mheslep said:
Me, I blame the blame-the-West crowd. New democracy may indeed be hard, but it is somehow relatively easy to receive reforms on request from tyrants? Tyrants seem to be inclined to fund terrorists, build WMD and villas in Europe for their kids; in response to calls for reforms come chants about the great satan. Tyrants seem not to be inclined to fund the plural society.
Which "tyrants" do you exactly mean? Maybe Ataturk who built modern secular republic on ruins of Osman Empire? Guess how secular state you would get if you asked masses for consent. Or Japan from Meiji era.
Or much up to date - Mikheil Saakashvili (democratically elected, but it was far from democracy in the Western style)
I personally admire his reformist zeal, for example solving problem of corruption within traffic police... by firing whole traffic police (30 000 people) and hiring new ones. It did miracles, but I really doubt that so radical idea would be feasible in a country without authoritarian tendencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Georgia_(country)
My point: don't support democracy unconditionally. When applicable a modernist dictator is a much more better choice. Just if they are automatically condemned for not being democratic enough, you left behind many reasonable rulers, who if given a chance, just for their inflated ego and place in history could have become a great reformist.
Post WWII Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and later S. Korea are the successful models: after the fall of regimes a residual stabilizing force is left, for years if need be, and blather about imperialism ignored as blather. S. Korea in particular went through a series of corrupt elected politicians; today its a stable democracy and an economic powerhouse. Leaving Iraq, by contrast, was a blunder.
I find your choice of countries somewhat not supporting your point. (I mean that those particular countries are rather poor choice, there would be ones that would fit your argument, but not the ones that you presented)
Germany, Japan:
-Countries with mass education, reasonable industrial base and working institutions - such starting points for building democracy were already present
-instead of unelectable dictator holding army and regardless of public opinion steering in hopefully reasonable direction, there was American (+British and French in case of Germany) army and occupation administration regardless of public opinion steering in hopefully reasonable direction (my point: it was not organic, but still there was someone imposing that on the society)
Korea:
-I'm a bit surprised that you count South Korea before late '80s as democracy. I always thought that in democracy the way in which politicians are replaced is a free election and not a coup d'etat. ;)
No, seriously I'd think as Asian Tigers (except of Japan with US imposed democracy) as a reasonable example for my argument - you first build a well working authoritarian state with mass education, and base on that build democracy generation or two later.
Marine Reflects On Second Battle Of Fallujah, 10 Years Later
