EDITED for clarity
I wouldn't name Syria because Syria is no more a democracy under the Assads than Renaissance Florence was under the Medicis. No one wears a crown, but the dynastic characteristics are present. If the President of Syria were just a figurehead whose duties were ceremonial and the real power were in a freely and fairly elected parliament, then I might accept the idea of Syria being a democracy.
In any good Socratic discourse, the participants should begin by defining their terms and then applying them to the situation at hand. That may lead to a new definition of one or more of the terms. It may even lead the participants to frustration, as there may be no good universal definition of a term. The serious student is directed to the works of Plato.
We seem to agree on what it means to occupy foreign territory: one nation places a military presence beyond the borders for an undefined length of time in order to control by force social, economic or political events in the occupied land. Some Israelis or their supporters abroad may disagree that Israel is occupying foreign territory, but we'll leave that discussion to the I/P forum. Some members of the Bush administration may try to deny that the US occupation of Iraq is an occupation (they prefer to call it a
liberation), but that is such cheap propaganda that few people beyond the reach of US corporate media take it seriously.
The sticking point here may be the word
democracy. I will offer my own ideal definition of
democracy, which has been seen on DU before:
A democracy
is a state where:- Citizenship is universal. All born within the boundries of the state, born abroad of at least one parent who is a citizen of the state, and foreigners who swear allegiance to the state are citizens.
- Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence civic affairs.
- Citizenship is inalienable. A set of guaranteed civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs and to assure that no citizen will be penalized for expressing a minority view, no matter how outrageous.
I will admit that no perfect democracy has ever existed, and probably never will. I will also submit that many states that historically have been called democracies are, under this definition, not democracies at all. Ancient Athens restricted the franchize to males owning property and sent dissidents into exile. America in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century permitted slavery and up to the late nineteenth century encouraged genocide against the indiginous population; women were not permitted to vote in all states until after World War I and Afro-Americans were systematically disenfrachized in the South for a hundred years after being emancipated from slavery.
We may even argue whether or not the United States today is a democracy. Do the wealthy, especailly those who wealth is rooted in corporate business, have an undue influence over civic affairs? Does corporate control of the journalism stifle public discourse? Do provisions of the Patriot Act go too far in restricting civil liberties as to further stifle free discourse? These are fair questions.