I suppose that you are referring to what happened in Rwanda, where the West pushed the former Belgian Protectorate to embrace one-man one vote "Democracy," and the Hutu Government inflamed the mob to go on a genocidal massacre of their former Tutsi masters. Certainly that Democracy was imposed upon the Tutsi. Absent that pressure they would never have agreed to be at the Hutu's mercy.
But one does not have to cite that extreme an example of the cruelty of imposing an alien system on peoples. Even where you do not have a wide disparity in tribal numbers or previous achievements, there are a vast realm of potential reasons why a people would not want to have their affairs decided on a one man, one vote basis; where the results would be almost as cruel as that visited upon the Tutsi.
Let us look at the actual subject, here: The failed Clinton Legacy (i.e. imposing Democracy--or as you would apparently prefer, "protecting" or "granting" "Democracy" to the Haitians).
The Haitians are not divided as were the Tutsi and Hutu, but they are hardly a uniform people with one set of common values, and understanding. Far, far from it. In Haiti you have a relatively small intelligent--by First World Standards--cultured and educated class. These people travel in other lands, view other cultures, and seek understanding of what is important, just as do educated Americans. They believe in private property, family values, and in many of those things which are also important to Americans and Europeans. You have also, a huge lower class, probably with an average I.Q. below what enables one to even grasp the purposes of a modern Government, or to appreciate checks and balances, such as we take for granted. If Aristide had not come along to manipulate this potential mob, someone else surely would have.
And Aristide not only manipulated this mob, as someone else would have otherwise, he made sure of his control by having his Marxist thugs visit horrible death upon anyone bright enough within the social milieu that he was exploiting, to challenge the rest of the mob, with any other message. If it had not been Aristide, it would have been another poisoned by the Marxist cant of egalitarianism.
Now, I would suggest to you, that if you had been down there, when General Cedras, and other intelligent and educated Haitians, had risen up against the egalitarian demagogue, to preserve the decent aspects of Haitian society and the rights of the minority, who understood those things that we take for granted, you would have supported General Cedras. We could not have been enjoying our little discussion, here--not in safety--under Aristide. And I would suggest to your further, that even Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and David Frum, would have supported General Cedras, had they lived in Haiti. That their penchant for imposing Democracy--yes that is my word, and your dissent is noted--is exercised from safe parlors in America. It would lose all of its appeal on the ground.
William Flax [Once again, proposing that we send David Frum To Haiti]
Not at all. It was a pure hypothetical, to try to flesh out your point regarding how democracy can be an "imposition" due to "social structures". (I concede the point, by the way. At the same time, if done well rather than poorly, I don't care, because it will have been an "imposition" only on those who needed imposing upon, e.g. Hussein's "Baathists".)
Certainly that Democracy was imposed upon the Tutsi. Absent that pressure they would never have agreed to be at the Hutu's mercy.
Agreed. Um, I do not endorse or condone what happened in Rwanda. (!)
Since it's apparently not clear, at no time in this thread have I advocated anything which would be considered "pure democracy", head-counting democracy, or the like. Once again you seem hung up on the word "democracy", even though I have explained several times now that the way I (and most people, by the way) use it, it's really shorthand for a lot of other stuff (some of that stuff being not at all "democratic" - i.e. judges enforcing bills of rights). I'm sure you find it a convenient straw-man, but "tribe with the most votes gets to slaughter the other tribe", does not qualify to begin with, and it's not what I advocate doing in Iraq or anywhere else.
there are a vast realm of potential reasons why a people would not want to have their affairs decided on a one man, one vote basis
I agree.
We don't even decide much of anything on a one man, one vote basis in this country. Hell, scratch that: we decide absolutely nothing on a one man, one vote basis in this country.
Let us look at the actual subject, here: The failed Clinton Legacy (i.e. imposing Democracy--or as you would apparently prefer, "protecting" or "granting" "Democracy" to the Haitians
I'll just take the liberty to clean this up a little since it's supposed to be my opinion you're characterizing:
-"protecting" "Democracy"? What democracy was there to protect in Haiti? (I know you insist on counting Aristide as "Democracy", because Clinton did, and because that aids your argument - but I don't.) I probably mentioned protecting rights, not "democracy". Yes, sure I'll endorse the idea that protecting Haitians' rights would be (or, would have been) a good thing.
-I wouldn't capitalize the word "Democracy" as you do, because I gather that when you do this you are insisting that "Democracy" connote pure democracy or something pretty darn close to that. For the record, as I have stated or implied several times now, I am firmly opposed to pure democracy.
[interesting background on Haiti deleted]
you would have supported General Cedras
Quite possibly yes. Nothing I have said in this thread can have been construed to imply otherwise. (Remember, the fact that Aristide may have been at one point mathematically legitimate ruler by the rules of pure democracy doesn't count, because I do not condone pure democracy at all, much as you keep trying to beat that straw man)
And I would suggest to your further, that even Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and David Frum, would have supported General Cedras, had they lived in Haiti. That their penchant for imposing Democracy--yes that is my word, and your dissent is noted--is exercised from safe parlors in America.
Not that I care (because I still don't understand the fascination with Frum), but I wonder why you bring David Frum into that equation. The intervention in Haiti, from the safe parlors of America, was effected by Clinton. And presumably drafting his wife onto that same team is fair.
But what in sam hill does circa 2002-2004 National Review hack columnist David Frum have to do with it? Did Frum support the 1994 intervention in Haiti? Was he even out of college at the time (I'm looking at his columnist headshot right now)? Just wondering.
You seem to have by some sleight of hand imputed the opinion to David Frum of all people, apropos of not very much, that the 1994 Haiti intervention was a good thing. (Hey, correct me if I'm wrong.) Is this, as I suspect, merely because of the word "Democracy", or do you have actual evidence that David Frum supported Aristide, protecting Aristide, re-installing Aristide, or any of the above? I'm sincerely asking. I've just done a few Google searches, I looked at the Amazon summary and some customer reviews of his latest book, and I'm clicking thru his diary, but so far I see nothing whatsoever to indicate Frum's opinion about either Haiti or Aristide, one way or the other.
Is this, like, the world's biggest straw-man you're trying to build? Pretend, sans evidence, Frum supports(ed) Aristide, and then castigate him for doing so? Does reality ever intrude here? What is going on?