除了民主之外, 要建立一個穩定和可持續發展的社會需要甚麼?

看到以下文章, 想到從戰後以來, 民主未必能確保建立穩定的社會,

那麼西方社會的穩定和發達, 最重要的因素到底是甚麼呢?


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08...l?event=event25

Stability does not require democracy

The US should support leaders who establish control, provide security, and improve lives.

By Stephen Kinzer | AUGUST 17, 2014



Visitors view the Singapore skyline from the rooftop pool of the Marina Bay Sands resort hotel on May 20.
IT WAS revealed earlier this month that the United States has been sending agents into Cuba to identify dissenters and help them build an anti-government movement. At a moment when so many countries are in violent upheaval, why would we seek to destabilize one that is calm? We are romantically attached to the idea of spreading democracy — and underestimate the value of security, safety, and stability.

When Americans decide which governments in the world are good and deserve support — and which are bad and must be reviled — we like to use the standard of democracy. If a leader comes to office in a seemingly fair election and tolerates dissent, he or she qualifies for our seal of approval. Dictators are the opposite and thus our enemies: Down, Saddam! Down, Khadafy! Down, Assad! Down, Castro!


Those oppressive leaders, however, have provided something even more elemental than democracy. They exercised control over every inch of their national territory. This should be a key factor in our assessment of foreign leaders and governments.

Ungoverned areas are breeding grounds for local and global terror. Beneath all else, the central problem in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya is that governments have lost control over their territory. A large swath of Mali is beyond government control. The reason carnage in the Congo has taken millions of lives in the past quarter-century is not because the Congolese government is murderous, but because it is not sovereign in much of the country.

As we look around the world seeking governments and leaders to support, we should first ask: Can this person or group unite the country sufficiently to establish full territorial control?

When governments do not rule their territory and cannot guarantee the security of daily life, normal politics is irrelevant or impossible.

Quote Icon
Our second question should be about human security. Countries are only stable when people can live safely, work, send their children to school, and count on the police for protection. Regimes that guarantee those freedoms deserve sympathy.

Finally, we should measure governments according to what they do for ordinary citizens. If they preside over improving health care, economic growth, and widening access to education, they are praiseworthy.

In our fantasies, democratic governments do all these things better. We presume that Western-style democracy is best suited to all nations at every stage of their development. Recent history suggests otherwise.

Afghan National Army soldiers keep watch at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Kabul on Aug. 6.
AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Afghan National Army soldiers keep watch at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Kabul on Aug. 6.

South Korea and Taiwan skyrocketed to economic power under dictatorial regimes and only later evolved to democracy. Singapore has thrived for half a century under authoritarian one-family rule. The country with the most impressive growth rate in Africa over the last decade, Rwanda, hardly qualifies as democratic by Westminster standards. Dictatorship has brought Kazakhstan safe streets, a sharp reduction in poverty, and women’s rights. China’s one-party regime has pulled more people out of poverty in a shorter time than any government in human history.

Compare this record with that of democracies the United States has sought to implant. After toppling the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, we pushed our friends in those countries to establish regimes that were above all democratic. Those countries are now engulfed in terror and violence.

We should broaden the criteria we use in deciding what kind of leaders the world needs. It is fine to encourage those who seem most likely to be “democratic” as we define that term. But we should also ask: Who in this country can establish control, provide security, and improve lives?

When governments do not rule their territory and cannot guarantee the security of daily life, normal politics is irrelevant or impossible. That is evident today not just in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya, but in countries from the Central African Republic to Honduras.

Sociologists use a concept called “hierarchy of needs.” It tells us that although individuals want and need many things, they value some more than others. Living in a developed society, it is sometimes difficult to imagine the hierarchy we ourselves would probably embrace under other circumstances: First, I need to be safe; second, I need to eat, drink clean water, and live decently; later, once these physical needs are taken care of, I will think about my individual rights.

Americans understand the glorious potential of democracy. When conditions are right, it brings great blessing. But conditions are not always right. America’s campaign to promote democracy, often waged with military force, has had the opposite of its desired effect. The real way to promote democracy is to give people stability, safety, and decent lives. Politics thrives in that fertile soil.

文章貌似反思，其實部分內容還是在洗腦/被洗腦。

原文的評論中就有指出這點的，都不用我再解釋了：

[攪事] 一定是因為沒戰爭!!!!! [/攪事]

附帶圖片

凡是承認美國干涉權的人都談不上反思

要建立一個穩定和可持續發展的社會需要的就是強權：兵權、錢權、話語權。

民主只是一國之內的人民切蛋糕分蛋糕的方法，不是唯一的方法也不一定是最好的方法，只能說是最適合某些國家的方法，不一定適合沒有相符合的歷史文化背景的國家。

而對那些連蛋糕都沒有的國家說怎樣切蛋糕，更加是不切實際的。

美國首要關心的是別人的蛋糕有沒有美國份額，有多少受美國支配，在此基礎之上才是其他問題。

本篇文章已被 參謀ABC 於 Aug 23 2014, 14:05 編輯過

美國首要關心的是別人的蛋糕有沒有美國份額，有多少受美國支配，在此基礎之上才是其他問題。

別人的蛋糕有美國份額、受美國支配的時候，其他問題也不是問題了。