I don't think anyone here is saying Myanmar is a true democracy by any means either. There are severe restrictions on elected officials, with the military continue to hold most of the power in the country.The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-09-11 02:13pm Well, to be honest, I do think that their are certain criteria you have to meet, weather your country is western or non-western, to qualify as a democracy, and if it doesn't meet that, it cannot function as a democracy. Its something else. Broaden the meaning of the word too much, and it loses its meaning*.
That said, I make no assumptions about what the people of Myanmar feel, or are willing to do. And I would appreciate it if you try to avoid making assumptions about what my assumptions are. My arguments and views are my own, not anyone else's.
*Of course, one could also point out that no modern "democracy" bears much resemblance to the original form, which was Athenian democracy (and which would be highly undemocratic by modern standards, as it excluded women and, unless I'm much mistaken, permitted slavery).
However, Myanmar's notions of nationalism have always been build upon the idea that it's a Buddhist state, with the Rohingyas being unwelcome migrants that never had the right to citizenship. The Rohingyas were seen as people who migrated into Burma due to British colonialism, which is why they are considered stateless. So to the Myanmarese population, the Rohingya were never part of the people in the right place, so thus they should never have any protection that is offered to citizenships of Myanmar.
If the Myanmarese define democracy as a form of governance in which the will of the people is being exercised, with seemingly legal and fair elections, then it makes it hard for me to say they aren't democratic. The problem lies more in whether the Rohingyas ought to be seen as fellow citizens in the first place. And the definition of citzenship has always been something that is up for the country to decide, whether you are western or non-western.
Just to make it clear, my initial comments are directed at him.I won't try to speak for him, but that's certainly not my view.
And I don't deny that. But I don't see the notion of morality need to be intertwined with the system of governance.I do think that democracy is, on the whole, the least problematic form of government yet devised, and perhaps the best devisable, but that does not mean that it cannot suffer catastrophic failures. Any human system can. Obviously.
I think our definition of democracy should be more aligned with how the vast majority of the democracies in the world defined it to be. Which means we need to take into account how developing countries define democracy as well.Yes, but there is a certain minimum bar that must be met to qualify, in my opinion.
But let's try to clear things up: How would you define democracy? Its easy to poke holes in someone else's definition and accuse them of western-centric bias, but its harder for me to respond when I'm not sure what definition you're basing your argument on.
Is there a process for the population to participate in politics via elections, and if so, is it done in a fair and legal manner according to the country's laws? If UN observers think that the election was fair with no rigging involved, then we should accept these countries as democratic states.
Morality is needed for democracy to function well. But morality itself isn't quite so necessary for democracy to exist.Perhaps. But is it invalid to say that, while democracy is not necessary for that morality, that morality is necessary for democracy?
Again, it would help if you clarified how you define democracy.
Why are those qualities seen as a requirement for a country to be considered as being democratic? And would those qualities disqualify Myanmar from being a democratic country? As far as I understand, even liberal western democratic countries still reserve the right to deny people citizenship, and simply having a history of multiple generations residing in a piece of land does not automatically confer people this right.That is an oversimplification of my views on the matter.
I think that their are certain qualities a society must possess to be considered democratic (otherwise the term is meaningless), and that those are things I generally approve of, yes, but I am well aware that a democracy can be staggeringly immoral in other ways, and that a "democratic" system can be (and generally is) only partially and imperfectly democratic.
What Myanmar is doing right now is to enforce something that has always been a part of their country's citizenship laws. Rohingyas are not considered Myanmarese, not even as a minority. They've been seen as illegal migrants since WW2. And that is the heart of the problem here. Even if Myanmar suddenly become a western-liberal democracy, that would not be enough to confer those people citizenship rights. Ius Soli is not something universal across liberal-western democracies today.
If Myanmar is a western-liberal democratic state that doesn't practice ius soli, and their handling of the Rohingyas is more akin to how the US or other European countries treat what they deem to be illegal migrants, would this disqualify Myanmar from being a democratic state?
That would still require them to even consider the Rohingyas as minorities in the first place. This isn't even like other cases of ethnic conflict where those minorities still retain citizenship rights, or suddenly removing citizenship from minorities. This is about the Rohingyas never being seen as part of the country since Myanmar's independence.I agree that a country does not have to be democratic to conclude that murdering minorities is wrong. However, a country arguably must conclude that murdering minorities is wrong in order to be truly democratic. Do you see the distinction?
Its much like how not all mammals are cats, but all cats are mammals.
