http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7395216n
The above link is to a clip that discusses the rise of Qatar as a nation of influence in the Middle East. The interesting bit is how Qatar follows a policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East (through Al Jazeera & aid to the Arab Spring) but the king does not abdicate to give way for democracy in his own country. Now the relevant bit: is this moral?
If we assume democracy is a good thing, is it moral for an autocrat to put his support behind democracy abroad because that may have the largest effect in the world?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like this post quite a bit, it's very interesting.
DeleteI would say, firstly, that it's a bit unfair to assume that democracy is a good thing, because I don't really think it is. The whole 51% trumps all policy is rather lousy.
Apart from that, I would say that it is a moral thing to do, if the king knows it will have the largest effect. It may not, however, be the most fair, or the least hypocritical thing to do. I feel that it would be less hypocritical and probably more effective if he lead by example. I am guessing that most people would call him out for his hypocrisy and then refuse to change themselves, because of that.
I think that becoming a democracy and attempting to spread it could cause a country to become like America and vote to force democracy on other nations or cause it to vote not to spread it at all - not that I think the latter is a bad thing.