hacker

Maybe it's true that if you cannot have a stable dictatorship, first, you cannot have a stable democracy

?

The evolution of human governance is well documented. from Wandering bands to full fledged liberal democracies.
And its also fairly well documented that without experience with liberal institutions like independent courts, a legal and regulated commercial system, protection of property rights, financial institutions and etc.; then nascent democracies have difficulty.
That experience is best first hand, but if a nation has the opportunity to view at close hand (like say the Baltic States and their western European neighbors ... or if the nature of society is that commoners are respectful of any institution, then its easier.(Japan?)
But for many Middle eastern nations they moved from tribal societies to colonization and totalitarian governance (by the Ottomans, or local despots often supported by their western sponsors). Its a leap. Overcoming centuries of tribalism and moving towards the respect of institutions and civil rights is a pretty tough ask. However, the aspirations of the populace are no different where ever you go ...and when governments fail, democracy is usually one goal competing to replace the failed dictator or oligarchy.
Eventually democracy wins out... It may be several more generations in the middle east. We sure haven't helped from the West by supporting any despot who was willing to bend to our commercial interests. Starting in Iran and the installation of the Shah), Despite that, Iran is part way down the road to full liberal democracy, especially compared to its chief rival in the region, KSA,

Well, according to the Index, Portugal is right behind the US in terms of social progress.
Despite its bumpy economic development, and its fairly low GDP, as a democracy, its still done a pretty good job of delivering to its populace.
The most interesting thing that Portugal has done recently is eliminate drug possession as a crime.
Not only has drug use declined, but so has violent crime, and the cost of social programs designed to combat drug addiction and its affects is much less than the cost to incarcerate those possessing drugs.
Something every nation could learn from I suspect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Ricky:

Despite that, Iran is part way down the road to full liberal democracy, especially compared to its chief rival in the region, KSA,

The same way that one step is partially completing the Boston marathon?

ray

The same way that one step is partially completing the Boston marathon?

Well, I'll appeal to an authority on the subject ..Freedom House.
Neither nation is rated as "Free" by Freedom House.
But Iran has a 6.0 rating (where 1.0 is free) and The KSA has a 7.0 rating. The worst of the worst in their rankings.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom ... TafIiFVikp

And yet Iran is the enemy and KSA is the ally.

The evolution of human governance is well documented

Unfortunately Ricky, it has been well-documented by an awful lot of people; not all of whom agree with each other.

Also I do not see what Portugal's drug policy has to do with it, or its current development levels. I was more interested in conditions in Portugal when democracy was restored in 1974-75. That's actually related to the discussion at hand.

Well I'm glad to see that Iran is so far ahead of the magic kingdom....lots of our allies are like that and have been like that. In another thread you were arguing for a more "ethical" foreign policy and I was trying to tell you such a thing isn't possible. Come on, Ricky, you're smart enough to know that Iran is nowhere nearer a democratic state than the KSA. They may be better off materially than they were under the Shah of Iran, but I don't see that much difference democracy-wise. The Presidency/Majlis/cabinet...all that's pretty much the "legitimate front" for the guardian council and the religious leadership. Think of the movie Casino: the Guardian Council and religious leadership (the real leaders of the Islamic Oligarchy of Iran) are like the Mafia who really controlled the Tangiers. The President, et.al., are Philip Green: Mr Clean, the "legitimate" front (if you want to call it that) of the operation (gives a respectable front to the Tangiers but doesn't actually run the place or make the key decisions).

hacker

Unfortunately Ricky, it has been well-documented by an awful lot of people; not all of whom agree with each other

i don't know anyone who disagrees that mankind moved from wandering tribes, to settled villages - from bands lead by strong men, to villages lead by chiefs, to city states and the larger states.
I don't know anyone who disagrees with the historical accuracy of the Greek democracies of the historical record of how democracy began a slow crawl from the restoration to the earliest democracies.
I don't know if anyone disputes the where universal suffrage (the vote) was first introduced (Corsica) or which nation finally established universal suffrage (New Zealand in 1893).
There are historical records that we can all find that document the development of the two largest democracies and their movement from partly free to wholly free ... (US and UK)
So there's far more agreement than you vaguely refer to as "an awful lot of people" .

hacker

I was more interested in conditions in Portugal when democracy was restored in 1974-75. That's actually related to the discussion at hand.

I think its pretty obvious. They has an authoritarian undemocratic government that failed to meet the needs of the vast majority of its citizens and was overthrown. The same thing that eventually happens to every totalitarian government that fails to deliver to the populace...
from wikipedia

After the death of Salazar in 1970, his replacement by Marcelo Caetano offered a certain hope that the regime would open up, the primavera marcelista (Marcelist spring). However the colonial wars in Africa continued, political prisoners remained incarcerated, freedom of association was not restored, censorship was only slightly eased and the elections remained tightly controlled.

The regime retained its characteristic traits: censorship, corporativeness, with a market economy dominated by a handful of economical groups, continuous surveillance and intimidation of several sectors of society through the use of a political police and techniques instilling fear (such as arbitrary imprisonment, systematic political persecution and even assassination of anti-regime insurgents

There were socio economic failings and a failure to provide the liberal institutions and rights for which every people yearn . Same as almost everywhere there's revolution.

hacker

Come on, Ricky, you're smart enough to know that Iran is nowhere nearer a democratic state than the KSA.

Freedom House disagrees with you.
So does the historical record.
Iran is a long ways from being a free nation, but there have been elections (an exercise in democracy even thought they were corrupted) and public demonstrations. And some tolerance of speech and media.

In the KSA? Slavery. Torture. Judicial corporal punishment. Sure.... try and organize a demonstration in Riyadh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... udi_Arabia

i don't know anyone who disagrees that mankind moved from wandering tribes, to settled villages - from bands lead by strong men, to villages lead by chiefs, to city states and the larger states.
I don't know anyone who disagrees with the historical accuracy of the Greek democracies of the historical record of how democracy began a slow crawl from the restoration to the earliest democracies.
I don't know if anyone disputes the where universal suffrage (the vote) was first introduced (Corsica) or which nation finally established universal suffrage (New Zealand in 1893).
There are historical records that we can all find that document the development of the two largest democracies and their movement from partly free to wholly free ... (US and UK)
So there's far more agreement than you vaguely refer to as "an awful lot of people" .

Not about THAT Ricky...sheesh....

What *I* don't know is, either you're being disingenuous and trying to get a reaction out of me or you have entirely abdicated your senses.

Well, good for Freedom House. Try and organize one in Tehran while you're at it.

Try and organize one in Tehran while you're at it.

A demponstration?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... id-attacks

And I suggest you google demonstrations in Iran and hit images .....(The link is below if that is easier. )
The pictures are a dramatic illustration ....


https://www.google.ca/search?q=demonstr ... QsAQ&dpr=1

A demponstration?

No, just a "demonstration".

rickyp wrote:And I suggest you google demonstrations in Iran and hit images .....(The link is below if that is easier. )
The pictures are a dramatic illustration ....


https://www.google.ca/search?q=demonstr ... QsAQ&dpr=1

Ricky, these demonstrations don't prove your point at all. Some of them are government organized; some of them show government troops firing at demonstrators. Many of them are before the crackdown when the opposition was crushed. Yes, Iran may be more free than Saudi Arabia. But to say it is on the road to freedom strikes me as a poor characterization of the reality of life for anyone in Iran who doesn't adhere to the theocracy's view.

ray

But to say it is on the road to freedom strikes me as a poor characterization of the reality of life for anyone in Iran who doesn't adhere to the theocracy's view.

Here's what i said.

Despite that, Iran is part way down the road to full liberal democracy, especially compared to its chief rival in the region, KSA,

I never said it was heaven. I said it was further along the path to being a liberal democracy... And i pointed you to an authority (Freedom House) which agrees with me. Giving Iran a rating of 6 and KSa 7. 7 being the worst of the worst in terms of freedom.
Historically once nations begin expanding their liberties a virtuous cycle begins. And the more the circle of liberties expands the harder it gets to stop the expansion of liberty. (Civil rights expand, the voting franchise expands etc.)
So, Iran has made a start. And the election demonstrations are certainly proof of that. The KSA is the worst of the worst according to Freedom House.

By the way, troops firing at demonstrators happens in democracies too.

Iran is a long ways from being a free nation, but there have been elections (an exercise in democracy even thought they were corrupted) and public demonstrations. And some tolerance of speech and media.

In the KSA? Slavery. Torture. Judicial corporal punishment. Sure.... try and organize a demonstration in Riyadh...

Actually Ricky, you implied precisely that, or at least something very close; while you did not imply that it is a paradise (I again agree that you did not actually say that per se), you did imply in your above statements a degree of confidence in Iran, however meager you meant it to sound, with which it seems I am not the only one who was terribly uncomfortable. And while I am going out on a limb, here, I am guessing a significant portion of the 80 million Iranians may very well agree with me when I say that.

It seems to have slipped the minds of the folks at Freedom House that the "government" of Iran is a total sham and basically a front for the aforementioned, politburo-like body known as the Guardian Council, which is effectively the real government of Iran. See what I wrote above comparing it to the movie "Casino", wherein--if the Islamic Republic of Iran were the Tangiers Hotel & Casino--the President/Cabinet/Majlis is Philip Green, and the Ayatollah/Council are Arthur Rothstien. (Did I mention that? Maybe I was making a reply, and saved it, and ended up not using it one of my replies.)

In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter a haypenny fig what sort of government structure Iran has, or if it is elected or not, because the real government is an exclusive, politburo-like body of religious clerics and so forth, who have the authority to choose (not merely to "nominate") key members of the Iranian Government, such as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Defense, Minister of Justice, etc. They also have the authority to vet legislation. And they can boot you off the ballot if they don't like your tone--they did this in a massive way at the end of Khatami's presidency, terrified that another reformist would be elected. Thousands of reformist and moderates were booted off the ballot across Iran. One Iranian politician--I read in BBC--called it "a bloodless coup". Yeah, that's not much better than Saudi Arabia (they have elections too, which also produce little if any "more free" government). I'm not so stupid I cannot see important differences between Iran and KSA; but in practical terms, the difference is not significant enough to get wood over it, whatever your interpretation of Freedom House's numbers.

I think its pretty obvious. They has an authoritarian undemocratic government that failed to meet the needs of the vast majority of its citizens and was overthrown. The same thing that eventually happens to every totalitarian government that fails to deliver to the populace...

That's rather unrealistically optimistic, Ricky. In fact that is a terribly absurd statement. There's a reason why justice is an uphill battle and freedom is such a fragile thing. And I will also go out on a limb and assume the better part of 10 million Portuguese would also agree with me on that.

A similar popular uprising (the 1974 coup involved a popular uprising the ground Caetano's government to a halt as well)

And for precisely that reason. I think 87 million Egyptians would agree with me, too (what I said about your unrealistic optimism regarding totalitarian governments that fail to deliver always being overthrown). Take note that they have yet to hold elections for the Egyptian parliament...there's just an elected president (who won his election with a rather suspicious 97% of the popular vote, and who had previously seized power in a military coup d'etat from an elected president, who was himself engaged in pulling some constitutional shenanigans of his own). Yes, the long-serving government of Hosni Mubarak was overthrown. But it was replaced by yet another segment of the long, dark tunnel Egyptians have been traveling through since (circa) 3000 B.C. (and perhaps even earlier) a tunnel which Egypt's unfortunate inhabitants are still traversing. You may want to google "hydraulic society" (there is another word for the concept, but it's escaping me at the moment).

Historically once nations begin expanding their liberties a virtuous cycle begins. And the more the circle of liberties expands the harder it gets to stop the expansion of liberty. (Civil rights expand, the voting franchise expands etc.)
So, Iran has made a start.

An equally useless blanket statement since, if I remember correctly, there was a lot of similarly optimistic talk by western governments in the late 1980's/early 1990's about the expansion of liberty in the USSR/Russian Federation.

Summation: while I am not saying you do not have a point by comparing and contrasting Iran and Saudi Arabia, you haven't proven that point very well, Freedom House data notwithstanding, and in the process, you've shown some fundamental errors in your thinking along those lines. That's all we're saying. I hope that's not too offensive of us.

Actually Ricky, you implied precisely that, or at least something very close

You may have inferred that, but I didn't imply that. You often read what you want, rather than what is written.

Just as you seem to think that Freedom House has a lack of expertise in its field.

Since 2001,Freedom House has established an increasingly global presence through its offices in some of the most difficult regions in the world. Our staff today consists of more than 120 experts and activists, with offices in a dozen countries. From South Africa to Tunisia, Kyrgyzstan to Indonesia, Freedom House has partnered with regional activists in bolstering civil society; worked to support women’s rights; sought justice for victims of torture; defended journalists and free expression advocates; and assisted those struggling to promote human rights in challenging political environments

If you think its inexpert, why?
I appeal to their authority and you offer in rebuttal your opinion.

hacker

In practical terms, that means it doesn't matter a haypenny fig what sort of government structure Iran has,

Actually it matters a great deal. every democracy evolved from where one authority shared power with an increasing number of people. That includes the UK and the USA.
The difference between the KSA and Iran is that a lot more people in Iran have both authority and influence over government policies...
And that is a start. Just as it was when in the 1780s about 2% of the US population had the voting franchise and some millions were enslaved. And yet many think of the US as a democracy in the 1780s. Today, would we?


Rickyp

I think its pretty obvious. They has an authoritarian undemocratic government that failed to meet the needs of the vast majority of its citizens and was overthrown. The same thing that eventually happens to every totalitarian government that fails to deliver to the populace..

.

Hacker

That's rather unrealistically optimistic, Ricky. In fact that is a terribly absurd statement. There's a reason why justice is an uphill battle and freedom is such a fragile thing. And I will also go out on a limb and assume the better part of 10 million Portuguese would also agree with me on that.

I admit its optimistic. But if it were unrealistic or absurd than I wouldn't be able to point to data like this from Freedom House. Of the 195 countries assessed, 89 (46 percent) were rated Free, 55 (28 percent) Partly Free, and 51 (26 percent) Not Free.
At one time, all governments were authoritarian Hacker. Now half of the nations in the world are free and democratic.
That's a significant trend. And they all follow the same arc if not identical paths.
Some encounter bumps and back sliding. Iran was once a democracy. Only to have a authoritarian government installed with the help of western powers...
So yes, I agree that democracy and the road to social justice is sometimes difficult. But, I think in Portugal you may have picked a nation which, having made the collective decision to over throw a dictator did so without violence and has not encountered significant disruptions to its democratic institutions.

hacker
.

I think 87 million Egyptians would agree with me, too (what I said about your unrealistic optimism regarding totalitarian governments that fail to deliver always being overthrown

Your problem here, is that the Egyptian Army, and the Armed Council is popular. And has been seen as a positive force for the majority of Egyptians. So, its a totalitarian regime (with a lot of members with influence and authority) that delivers on part of the needs of its people. And which was seen as the only alternative when the MB over stepped their mandate.

You often read what you want, rather than what is written.

There seems to be quite a bit of that going around....the Egyptian government under General Sisi's military rule shot or executed an awful lot of people. That isn't something that typically makes one popular, is it?

As for the rest of what you said I think your interpretation of events is flawed. What I am reading right now is an excess of arrogance in your opinions and your interpretations of the facts. But I'll explain what you seem to have wrong about this tomorrow, because quite frankly, you're getting on my nerves by constantly accusing me of hearing what I want to hear. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, so for you own sake, please put down the damn rock.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/n ... cking.html

the Egyptian government under General Sisi's military rule shot or executed an awful lot of people

.

So where did you read this? And what did it say about the majority opinion of Egyptians?
Nevertheless, the military council retains major support. Perhaps because its muslim monorities being arrested.