What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?
- Thread starter Comrade69
- Start date
Do you seriously think Syria is "Arriving at a democracy"? Even after examples of Egypt & Libya?
Is democracy the right form of government for these societies? Democracy is a western construct; Ancient Greek to be precise and it can be argued that democracy per se is a cultural construct and therefore, it may not necessarily translate well across different cultures or societies. Also western societies have had a habit of Orientalism, which as defined by Edward Said, is imposing their own preconceived views and imagery upon a non western society forcing that society to adhere to and adopt the imagery, e.g., dress and manner, that is not factually representative of the actual society. Concepts such as the "noble savage" etc. So is democracy the appropriate form of government for the Middle Eastern countries or is it another example of western domination and colonialism? I think that this is a very important question that needs to be addressed before predetermining any form of government that will result in Syria post civil war.
gonefishing
New Member
The are many different issues surrounding democracy, namely whether it is a direct or representative democracy, the forms of electoral system and even the very concept of what democracy means (there have been two competing views—one in the West and one in the East). However, ignoring all of this, there is one major problem with any Western-concieved democracy (liberal, authoritarian, limited, whatever): majoritarianism.
For majoritarianism to have any success, it is dependent upon a sense of common values across the demos and, more importantly, a lack of any extreme differences in values. The electorate must broadly accept each other as their kin e.g. it would not matter to British voters if a large majority of French voters voted for something in the UK (it would not be legitimate in their eyes). This is why stable, functional democracy as most in the West would broadly recognise it becomes increasingly scarce outside nation states (of course, what constitutes a nation can sometimes be contested).
When you think about it, most Western democracies deal with things on a day-to-day basis that are, in the grand scheme of things, fairly trivial. Should the base rate of tax be lowered or increased by a few percentage points? Should we outlaw smoking in public? Should we spend this money on the police or education? There are differences of opinion, no doubt, but they are held within a common mould and the fundamentals, unspoken as they are, are understood by all and agreed, more or less, by all. Even the debate about the response to the financial and economic crisis in most countries has been matters of degree. These are certainly not debates about the very nature of the legal system (e.g. sharia or something else).
I am strongly of the view (and have been from the very beginning) that there can be no transition to a stable, functional democracy (as it would be recognised in the West) in this region of the world. At least for the foreseeable future.
The Mods are irritable at the best of times. Aggravating that irritation is not a very wise move, especially for one who is very new to the forum. Please read the rules and take note about the one that says not to post one liners. So far in your three posts to the forum you've posted two one liners and a one liner +one word. You've added nothing concrete or enlightening to the discussion. Posters here are expected to add some insight with their postings. Take this as a friendly reminder. I'm not a Mod - (not grumpy enough) just a member who's been here awhile.
www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Last edited by a moderator:
I would agree with some of the others on this forum who think democracy is impossible in most of ME. Before they can build stable democracies, they need to learn to resolve their differences peacefully. So far examples show that in the absence of strong arm dictatorships, the sectarian conflicts disintegrate into bloodshed and civil war.
Strong arm dictatorships are not necessarily the ideal situation either. What is forgotten by most, is that the modern borders in the Middle East were defined and drawn by the British and French after World War One, without reference to the indigenous inhabitants cultures, religions, tribal affiliations etc. The borders were / are lines on the map that had / have total disregard for many hundreds and thousands of years of unbroken occupation and history. This is not the only cause for the unrest but it may be a major contributing factor.
I include Palestine and its post World War Two division in this. With regard specifically to that no more needs to be said because it is off topic.
Well maybe leave them alone, and let them redraw their own borders? It's an approach that would be quite bloody, but on the other hand nobody could blame it on the first world, and they'd probably have stable governments.
The same was done by the Brits with the ''Durand Line''; that's why there are so many Pashtuns on the Pakistani side of the border and why Afghanistan still has an oustanding claim on parts of Pakistani territory.
It seems the FSA and the ''jihadists'' are still having a go at each other. Bashar must be sleeping much better at night now.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...-between-syria-rebels-201415144654361429.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...e-the-us-ties-itself-up-in-knots-9039977.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-tree-destroyed--but-to-what-end-9021017.html
Your observation and kind warning for lowe1941 is greatly appreciated. My post serves to reinforce your message to this new member. No reply to this post by lowe1941 is necessary, unless he wants to start the process on becoming a former member of this forum.
Unfortunately in Syria, due to the ongoing civil war, there is large scale loss of human life and tremendous human suffering. In general, we don't like trolls, especially trolls who act as if they do not value human life and have no capacity for empathy towards human suffering brought about by a civil war.
@lowe1941, consider yourself officially warned - further attempts at trolling or failure to observe forum rules will result in sanctions.
Two of your one-liners have also been deleted.
Last edited:
Assad's negotiation team will demand as a precondition for any agreement that Assad remains in power, and no elections to replace him. They will be supported in his demands by Russia, Iran, and China.
The rebel negotiation team will demand as a precondition for any agreement that Assad steps down immediately and elections held to choose a successor. They will be supported by the Sunni states, most of Europe, and the USA.
The radical Islamists will declare the negotiations null and void because they weren't included, even if they would come, which they won’t. They will demand the immediate conversion of Syria into an Islamic caliphate.
The diplomats and politicians will announce that the talks are successful, having succeeded in agreement on most issues with only a few remaining to be resolved in further negotiations.
I believe the PLA Navy is the escort so I don't think they will let that happen. To much riding politically and diplomatically for China for the PLA Navy to stuff up. I think if someone tries a snatch of the weapons the PLA Navy may be rather firm in their defence of said weapons.
True. It's hard for him to make accusations of Sunni extremism stick against an alliance which is fighting Sunni extremists.
HMS Montrose is down there as well - I think it's a pretty multinational affair and anyone having a go will be best advised to have their affairs in order.
HMS Montrose is being replaced by HMS Somerset in the region, sailed from Plymouth a week ago
Hijacking the convoys seems pretty far fetched.
Geneva 2 seems to be the last hope for Syrians to reach an end to the conflict. The way we see it, if it isn't resolved in Geneva 2, its going to be a long, long war. That is probably one of the main reasons why the opposition coalition is divided over whether to go to the negotiations table or not.
Not particularly, the country is at war, land convoys are vulnerable to a determined opposition especially if a particular group was determined enough to want to capture chemical weapons.
I'm astonished that there's hope the peace talks will succeed and/or have any sort of meaningful implementation in the country.
True, I don't know the in's and out's of the politics of the region, far from it. But this whole conflict erupted with the aim of getting rid of Assad, who here thinks that it's likely that Assad (or Russia, Iran and China) will agree to any - or support - negotiations which require him to surrender power?
The country is on fire and that isn't going to change if the current demands on either side remain resolute.
I'm astonished that there's hope the peace talks will succeed and/or have any sort of meaningful implementation in the country.
True, I don't know the in's and out's of the politics of the region, far from it. But this whole conflict erupted with the aim of getting rid of Assad, who here thinks that it's likely that Assad (or Russia, Iran and China) will agree to any - or support - negotiations which require him to surrender power?
The country is on fire and that isn't going to change if the current demands on either side remain resolute.