The largest political battle of the twentieth century took place between democracy and communism. Democracy won for being the reasonable, if imperfect, system among a sea of impractical ones. As is the case in the aftermath of any conflict, it is very much in order to dissect the event by raising questions: How did the victor win? Was it through moral means? Where could they have been more effective? One sure thing is that Western nations have played large roles in the democratizing of Asian, South American, and Middle Eastern states. Democracies were either self-installed or induced to come about by a foreign force, usually done in the form of monetary or military aid to a rebel faction willing to overthrow the dissatisfying government. However, there was one fundamental flaw with externally crafted governments: they were precluded to success. There is no doubt that the two factors coming into play are of countries” self interests and the fact that a nation’s own people are their best representatives. .
The legal background and philosophy on this issue is not strikingly extensive and highly vague. The United Nations Charter does not concern itself with the process of political development. It simply sets out the ends it expects any state to reach without asserting a specific type of government that would be best. This coming from an international organization set up similarly to the system in Iran: complete democracy until the highest level where a supreme Leader gets to play with veto power. Nevertheless, it never dictates the means of how a state may reach the ends of higher standards of living set out in its articles. Even the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) does not imply that democracy is the way to achieve the UN’s goals. .
The UN only assumes responsibility to ensure political advancement in the situation of a non-self-governing territory – even when a member state assumes responsibility for its administration.