The Inevitable Spread of Democracy

The spread of democracy has become synonymous with peacekeeping since the end of the cold war.  Any conflicts that the UN or NATO are involved in end with a generous push for the conflicted state to adopt democracy.

It seems to have been decided by all developed nations (with China as a notable exception) that democracy is the best way for a developing nation to ensure its people's freedoms and prosperity.  This opinion is obvious in most of their foreign affairs and peacekeeping missions.  According to Freedom House, a non-governmental organization, since 1972 the number of states with a system of electoral democracy has tripled from 40 to 123.  It is speculated (Francis Fukayama's book "End of History" is a good example) that this trend may continue until liberal democracy is the universal form of human society.

Since homo sapiens' first steps, there have been several behavioral changes to our species that are so momentous and so advantageous that they inevitably spread across the entire planet, becoming adopted by every society.  The first of these changes was the switch from hunter-gathering to food production: agriculture and cultivation of livestock.  The change arose in several places across the globe at a few different times.  Geographic barriers or a lack of domesticable species in an area sometimes limited its initial spread from these points.  Those groups of people that did adopt these techniques enjoyed several advantages over those still living off the land.  Most importantly, because they could settle down instead of wandering seasonally as hunting-gatherers do, they became able to store surpluses of food.  These surpluses of food freed some people from the drudger of food gathering.  These people, who would become warriors, inventors, or bureaucrats, were crucial for development by elevating mankind's thinking above where to find its next meal.  Those groups of people who could develop this way were in a feedback loop, as each new development would further accelerate future development.

The next universal human change was the proliferation of writing.  This spread took place much faster than food production, although once again it was not developed or shared evenly.  Today, every nation has a language and an alphabet.  The change to humanity is permanent: there will never be revolutions in which people denounce mankind's ability to write.

The rise of democracy throughout the world is quite similar to these two cases.  Having won out against communism in the Cold War, it is now spreading.  Ideas that sprang up during the Cold War such as the Truman Doctrine were refocused on promoting democracy rather than simply defending from communism.  NATO especially, but also to an extent the United Nations, is controlled by democratic nations, to whom the mandate of "maintaining international peace and security" (the first chartered purpose of the United Nations) includes fostering democracy.

As evidenced by its continuing spread, democracy is quite advantageous to nations that adopt it.  Its greatest strength is the way that it spreads out power, limiting the power of any one individual.  Most are very open and encouraging of debate and opposing opinions.  As a result, the personal motivations of a single person cannot hurt or in some cases ruin a country's future.  Around 1500, China had a navy far superior to any European nation at that time.  However, a single political decision, hai jin or "ocean forbidden", saw every Chinese ship destroyed and all ship building facilities dismantled.  Its impossible to say what would have happened if this had never happened.  But it is certain that under a democracy, such a decision would have been questioned, debated, picked apart, and then discarded.

Democracy's ability to listen to so many opinions and to promote free enterprise will allow it to become the norm for human society.  The conflict in Libya and the recent rash of protests for democracy across the Middle East and North Africa are very obvious symptoms of the shift in human behavior towards democracy.  It is important to recognize instances of this shift in conflicts today and tomorrow so that if any peacekeeping is done it will only ease the transition.

Andrew Klavan

Was trolling one of my other blogs the other day, and found this. If you like his style, he does these every week or so. He writes books too.



Thought y'all might appreciate this sort of thing.

TSOT: European Union

You didn't think we forgot, did you?


Europe has always been a major power on the world stage, but always as quarreling states, rather than a cohesive force. So, now that they have achieved said union, how will they fare against the likes of Mother Russia and the U.S. of A? Let's find out.

Basic Facts

-Initiated in 1993, via the Treaty of Maastricht. Members include all European nations except for Switzerland, (What else is new) Iceland, Norway, and many northern Baltic states.

-Government is mainly a parliament, with a senate consisting of representatives from all member nations

MILITARY

The EU has a poor track record for this one. The only real nukes they have are 200 Americans ones positioned around the continent. Also, they seem to be bent on ridding themselves of those too, as displayed in their recent movements for a "nuclear free world". (Try selling that one to Iran or China.) But they get good points for ground troops, as they can muster some of the best spec-ops troops in the world, such as the German GSG9, or the British SAS (as anyone who pays Cod 4 would recognize). If they can avert an actual missile launch, they could do very well.





ECONOMY

Very good here. According to Wikipedia (it must be true) the EU made 30% of the world's income in 2007. That makes them very wealthy, and considering their industry is mainly manufacturing, this makes them the money-state of the world. They also have access to the Italian peninsula and the fjords or Norway, all very fertile farmland. Money will be tight in a world-wide stand-off, so the EU will be powerful in this regard.

WORLD RELATIONS

Usually not a factor, but the EU has a trumps card: Strong ties with the US. They have a powerful and stalward ally, and should expoit it as much as possible. They also get a wild card, and that being a "we want to be friends" stance. If they get some proper leaders, they could use this as a mask and use subterfuge to neutralize threats without actually declaring war. That, or the Liberals will screw them and make the EU ripe for conquest.

TECH LEVEL

An average grade here, the EU does encourage scientific breakthroughs, and has a history of strong military inventions as well has having some of the top universities in the world at thier disposal. No real advantage compared to anyone else though, really.

OVERALL

The EU would be quite vulnerable in a nuclear war. With no missiles of its own, ans its missile defence system being scrapped, any nukes that hit major EU cities will cause havoc. Assuming no-one actually presses the big red button, the EU will do quite nicely. Their ideal strategy would be remain neutral (outwardly, anyway) and use excellent spec-ops to disable enemy launch sites and economic areas. Their economy will provide them with serious funds.

HISTORICAL COMPARISON

Think Carthage, at the very beginning of the 2nd Punic War. Hamilcar is away, so you don't have a good army near home, but if you can get the war on their turf, your professional troops and coffers will win the day.

The Campaign Begins...

Hi there, for those who do not know me, I live in Canada and am currently under the voting age, which is 18 years. Remember that the movement does not need to effect you for you to be involved. Lets take this international.

The current voting age in Canada and around the world is 18. This age is used because we leave the free school system and start giving back to society through jobs or university course fees. Many people feel that anyone younger than that cannot appreciate the subtleties of politics and will be easily swayed by what their parents think.

Is this the subtleties of politics at work?

This opinion has fallen behind the times and like all other outdated junk, it should be replaced! Us young adults who are soon to enter university or the world should be given a say in what state we will find that world. Should we not have a choice as we build the foundations of our lives? With elections taking place every 5 to 4 years, 50% of today's youth will not vote before their 20th birthday. That is, if they even show up to vote:

Introduce politics sooner and interest will grow. Join the campaign; lower the voting age to 16.