The purpose of genocidal studies is to determine what it is, how to foresee it, how to prevent it, and what the causes are...among others.
For now I wish to discuss the ideas of the causes of genocide. I have read articles that argue that in the past religion has generally provided the justification for the perpetrators of the genocide. It is believed that now democracy causes the justification of current genocides. Mainly the idea of doing good for the population, or the people. Example: The Hutu's in the 1994 Rwandan genocide believe that cleansing the population of Tutsi's would be better for the rest of Rwanda.
Thoughts, opinions, rants welcome

I agree with Madman. It is true that democracy contributes to genocidal intent. Consider the fact that virtually all genocides are committed by the majority of a population against a hated minority. Democracy and genocide are related in the sense that they both reflect majority rule.

In many impoverished countries throughout the world, citizens voluntarily elect violent demagogues to power who promise to challenge a racial or religious minority. As an example see Robert Mugabe, who won a landslide electoral victory in 1980 and has always condoned attacks against Zimbabwe's whites, or historically look at Adolf Hitler, who received the majority of his country's votes due to anti-Jewish sentiment.

By the way, welcome to the forum Madman. 

Pol Pot anyone? Stalin?

I firmly believe that genocide is a tool used by government or whom ever is trying to gain power.  It is a way of creating or differentiating those who "belong" and the outsiders.  Thus, strengthening things like nationalism in a time of crisis and political instability.  Obviously genocide is in no way a good thing, don't get me wrong, it's just an extreme.

Democracy doesn't necessarily prevent it though.  America committed it as a 19th century democracy against many native tribes, and we allied ourselves in the 20th with a Cambodian government which committed it as part of our geopolitical chess game.  I'd love it if democracy were the whole answer, but it isn't when a majority want genocide or the perceived or real benefits from it. 


P.S. I still haven't seen a decent case for this "religion as near universal cause" theory.

Incidentally, if one uses the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide we were coming quite near to it if not violating it as late as the 40s with our "Indian schools"(Article 2b. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.).  Australia's aboriginal "Stolen Generations" of most of the 20th century fit this definition too.  Certainly 18th and 19th century enslavement of Ameican blacks was a violation of Article 2b (Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group).  So I'd have to say democratic nations are capable of both internal and external acts meeting one of the most accepted definitions of "genocide" loathe as we may be to admit it. 


Largely unlimited white male suffrage seems far more likely to reflect some modicum of popular will than voting lists vetted by unelected religious "Guardians".  I'd also say you've got to view it in the context of the times.  Democracy was a rarer and more fragile experiment worldwide and America's embrace of what had been a boilerplate phrase in saying "all men are created equal" was very imperfect compared to today's standards.  I have hope that Iran's quasi-democratic institutions will develop into a democracy in a similar way to the British Parliament's gradual growth as a focus of an increasing measure of popular will.  Certainly that government is closer to true democracy than those in most of the Islamic world despite its manifold flaws.  I'd remind people that these things aren't easily achieved and every nation that has a democracy has had to find its own way to get there, most with numerous detours on that path(France's rocky path toward it is fairly typical).