Western Resistance

My Merriam-Webster's Dictionary offers a clear definition:

1 a: A government by the people: esp : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation usu. Involving periodically held free elections

"Political scientists"--they are not scientists, but certainly political--and their acolytes, however, often find this definition too restrictive. In some cases they will want to modify some of the clauses in the definition, such as the one involving holding free elections. In such a world Cuba is a "true" Democracy, because its healthcare system is "free." Zimbabwe is a "true" Democracy, because the whites are getting what's coming to them, etc.

In other cases, the classical definition of Democracy is deemed too wide. A case in point is the election of the Hamas in what I call the Palestinian Abomination; (e.i., it is not a state, it is not a terrorist organization; it is an abomination.) Since the elections were democratic and the transition of power was semi-peaceful, people trying to maintain the illusion Democracy will necessarily lead to peace do not want to call The Abomination a democracy, thus a few extra tests are asked for. All these dueling definitions create considerable semantic confusion.

Whenever a clear, well-established definition becomes muddled, a question should be asked: how did it happened, and who benefits from it? In this instance, as is often the case, the muddling came from intellectuals (the aforementioned political scientists) who want to use the good name of Democracy to fuel their pet political projects. The people who benefit are the totalitarians and Islamic supremacists whose political visions are helped by the confusion and paralysis that plagues the West.

Let's go back to the Palestinian Abomination elections, and the larger "Peace Process" attempting to end the Israeli-Palestinian war. The same people who claim Democracy would lead to moderation, upon seeing democratically-fueled radicalization, use special pleading "it is not true Democracy", instead of abandoning their discredited premise. Fatah, don't get me wrong, is a violent terrorist organization whose only coherent objective is the destruction of Israel. In that aspect their only claim to moderation comes from their rhetoric directed to the West, and the methods to be used in the destruction of the "Zionist entity." Fatah advocates cunning over overwhelming violence. The Hamas, on the other hand, advocates direct, overwhelming violence over cunning, and the Palestinians loved them for it. They were also loved for advocating a "pure" Islamic State and eliminating the corruption engendered by the "secular" rule of Fatah. Thus, when presented with cunning and watered-down secularism on the one hand, and overwhelming violence and pure Islam on the other, the Palestinians chose violence over cunning. This is a direct challenge to the theory that Democracy leads to Peace, but I'm yet to see advocates of the theory with egg on their faces come forward and admit that, at least in this case, they were wrong.

I don't think this will happen. Special pleading, for most of them, will be the easy way out. But the rest of us should be wary of those tactics. Thus;

Democracy should be defined as "rule by the people", as it has been for the past 2, 500 years, and nothing more.

If you want to argue Democracy (see above) leads to "liberal democracy"; for goodness's sake, use the non-confusing term, liberal society.

Similarly, if you think Castro's regime is the greatest thing this side of Paradise, don't call it "true Democracy"; Fidel Castro himself calls it Socialism.

And finally, if you think promoting Democracy in the Muslim world would lead to a victory over terrorism; before anything else, get yourself an education on Islamic theology and history and get back to me on that one. Failing that, at least don't go using petty semantic games trying to deny the evidence before your very eyes.