Democracy is competing interest groups. Just that they're supposed to compete nonviolently for the favour of public opinion.
Iraq should be a good lesson, though. Far too little effort has gone into understanding and explaining what was intended and how it failed, including what the weaknesses of good intent were. To me, it looks like the problem was trying to airdrop "democracy" consisting only of voting, without much thought given to parties, media, class structure, ethnic division, and economic crisis.
True, but in this context I meant interest groups trying to consolidate their power which they felt would be threatened through democracy. Understandable, if you know about the religious minority that ruled the country.
But making a statement about the viability of democracy because Iraq struggled to form a stable government is complete nonsense.
> interest groups trying to consolidate their power which they felt would be threatened through democracy. Understandable, if you know about the religious minority that ruled the country.
This could apply to a surprisingly large number of Western countries in the 20th century. Or the whole US "voter suppression" debate.
Democracy is competing interest groups. Just that they're supposed to compete nonviolently for the favour of public opinion.
Iraq should be a good lesson, though. Far too little effort has gone into understanding and explaining what was intended and how it failed, including what the weaknesses of good intent were. To me, it looks like the problem was trying to airdrop "democracy" consisting only of voting, without much thought given to parties, media, class structure, ethnic division, and economic crisis.