05-09-2006, 07:53 AM
The definition of a democracy is a state that protects the individual liberties of its citizens. Since you're talking about an ideal democracy, we don't necessarily need to discuss whether the US is or is not an "good" democracy.
By and large, most religious states are built on favoring one set of beliefs over others. In other words, some citizens are favored over others. This makes them non-democratic - they violate individual liberty. Democracy could be regarded as being a religion, except that it allows undemocratic individuals to believe and proselytize others. In practical terms, this works because seemingly-similar people actually have major disagreements with one another and democracy allows this disagreement to be expressed openly without resorting to civil war.
To use an analogy - I like sugar in everything. This is a dietary idiosyncracy. I require that all foods sold in my nation have sugar in them. Another guy believes in letting people eat what they want. We can term this an idiosyncracy, but when this is foisted on the nation - I am *still* individually free to eat as much sugar as I want. Hindus in India can band together and establish a Hindu commune among themselves if they want. What they cannot do is force someone who wants to exist this commune to stay in it.
Do democracies have the right to forcibly democratize non-democratic nations? This is similar to asking whether society has a right to "liberate" individuals that are being kept in a commune against their will. Society absolutely does. Communal nations are inherently immoral, as are non-democratic nations. Democracies always have the right to "liberate" them by force.
This is also why the US was justified in using force and bloodshed to crush the Confederate secessionists. The Confederacy enjoyed handy majority support in its area. But it was seceding to form an undemocratic nation - based on supremacy of one segment of the population. This was immoral, even if majority supported. The US attacked them, and rightfully so. If the British Empire were democratic (rather than white-supremacist) and Indians wanted to secede to form a Brown-controlled nation, Britain would have been morally correct to attack and force India to democratize. If you remember, all the initial protests in India were about more liberty for individual Indians within the British Empire.
By and large, most religious states are built on favoring one set of beliefs over others. In other words, some citizens are favored over others. This makes them non-democratic - they violate individual liberty. Democracy could be regarded as being a religion, except that it allows undemocratic individuals to believe and proselytize others. In practical terms, this works because seemingly-similar people actually have major disagreements with one another and democracy allows this disagreement to be expressed openly without resorting to civil war.
To use an analogy - I like sugar in everything. This is a dietary idiosyncracy. I require that all foods sold in my nation have sugar in them. Another guy believes in letting people eat what they want. We can term this an idiosyncracy, but when this is foisted on the nation - I am *still* individually free to eat as much sugar as I want. Hindus in India can band together and establish a Hindu commune among themselves if they want. What they cannot do is force someone who wants to exist this commune to stay in it.
Do democracies have the right to forcibly democratize non-democratic nations? This is similar to asking whether society has a right to "liberate" individuals that are being kept in a commune against their will. Society absolutely does. Communal nations are inherently immoral, as are non-democratic nations. Democracies always have the right to "liberate" them by force.
This is also why the US was justified in using force and bloodshed to crush the Confederate secessionists. The Confederacy enjoyed handy majority support in its area. But it was seceding to form an undemocratic nation - based on supremacy of one segment of the population. This was immoral, even if majority supported. The US attacked them, and rightfully so. If the British Empire were democratic (rather than white-supremacist) and Indians wanted to secede to form a Brown-controlled nation, Britain would have been morally correct to attack and force India to democratize. If you remember, all the initial protests in India were about more liberty for individual Indians within the British Empire.