should a democratic country invade other countries to establish democracy?

should the countries which are democratic invade other countries for democracy

13 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer


    There is a saying no one welcomes armed people into their lands even if they bring liberation.

    Democracy should be won through revolt of the inhabitants. as it was in england,france etc. American democracy was won through the revolution.

    History proves that democracy needs to be attained by the people for it to last, not forced upon them.


    England is completely democratic, however it is a constitutional monarchy rather then a republic.

    The queen has the power to veto a law, but no monarch for over 100 years has tried doing this.

    In effect the prime minister is the same as your president.

    And i agree that forcing democracy is just as bad as forcing dictatorship.

    Plus unrest is inevitable and that will lead to democracy in the end.

    Look what happened to iraq.

    You got rid of one dictator but that induced huge ammounts of sectarian violence, more people lost thier lives due to civil unrest after the war then before it.

  • 3 years ago

    Democracy In Other Countries

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    First off, I don't think anyone would sanely argue that a democratic country should invade another country if the SOLE purpose of the act is to establish democracy. It is agreed generally among opinion-makers that strategic reasons must complement political motives where foreign invasions are concerned. After all, the cost of invading and occupying a country is so massive that just doing it for political ends is not likely to be worth the blood, toil, sweat, and tears. However, that being said, there is nothing wrong historically with brandishing democratic motives alongside strategic ones come invasion time (it is a peculiarly Anglo-American tradition). In fact, most strong democracies were created at the end of a bayonet. The Magna Carta of 1215 (the basis for English constitutional law and our Constitution's forefather) was forced on King John by a military rebellion and a French invasion. The Glorious Revolution in 1688 Britain (the basis for parliamentary democracy in the world) resulted from a Dutch invasion of England by Stadholder William III. Indeed, the Dutch themselves established their famed republican government (1581-1806) by rebelling against the Spanish and fighting them for a long, long 80 years. Similarly, the establishment of our own American Republic came as a result of war (the War of Independence) and its later growth was only possible via massive bloodshed (the Civil War). Likewise, the Napoleonic Wars spread throughout Europe the French Revolution, toppled ancient regimes, and implanted fatal ideas of liberty that would haunt authoritarian governments throughout the 19th century . Lastly, World War I resulted in the death of old-style monarchies and the promotion of democratic values (think Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations) and World War II caused democracy to flourish via coercion (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc). Therefore, while by no means a prerequisite to the establishment of democracy, coercion is certainly not as "unnatural" as some would have you believe when it comes to promoting liberal governance. Indeed, some people who believe it "unnatural" or "irrational" are often the very first to want to invade (yes, invade -- let's not kid ourselves with platitudes) a country to establish peace (think Rwanda in 1993 or Sudan today). However, again, invading a country SOLELY to establish democracy is generally unacceptable in both liberal and conservative circles. The question remains: What is the proper democracy-strategy mix that decides whether or not to invade a country? A good answer can be found in the philosophy developed by commentator extraordinaire Charles Krauthammer -- "Democratic Realism." This foreign policy ideology advocates spreading democracy and invading countries only when the country concerned poses an existential threat to our existence. Of course, the million dollar question in foreign policy circles is what an "existential" threat is and the various standards we should use to determine its presence -- this is where controversy and ideology enter into play -- and, indeed, where you are left to make up your own mind.

    (In case you were wondering, the Iraq War was not fought solely to establish democracy, but the democratic aspect has certainly grown retroactively to encompass a large part of the mission, in the same way that the Civil War turned into an anti-slavery crusade only halfway through the conflict...)

    Source(s): On "Democratic Realism": (Provides an excellent overview of the major schools of foreign policy thought, too -- albeit Krauthammer-style)
  • Bryan
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Establishing democracy is usually a secondary concern. There are normally other prevailing factors which necessitate intervention. Ultimately in my opinion though the answer is no. I do believe that we should support freedom fighters who desire democracy and initiate action to bring it about though.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes they should. Although I prefer to call it "Liberation" not invasion.

    For example when Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was necessary for the USA to stop the aggression, and return Kuwait to it's former government.

    The only people that oppose the liberation of Iraq by the USA are partisan liberals, and terrorist sympathizers.

    The USA does not tell people how to live, we stop the dictators that are forcing a country to a live a certain way.

    Iraq was allowed to choose the government THEY WANTED, not the USA.

    And you know dang well if Russia or Red China invades your country, you will run to the USA begging for help.

    Always remember, no country with a Wal-Mart, has ever invaded another country with a Wal-Mart.

  • 1 decade ago

    only when the government of that country is in a position that requires democracy for the well being of the people, but the leaders are too concerned for their own well being. Ex. it's ok to go into iraq and help out because its government was abusive but for example monarchies like england(which is partially democratic) are fine.

  • Belle
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago


    But America has done it many many times, and continues to do it to this day!

    How would Americans feel if we were invaded by another country and their politics shoved down our throats because THEY thought the way they did things was better than the way we do things?


  • Cindi
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    You should never force any government on another nation. I'm sure the communists thought their government was as great as we think democracy is, but we condemned them for spreading it.

  • 1 decade ago

    Nations that invade other nations to force their way of life are no better than any regime that they have stood against. It is delusional to think that democratic countries do not war against each other.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, but to establish tyranny, to secure their corrupt practices and investments.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.