Could it spread?

[CBL4]

Originally posted by kalen
You seem to contend that freedom and democracy are the same thing. You use these terms interchangably yet they are mutually exclusive.

They clearly are not the same and I have been sloppy with my words. However, they are not mutually exclusive. Freedom requires democracy but it is possible to have a democracy w/o freedom. If you are saying that freedom requires anarchy (in the lack of government sense not the chaotic sense), that probably is better discussed on another thread.

Having the opportunity to vote means very little or alot depending on the circumstances. For example, if there is only one name on the ballot or if certain segments of the population are excluded from suffrage. If you think think that the Iraqis are going to be magically "freer" after the elections, you are deluding yourself.

If there is only one name on the ballot, then it is not democracy but a figleaf for some other sort of government. There are degrees of democracy. For example, the more of the population that get to vote, the greater the democracy. The more equality of opportunities for all the candidates, the greater the democracy.

Iraqis will be freer after the election simply because they have had the freedom to vote. Perhaps the elected government will restrict freedom but, for a brief moment as least, they are freer.

One thing they do have in common, though, is that freedom and democracy only exist if there is real choice. I'm afraid I just don't see that there. In fact, I have to look pretty hard even to pretend that I see that anywhere.

No where is there a perfect democracy because humans are not perfect. Most of the western countries have lots of choices and fairly free elections. We should be happy with this but still strive to do better.

To be pedantic, they are republics (e.g. elect representative) but democracy is the common word for a republic.

CBL