Democracy promotes ethnic and religious conflicts ?
-
http//www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski43.html
best wishes, Zlatan
A bit fallacious reasoning in that article, Zlatan. From my experience (I'm Indonesian) democracy per se does not provoke religious/ethnic conflicts.
When the Suharto dictatorship fell in May 1998, many hidden conflicts suppressed by his authority cam into view. The resulting conflicts (Ambon , West Kalimantan , Poso ) erupt because of the loss of control, and provocation by outsiders. Proper democracy were also beginning at the same time, but I don't see how the two were interlinked in a causal relationship. I tend to see both (rise of democracy and conflict) as a consequence of a shake-up in the authority structure.
The analysis is flawed in ignoring the exact state of authority at the time conflicts start in each country. It also ignores the fact that dictatorships sometimes suppress religious/ethnic tensions by coercive means, which do not erase the tension but merely built the potential for future outbursts.
But I somewhat agree with Ostrowski's solution to divide the country. Iraq itself is a forced political entity (its borders were set by the British Empire) so a division among ethnic lines could be preferable. Especially for the Kurds, whom have fought for their own state for a long time.
Nevertheless, the Islamists won't like that solution, they will just see it as a divide-and-conquer strategy by the West.
-
Peace Prim!
The democracy by definition promotes ratial and ethnic conflicts since the democarcy is the coercive rule of mayority over minority.....theres no need for this or any other analysis...
actualy democracy =dictatorship...democracy is dictatorship of mayority over minority....
...there is a great inherent fallacy in peoples'attempts to separate democracy from dictatorship and to clasify it as a quite different system....
and of course, i agree with you, nothing is evil per se.... neither democrycy nor dictatorship of any kind is an evil per se....
best wishes, Zlatan
-
http//www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski43.html
A bit fallacious reasoning in that article, Zlatan. From my experience (I'm Indonesian) democracy per se does not provoke religious/ethnic conflicts.
When the Suharto dictatorship fell in May 1998, many hidden conflicts suppressed by his authority cam into view. The resulting conflicts (Ambon , West Kalimantan , Poso ) erupt because of the loss of control, and provocation by outsiders. Proper democracy were also beginning at the same time, but I don't see how the two were interlinked in a causal relationship. I tend to see both (rise of democracy and conflict) as a consequence of a shake-up in the authority structure.
The analysis is flawed in ignoring the exact state of authority at the time conflicts start in each country. It also ignores the fact that dictatorships sometimes suppress religious/ethnic tensions by coercive means, which do not erase the tension but merely built the potential for future outbursts.
Peace Primanda all?
In the last post i have demonstrated that ?two(democracy and ethnic/religious conflict) WERE interlinked in a causal relationship??
now i want to address the rest of your critic?.
Though i mainly agree with most of your observatiuons i dont see them as pointing to or discovering the flaws in the article.
Actually the author was aware of all these alleged ?flaws? and he mentions them and discuss them all ih his more lengthy piece on the topic(see the link above imo it?s a masterpiece*)?and he probably does not discuss them here cause they are irrelevant for/to the point?(and would unnecessary mad the analysis longer?)note also that the word in the title was ?promote? and not ?cause??.
Actually your arguments were a good refutation of democracy or any other statist systems?.people are often FOR the state AND democracy and AGAINST freedom AND self-governing because they believe that then( in the case the state is abolished and theres no any coercive supreme authority) it would be an anarchy and many evils would be caused or come to surface?BUT actually the state and the supreme authority, to use your own words, merely and mainly ?suppress religious/ethnic tensions by coercive means, which do not erase the tension but merely built the potential for future outbursts?
best wishes, Zlatan
*The Myth of Democratic Peace Why Democracy Cannot Deliver Peace in the 21st Century
http//www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski72.html