Current U.S. political discourse, especially the version preached by members of the Republican party, emphasizes the role of the U.S.A. in exporting democracy to other countries. Establishing democracy and working to spread freedom has served as a major justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In speeches, the president has reiterated his commitment to spreading freedom throughout the world.
What attitude should we, as Latter-day Saints, take with respect to efforts to spread democracy around the world?
One argument, sometimes heard and offered repeatedly on this board by Paul Mortensen (apologies if I misrepresent this argument; I’m sure things will be clarified one way or the other in the comments section), is that democracy is needed to get people out of poverty. The argument here would be that good political institutions, including a liberal democratic regime, are necessary for economic growth. What is the evidence for this proposition?
Obviously, extensive economic development is possible in nondemocratic regimes. Singapore has clearly become a quite wealthy nation in spite of (because of?) its fully authoritarian political system. China also seems to be experiencing the kind of sustained economic boom that eventually translates into higher levels of development–again under an authoritarian regime. These two examples make it clear that development and economic growth are possible under authoritarian rule.
Is development perhaps more likely for poor countries under democracy than under authoritarian rule? The evidence here is also mixed. The chart below shows data from 1995 (not terribly recent, okay, but I’ve been working with these data for professional purposes in the last few weeks, so they were handy) on level of democracy–along the horizontal, with dictatorships at the left and democracies at the right–and economic growth rates–along the vertical, with economic contraction at the bottom and growth at the top.
The evidence shows little if any short-term relationship between democracy and economic growth. Obviously, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a relationship; perhaps some necessary control variables are missing in this very simple analysis. But it does suggest that, at the very least, we shouldn’t assume that there’s a clear relationship. There just isn’t.
So it seems that the argument linking democracy with development, and therefore with poverty reduction, is empirically weak. What other arguments might there be in favor of Latter-day Saints exporting democracy around the globe?
One obvious argument against exporting democracy comes from scriptural injunctions to support current government officials, regardless of their democraticness. For example:
We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony and would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. (Doctrine and Covenants 134:6)
This quote suggests a Hobbesian concern with order, even at the expense of liberty. It also explicitly endorses honoring and accepting rulers–a term that seems to inherently imply undemocratic origins. (Was Saddam Hussein not a ruler?) A similar Hobbesian imperative to obey the ruler, regardless of issues of democratic legitimacy, can be found in the following scriptural text:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. (Articles of Faith 12)
Once again, "kings" and "rulers" are probably not democratic in origin. Nevertheless, we apparently have a scriptural mandate to accept their rule.
The other major text on forms of government in the Latter-day Saint scriptures is the end of Mosiah in the Book of Mormon. Does this text offer more support for democratic forms of government than the others we’ve considered?
In fact, Mosiah’s discussion of forms of government essentially begins with a limited endorsement of dictatorship:
Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people–I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (Mosiah 29:13)
Furthermore, the system of judges that Mosiah proceeds to establish falls far short of what we would today consider democratic. Consider the description of the "judges" political regime:
Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord. (Mosiah 29:25)
Notice that the elected officials in this government have no legislative ability; they can only judge according to theocratically established laws. In essence, then, this is a system with an elected branch of government that seems to combine what U.S. civics books call the executive and judicial powers. However, the system evidently lacks a legislative body altogether.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that this political regime was in fact established by the king himself. No outside power is involved in establishing democracy. Indeed, no popular uprising is involved, either. Instead, the current undemocratic leader, out of the goodness of his heart, changed the regime. In other words, a semi-democratic system was born in the least democratic possible way–and certainly without imposition from abroad.
In other words, the scriptures present us with a profound lack of support for the policy of spreading democracy around the globe. We have scriptural injunctions to obey current leaders, but we have no countervailing instructions to unseat dictators.
I find this upsetting, because I think democracy is a really good idea. Whether or not I agree with the policy of spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun, I certainly do like the idea that the U.S.A. would act as a prodemocratic agent in the world. Yet, as far as I can tell, our scriptural texts are hostile to even the most benign forms of regime change, unless initiated from within the government. How are we to resolve this?
Fabulous post. One initial note re: the chart you cite to above. You should not that only in the extremely non-democratic governments are there outliers with extreme wealth/poverty (probably Singapore/China).
This highlights King Benjamin’s point: A singular ruler can be a great thing; if they follow the laws of God. I don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that a righteous candidate would be elected over the less righteous/likely to follow commandments, if the majority of the people were also righteous.
I don’t think the scriptures are _hostile_ to democracy. First, I’d suggest that any reading of the scriptures has to be done through the lens of the Doctrines of the Restored Gospel; i.e. the imperative of this life being a testing period and the concurrent need for actual, not just the theoretical existence of, agency. If a government doesn’t grant its people agency, particularly in regards to religious free exercise, then it is prima facie unjust and unsupportable. More latter…
How about this.
1. The scriptures enjoin us to renounce war and to promote peace.
2. Democracies do not make war on each other.
3. Therefore, establishing democracies helps establish peace.
Mark,
That’s fine, as far as it goes, but could your logic possibly justify going to war in order to establish democracy and therefore to reduce the overall amount of war? It seems problematic.
I agree that the scriptures demand free exercise of religion–but otherwise, I’m not sure they really endorse what we modern folks would think of as democracy. This is the major concern I have here…
I would not agree that the scriptures demand free exercise of religion as a . It is commanded that we practice our religion, but it does not demand that. Daniel practiced his religion despite injunctions from Nebuchanezzar prohibiting it. So, in that instance, apparently the belief in supporting kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates falls by the wayside.
I wonder if that belief as stated in the Wentworth letter, written circa 1842, had more to do with Joseph Smith’s position as governor of Nauvoo than it did with that being a fundamental gospel truth. And perhaps it was easier to write because Joseph Smith never served a mission in a foreign land. He lived in America, where democracy reigned and he could freely practice his religion. In a country established by revolutionaries who did not support their king.
That said, there is no qualification in that statement which requires obeying only righteous leaders, so perhaps he left that part out.
RT: Maybe try the reverse? I’m thinking of the Kingmen, and other pro-dictator forces, in the BoM. While the BoM seems to lack explicit support for _imposition_ of democarcy, it does contain explicit support for violent self-defense in support of an existing democracy.
Also, I’m not sure you are giving the Chief Judge position enough credit/power. They appear to have had the power to alter laws/make new laws; and they were certainly an elected position.
Your post reminds me alof of the hobbes-locke-rousseau type debates of centuries past; where the question was whether the Christian religion allowed for revolution or not. The historic answer appears to be yes. In this vein, while I suspect you won’t like the source, Randall Terry has a nice slim volume called
“The sword: The blessings of righteous government and the overthrow of tyrants”
I have a copy at home and will try to throw up a decent summary since amazon doesn’t have one.
It seems to me you place economic prosperity above human rights in your discussion RT. If democracy entails the kind of self-determination we have a right to, then it would seem exporting democracy follows naturally.
Your later comments seem confuse the good of exporting democracy with possible evils in how we do it. I think we ought decide on whether we ought export democracy before we start getting into issues of implementation.
I’d add regarding your comment on war, that I don’t see how it follows. Let me make the same argument structurally but with a different theme. Is it just to cut into a person, causing pain and suffering merely to reduce the overall suffering? It seems to me that those arguing for no war at any cost must typically reject any kind of consequentialism. Yet, as the medical example shows, often short term pain for long term gains in worthwhile.
I should add that all the appeals to utilitarianism in the “export democracy” debate make my head spin. They really do seem inconsistent. Not that anyone here is necessarily doing it. But I do think a lot of European commentators engage in a lot of double standards.
Clark,
Good points. Let me clarify what I’m trying to say here a little bit.
First of all, the LDS scriptures are surprisingly lacking in pro-democratic texts. Furthermore, they do provide a few different statements supporting the idea that we ought to accept whatever government happens to be in power. This troubles me, since I believe in democracy pretty profoundly.
Second, I agree that the question of whether to export democracy ought to be resolved before the issue of how to do it. I’m not a person who believes in avoiding war at any cost. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure we can’t afford all the war that would be required by a policy of overthrowing nondemocratic regimes. But that’s another argument.
Lyle: The war against the Kingmen actually supports the “maintain the current regime at whatever cost is necessary” argument. The judges system was the current regime, and the Kingmen were trying to unlawfully overthrow it. So I’m not sure that this example gets us beyond the doctrine of “obey the government, no matter what it is.”
Can you provide explicit textual support for the idea that the judges could legitimately change the law? I’ve provided a citation that, I think, binds the judges to implementing, but not modifying, traditional law. If there are counterexamples, I’d be quite interested to hear them.
I see democracy as a means to the end and not the ends itself. The democracy for democracy’s sake is quite dangerous in my mind since it means that the rule of law can be ignored.
Regarding supporting the government in power, I think that there are many scriptures for that both in the Bible and LDS scriptures. However I also sense some wiggle room. There’s of course Captain Moroni’s famous near military coup. But also some of the actions by Joseph Smith and other 19th century Mormons engaging in civil disobedience for laws they felt were illegitimate. Overall I sense that there’s a lot of pragmatism on the Lord’s part regarding government.
Of course having said that, I think by default we ought support our government. But it doesn’t follow that this affects people outside of a country exporting democracy.
Regarding judges and kings, there are reasons to think that one of the evils seen by bad leaders was changing the laws. I seem to recall a FARMS paper on this a few years back. Check their web site.
RT:
The evidence you provide to support your contention that there is little relationship between democratization and economic development is fatally flawed. The graph you show contains a fundamental methodological flaw in that it mixes a dynamic metric (economic growth) with a static measure (level of democracy). The presence of a time vector in the former necessitates the presence of a time vector in the latter for the graph to have any meaning at all (I would venture a guess that the “study” was conducted by a political “scientist” or sociologist rather than an economist—I’d be disappointed to discover that one of my colleagues had made such a profound error). The important part is how nations like, China are moving closer and closer to the liberal democratic model and one would be hard pressed to argue that the Chinese government has not “improved” in its recognition of individual rights (at least with respect to property rights) over the last two decades and that improvement has resulted in improved economic station for a large portion of the population and the growth of a middle class. In addition your characterization of Singapore as an authoritarian regime is completely inaccurate. The CIA fact-book classifies Singapore as a parliamentary republic. A look at election results shows that control of parliament and the presidency has transitioned regularly since the government was founded in 1967. I think you are confusing “authoritarianism” with “legal reductionism”—yes, Singapore has a law for everything but those making the laws are elected by the people.
Regarding scriptural injunctions to support existing governments and government officials you must have D&C 134:5 missing from your copy of the scriptures. Therefore, let me quote: “We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected…” Verse 2 lists those basic inalienable rights as the “free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” Inalienable rights is the “liberal” component of the concept of liberal democracy. Therefore, the scriptures fully support the concept of overthrowing any regime that does not secure for its citizens those inalienable rights endowed by God. The democracy component of the concept is fully supported by the the scriptures in Mosiah 29:16-29. In those verses he’s very explicit as to why centralized government is dangerous and should be avoided and fully endorses the election by the people of government officials. Your further analysis of the actual regime that was established assumes too much not in evidence to merit a response.
Given the above noted scriptures it is quite reasonable to justify actively spreading liberal democracy throughout the world. While D&C 134 only speaks directly to citizens of thier respective polities, I don’t think it unreasonable to take the next step to say that those poeples “thus protected” do not have an obligation to secure the same blessings for their fellow men. To argue otherwise exudes arrogance and a sense of priviledge.
Concerning using the scriptures to justify “spreading democracy abroad”…NOWHERE in the BoM does it tell us of the Nephites going into Lamanite territory to spread their form of democratic theocracy by means of the sword and war! Nor does it endorse engaging in preemptive war, for any reason! Time and again the Nephites are warned NOT to enter into the Lamanites’ land to attack, “lest the Lord not be with us”–they are told only to defend themselves when their enemies came into their land. (And NO, the attack on the WTC–by mostly Saudis trained in Afghanistan–does NOT justify the U.S. going into Iraq to “defend ourselves”…not by ANY stretch of the imagination.) Much to the chagrin of those who use Pres. Hinckley’s talk in April 2003(?) as justification for what’s now being done there in our name!
Carri is the personification of the arrogance and sense of privilege of which I spoke. What vitrol and self-serving venom.
…and you, mr. democracy-in-action, sound like you just became dumbfounded by having your own beliefs used solidly against your own bastardized, man-made thought system…hence, the personal attack. When you think of a more intelligent comeback, I’d love to see it. In the meantime, my only “sense of privilege” comes from being unemployed and destitute, but still blessed with the time to read multiple news sources to find what is really going on in this world. At least my response is an informed and truthful one–criticize it all you want.
One need only to read ALL the scriptures–not just a select few–to understand the philosophy of the Lord concerning war: D&C 98:33-36 (”…they should not go out unto battle against any nation…save I, the Lord, commanded them…[and]they should FIRST RAISE A STANDARD OF PEACE UNTO THAT PEOPLE.” The U.S. was bombing Iraq before the weapons inspectors–who were allowed free access in Iraq–were even done with their job. No “standard of peace” was “lifted”. The Downing Street Memo has shown that war was Bush’s objective from the day he was *elected*, and he would create the cause if he had to in order to achieve his designs! Is it any wonder the U.S. has not “won” this war?); ALMA 43:23-54; 48:14-16; 49:19-23; 3 NEPHI 3:20-21 (”…let us go up…that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands. But (he) saith…’The Lord FORBID; for if we should GO UP AGAINST THEM THE LORD WOULD DELIVER US INTO THEIR HANDS’”; MORMON 4:1-5 (”…it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they BEGAN TO BE SMITTEN; FOR WERE IT NOT FOR THAT, THE LAMANITES COULD HAVE NO POWER OVER THEM.” And I don’t have the time to cite more…all you need to do is READ!
Mr. Mortensen does some real “translating” of his own of D&C 134 in order to come up with justification for overthrowing other nations in order to install his idea of *democracy*—and at the point of a gun on top of that! I didn’t read that at all…on the other hand, I don’t have my very own Urim and Thummim in order to do my own “tranlating”. Darn…and I forgot to include this with my previous post: Matthew 26:52…”Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword…for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Paul,
You’re mistaken about the question of levels of democracy and growth rates. If the hypothesis in question is that democracies grow faster than nondemocratic regimes, then a “level” variable should be used as the independent variable to predict a “growth” variable regarding GDP. Anything else would be a misoperationalization of the hypothesis. Such studies have been carried out by statisticians, economists, sociologists, and political scientists, using data such as that shown in the chart. The chart shows a one-shot cross-section because cross-sectional time-series data are quite difficult to meaningfully graph. However, the literature showing nearly no relationship between democracy and economic growth is widespread. There is a solid finding that higher levels of wealth produce stable democracy, but there is no clear statistical evidence that democracy leads to economic development any faster than dictatorship.
You are wrong about Singapore. Singapore’s dictator uses the title of prime minister, the system is effectively one-party rule. Compare and contrast with the “elected” government in the Soviet Union or in Mexico in the 1960s. See further info, for example, at http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-5-3/28402.html
Also, while Mosiah does endorse democracy, he doesn’t suggest that anyone, inside a country or out, is ever entitled to overthrow their own government to get a democracy. This is the crucial limitation, especially given other scriptures that suggest we are to support the government no matter what. I’m reminded of the Latter-day Saints who were actually excommunicated for opposing Hitler’s regime in Germany…
If what Roasted Tomatoes says is factual (and I’m not doubting that it is):
**”I’m reminded of the Latter-day Saints who were actually excommunicated for opposing Hitler’s regime in Germany…”**
…then this is just one more nail in the coffin of my faith in the Church. It started with my observance of the unquestionable and unyielding support of Pres. Bush–despite the fact that he and his administration were/are breaking international law (torturing–which the US severly condemns other countries for doing–and holding prisoners without any charges, etc); subverting our liberties in the name of “fighting terrorism” (Patriot Act–Hitler called it the “Enabling Act” in his time); “fixing the facts”–i.e. *LYING*–to justify the war in Iraq (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html); the despicable and irresponsible treatment of our soldiers by failing to arm and supply them properly (among other things); and many more acts and policies which in reality are undermining our democracy. If opposing this reprehensible behavior and actions by those in power is wrong, then something is “rotten in Denmark”! I wonder how many members were excommunicated for opposing Clinton for his little *indiscretion* (which pales in comparison to the misdeeds our current president is engaged in)…
Our Church leaders have told us that if we don’t speak up when evil is being done, it is the same as condoning the act; yet, if it is our government that is committing the *sin*, we’re not supposed to oppose it?? This kind of thinking requires some real “mental gymnastics” in order to rationalize NOT doing what we’ve been taught to do–things just aren’t adding up…
So, do we have a gospel duty to export democracy? NO!
**(Note to Roasted Tomatoes: if you get back to read this, please tell me where I can find this info.)
Carri:
Here is an excellent write up of a Mormon excomunicant hero:
http://fowlesview.blogspot.com/2005/03/hbner-at-dixie-state-college.html
I would just suggest that your reaction might be tempered with the understanding that such excomunications are executed by local leaders and not the will of the church. These local leaders will answer to God.
Carri:
You might also want to note, whether as a nail or nail _remover_, that the excommunications were subsequently removed; and that the local Branch President’s actions probably saved that Branch from being sent to a death camp. Do you like your faith living or dead?
Here’s a link to the Amazon site for an excellent account of the truly heroic people in Hubener’s resistance group: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0252022017/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-3485641-5799911
The lawyers like to say that hard cases make for bad law. I’ve always thought that the leaders who did this were at least in part working to help keep the church from becoming like the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nazi Germany: http://jehovah.to/gen/holocaust/
I’m pretty sure that nobody has been excommunicated for vigorously opposing Bush’s plans and policies in the US today. (After all, they know where to find me, but I haven’t been called in for a disciplinary court myself.) We do, after all, enjoy a democratic regime, so opposition to the government isn’t anti-regime activity. Hence, the “obey-your-regime-at-all-costs” scriptures don’t apply to opposition to the president.
RT:
Regarding the problems with the methodology of the study you first introduced– mixing a static variable with a dynamic one does not introduce the requisite operational control required to make the results valid in the least bit. In short, your independent variable is not entirely independent over time. For example, in the study did they measure the “level of democracy” at the beginning or end of the corresponding “economic growth” window? That makes a huge difference. Lets suppose they measured the level of democracy at the beginning, that nation XYZ rated a -5 on the democracy scale at the beginning but now rates -3, and that XYZ’s annual economic growth rate was 3%. To maintain that the shift in level of democracy is irrelevant to (or independent of) the growth in the ecomomy is irresponsible. The appropriate graph would have had change in level of democracy on the X axis and economic grwoth on the Y axis.
Personally, I don’t think the democracy component of liberal democracy drives ecomomic growth– rather I think its the liberal recognition and protection of rights that drives ecomomic growth. Coincidentally, I also think its the violation of those rights that justifies the overthrow of a government– not whether or not one can classify a particular nation as democratic or undemocratic. An authoritarian regime can just as easily recognize and protect individual rights but, as Mosiah points out, its citizens are dependent upon the good will and graces of the sovereign. Mosiah’s argument for democratic rule is that democracies are less likely to entirely subvert God’s will (which includes the recognition and protection of inalienable rights) than authoritarian rule. Liberal democracy is the marriage of two independent concepts: 1) liberal to mean the recognition of the inalienable rights of conscience, property, and life; and, 2) democracy– the system of government most likely to preserve and protect those rights once recognized.
Paul:
If you mean that protections of economic rights drive economic growth, I agree. But economic rights aren’t a component of democracy.
You can graph the data in a variety of different ways. For example, we could take level of democracy in 1990 and look at average economic growth from 1991 to 1995. The result is, once again, no relationship. This solves your concern about endogeneity. But switching to change in democracy rather than level of democracy would completely alter the research question, which would now ask: do transitions to democracy increase economic growth? Different topic altogether.
RT:
Your latter research question is the one that is important. The first is trivial and meaningless. That’s one of the points I was trying to make. Yes, given the question asked the graph presented is appropriate but the researcher asked the wrong question. The problem is that such research provides foddder for policy decisions and when you ask bad questions you produce bad conclusions which, in turn, produces bad policy.
I have never argued that democracy produces economic growth. I have argued that liberal democracy produces economic growth. The problem with most studies is that they only attempt to measure “democracy”– a flaw that arises from the fact that the concept is quite easy and cheap to measure and is repeatable/emperical. How does one measure the extent to which a goverment protects conscience, property, and life? That’s a much messier (not the hockey player), difficult, and expensive concept to measure but alas the more valuable one.
As I’ve said before, democracy is merely the most time-honored and proven method to preserve individual rights once a society decides to recognize them.
What exactly is democracy? There are differing concepts of democracy that would need to be discussed. For example: socialist democracy or the type of ‘democracy’ we have in the United State ie, a two party system where each party supports a capitalist economic and superstructure. Is the United States democratic and does the United States have the right to export its version of democracy aboard? What I have seen of American democracy exported abroad is more unemployment, more inequality and less social justice in western europe, not to mention inside the third world and the emerging free states of the warsaw pact. In these instances, ‘democracy’ has been great for business but rather bad for the average worker. And so, what is democracy and what is your definition of democracy? Is the US a democratic country? This is where the discussion should take place.
Bob,
In social-science and political-theory writings, there is a general, although by no means complete, consensus around what is referred to as the “procedural minimal” definition of democracy. Democracy is treated as a specific set of institutions for choosing government leaders only. Economic policy is completely excluded, as a way of separating the issues of distribution and policy-making from the issues of how leaders are chosen.
Hence, democracy is typically defined as basically the combination of free and fair elections, a government that is free to govern without binding instructions from the military or the church, and the set of individual liberties necessary to make a valid electoral choice (e.g., diverse news media and freedom to affiliate with different parties).
This certainly doesn’t mean that only these criteria are important. Human rights issues are normatively immensely important, and economic criteria have their own value. But, by separating these issues from the regime institutions involved in democracy, we can ask about the relationships among these different concepts. Clearly an advantage!
April 26, 2006
I agree with Carrie’s sentiments. One only need to look at the record of President Bush in his signing of the grossly mis-named USA PATRIOT Act, his authorization of surveillance on U.S. citizens–a clear violation of the Fourth Ammendment, his record of having a pre-war attack strategy for Iraq as early as January 2001 (Paul O’Neill as quoted in Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty) his contempt for reasonable debate, and his inability to reckon with the very concept of truth in order to gain the unpopular, but imminently defendable notion that he, and the neoconservative party which support him is determined to destroy our liberties and the Constitution which guarantees them in the guise of an invented war on terrorism. And for those who would invoke the knee-jerk reaction of 9-11, one needs to remember that the interpretation of the events of that day have been forced upon us without a reasonable debate, and that our foreign policy which has developed since then is based on nothing more than misdirected vengeance. The official story of the events of 9-11 is provably false when considers the sheer impossibility of the collapse of WTC 1,2, and 7 due to fire and the effect of impact, as officially stated. (Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and yet collapsed at 5:20 PM in much the same way as the other two.) So before embarking on a strategy of preemptive war, which I believe is clearly prohibited by the revelations in Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we must come to understand just who is responsible for the terror that is surely in our midst. LDS people should be anxiously engaged in the good cause of learning and sharing the truth of our nation’s current state, and do so with respect for one another’s opinions and depth of understanding. We must debate and discuss. And let’s do it in a spirit commensurate with the greatness this Gospel brings us and the world.
Sorry, “Carri’s sentiments…”
One last thing: The Revolutionary War and the subsequent founding of the constitutional republic which many equate with “democracy” was born in the hearts of the founders of this country, in this country. We must remember that every time someone tries to compare that unique event with democracy as enforced by the sword in a Pax Americana fashion, that such is not born of the people but of the invaders, and therefore is fundamentally different, and therefore misleading. The Nicaraguan Contras were a creation of the CIA and certainly not the “moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers” (Ronald Reagan); Pinochet was the product of Nixon and Kissenger, to overthrow a democratically elected Salvador Allende; and the democratization of Iraq is nothing but a euphemism for imperialism.
I am currently living in a country that is technically considered a democracy, although those who know it well will disagree. My perspective in living here for 24 years it that the ‘democracy’ that was foisted on it by the US has not really sunk in to the general population. I think the main reason for this is that the democracy was not fought for and won by the people that live in it. This, I think, is the main reason that the democracy here is not valued. They had no choice in the matter. I credit them for not harboring resentments over this. Sadly, I see how the present US administration, in not understanding this fact, are propagating resentment, and establishing democracies that will be forever considered a foreign imposition on their culture. I’m sure that if Iraqis under Saddam had fought for democracy, they would have found support, and valued their hard-won democracy, but what they are seeing now could hardly seem as an improvement on Saddam’s government by the general population. One side note. Please don’t confuse 9-11 for the motivation for the attack on Iraq. There has never been a connection. I’m also not clear on how Heavenly Father would approve of equating economic growth with His desires for His children. Don’t the scriptures suggest that wealth leads to the downfall of nations. Nations and citizens can be righteous under all sorts of governments. I believe that differing cultures naturally have various needs when it comes to government. I will go on the record with my beliefs that small, poor, agrarian, homogeneous communities do better under certain forms of communism. (Let’s not forget the United Order) Face it, there is also a sort of self-righteous materialism in ‘American democracy’ that comes over in the rest of the world as a bit hypocritical.
-Allan.
Do We Have a Gospel Duty to Export Democracy?
It bothers me that the registration menu of familysearch.org lists Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China” … have compromises been made to assuage Beijing?
It bothers me that only Times & Seasons is reliably available behind The Great Firewall of China … the rest of the bloggernacle appears to be mostly blocked based on casual/random attempts at accessing it from Shanghai and Beijing.
And now this really bothers me:
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4027#comment-231983
#63: This is my first comment from my new home here in Saudi Arabia. How timely a post for me.
Also, it’s interesting to note that just about every other site in the Bloggernacle, including the archipeligo and LDSelect is BLOCKED. Times and Seasons is the only one I can access. What does it all mean?
Comment by meems — 8/18/2007 @ 4:01 am
I understand the various anomalies that might allow Times & Seasons to get past the Great Firewall of China, but how is it that T&S somehow manages to get the same pass from both the Chinese AND the Saudi Arabian censors?
As meems asks, what does it all mean?
I sincerely hope and pray that democratic Taiwan will never be sold down the river …
h/t to E.B. White …
Where I expected to find indignation, I found paralysis, or a sort of dim acquiescence, as in a child who is dully swallowing a distasteful pill … The least a man can do at such a time is to declare himself and tell where he stands. I believe in freedom with the same burning delight, the same faith, the same intense abandon which attended its birth on [the American] continent more than [two centuries] ago.
I stand for freedom. Don’t we all?
Your blog is very interesting. Singapore has made great strides in: Education, logistics, financial management, training of civil servants and the execution of policies, administration of laws, export of management talent, creation of investment talent, and especially governmental change management. In addition one could say that the population of Singapore is “fully invested” in the plans for the future of Singapore. It is worthy to note that Singapore knows how to privatize public work maintanance. One does not see the wastage of city, or county public works vehicles plus state-federal public works vehicles plus the resultant overheads that must be funded normally via gasoline type taxes. Singapore could rightly export to the USA how to effectively manage various governmental agencies and teach Americaa particularly how to get those that use a particular governmental service to pay for it and leave non users in a position of cost savings. The government of Singapore is led by ‘hands on leaders’ and the current theme and goal is to allow everyone to blossom forth with their individual ‘possibilities’. Is Singapore spotless and perfect. No. But the government takes positive action when a policy seems not working according to plan. And look at the results economically over the 42-43 years of the same renewing government! Principals of schools are heads and shoulders above public school principals in the USA. A school principal is called by the police in many cases of a wayward child or teenager. This allows a team approach to helping before punishment. On a 4.0 grading system Singapore school principals are a solid 3.98+++++. They are better than very good. If America had this type of results we would see better qualified students entering the workforce. There is a goodness and wholesomeness about Singapore. The government of Singapore listens to its citizens through a decent and realistic “Feedback System”. And the Feedback is often acted upon for the betterment of Singapore. And when the information is used things are done quietly and without media exposure. And in the management of government resources I am unaware of any better than Singapore. For management also should entail growth and development. For each citizen has about US$32,000 in foreign exchange reserves held by Singapore’s Central Bank(The Monetary Authority of Singapore) compared to a poor citizen of the USA of less than $300 as currently reported by the USA’s Treasury. Before anyone worries too much about exporting democracy we need to first: import ethics, import better teaching methods, import better government administration, better taxation systems, better data collection systems, and better management practices for the good of the citizens of the USA.
Kindly view: http://economicupdate.singaporerental.com/
Best wishes with your blog at providing food for thought about the USA—
sincerely
Jim Ellis
Singapore
FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com
HEllo. Just added your link here.
Salutations Two thumbs up to Do We Have a Gospel Duty to Export Democracy? in regards to Business Property Management! Friday I was thinking the exact same thing. This is a VERY interesting line of thought.