement, the postwar Liberal Party -- there has been a return to the spirit of the freedom and people's rights movement of the early Meiji period. Why? Because that was the starting point, the origin, of party politics and political democracy in Japan.
The Meiji Restoration was the first period of reform. The revival of political democracy after the defeat in World War Two was the second period.
The link has been lost in the paste-over. I'll go get it and post it.
steissd
A quite known topic in (Japan) history is "The Meiji restoration - From feudal to modern state - Constitutional movement".
Quote:From the Britannica:
Japan's constitution was promulgated in 1946 and came into force in 1947, superseding the Meiji Constitution of 1889. It differs from the earlier document in the following points: the emperor, rather than being the embodiment of all sovereign authority (as he was previously), is the symbol of the state and of the unity of the people, while sovereign power rests with the people; Japan renounces war as a sovereign right; and fundamental human rights are explicitly guaranteed. Furthermore, the government is now based on a constitution that aims at maintaining Japan as a peaceful and democratic country in perpetuity.
steissd
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk blazed across the world scene in the early 1920s as a triumphant commander who crushed the invaders of his country. :wink:
"This nation has never lived without independence. We cannot and shall not live without it. Either independence or death." M. Kemal Atatürk.
Because democracy becomes an imposition from the outside -- virtually a contradiction in terms. Perhaps we should get the heck out of there and turn our attentions to facilitating a rapprochement between among the three nations: Iraq, Iran, and Turkey (and maybe eventually Iraq). A regional entente assisted by the US.
But no, that removes raw (and dangerous) power from the current administration which wants to "own" the region.
From The Independent.
The Iraqis' idea of democracy may differ from that of Mr Bush.
[...]
Many, many Iraqis are channelling their new freedom into religious expression, and not at all the sort of religious expression that US evangelist Franklin Graham plans to take to Iraq very soon. For more than three days, hundreds of thousands of Shia pilgrims have been making their way on foot towards the holy city of Karbala in a profession of faith that was banned under the rule of Saddam Hussein. The pilgrimage culminates with services in Karbala today.
This may be just an outpouring of pent-up religious devotion, nothing more sinister than a celebration of freedom restored. It may, however, be something much more profound and longer lasting. In cities, towns and villages across Iraq, the power vacuum left when the Baath party rulers fled is being filled. And in many places, it is not US or British placemen, nor any nascent democrats, to whom the people are turning, but the clerics of Shia Islam. The trend may be only temporary. The Shia, as is evident from the assassinations in another holy city, Najaf, are split into many rival factions. The legacy of Saddam Hussein is one of division - divisions he encouraged to keep Islam at bay. And while 60 per cent of Iraqis are Shia, power has resided hitherto with the minority Sunni.
Unless General Garner and his office in Baghdad can bring water, power and a reasonable semblance of order to Iraq's cities very soon, authority may gravitate irreversibly towards those Iraqis who can command respect at a populist level. At present, this means the imams; above all, the Shia imams who declined to attend last week's US-convened talks on an interim government, thereby seizing for themselves an opposition role.
It was not meant to be like this. One favoured scenario for the war was that the Baathist regime would fall almost of its own accord, leaving a near-complete administration intact. The British advance into the south was envisaged as primarily humanitarian, with convoys and pipelines bringing food, medicine and clean water to the needy of Basra. The fighting changed all that, as did the reluctance of the local sheikh nominated by the British to assume the burden of power.
Nothing is settled yet, and it may be at least a year before an Iraqi government is in place. In the meantime, nothing can be ruled out - including the possibility that this imposed revolution brings forth a government that looks rather more like those of Iraq's neighbours than the regional beacon of democracy forecast by President Bush.
We have absolutely no intention of allowing democracy in Iraq. Several major players have already indicated that the Iraqis can choose anyone they want for a leader -- but only if the US agrees.
The talk about democracy for these people is just that -- TALK.
Iraq is not ready for real democracy. It takes time to create there generation of the really democratic politicians and their electorate.
steissd wrote:Iraq is not ready for real democracy. It takes time to create there generation of the really democratic politicians and their electorate.
So the United States -- in concert with Israel -- shall decide who will lead these simplistic little children until they grow up enough for us to allow them to decide things for themselves????
Is that what your are saying???
BTW -- as I understand it, Saddam Hussein also felt the Iraqis were not ready for "real democracy."
Surprised to see you are one with him, Steissd.
Saddam Hussein was inconvenient for the USA and the West. Therefore he was replaced, and therefore I am not his supporter.
steissd wrote:Saddam Hussein was inconvenient for the USA and the West. Therefore he was replaced, and therefore I am not his supporter.
I didn't say you were a supporter of his -- I said you were one with him. You and he have the same opinion of the Iraqi people -- you both think they are not ready for "real democracy."
BTW -- Israel is very, very inconvenient for the USA. Should we be working to replace it???
I'm quietly laughing as it looks to me like we'll end up with a Muslim theocracy in Iraq not in accord with the U.S. and certainly not in accord with Dubya. Fools rush in where mortals fear to tread. Then Rumsfeld decides and antiquities are a subject of humor -- after thousands of years of creating art, there is really only one valuable vase in Iraq. Idiots.
Frank Apisa wrote:You and he have the same opinion of the Iraqi people -- you both think they are not ready for "real democracy."
Well, Iraqis proved this themselves without any help of Saddam (or mine): at the very moment when they realized that there are no cops around they started looting.
Frank
So the United States -- in concert with Israel
Stop the crap.Israel has nothing to do with it.
