By MJ
The world would be a wonderful place if democracy governed. There would be no wars, no oppression; the rule of the people would always ensure the rule of the majority. It’s a very utopian concept even when spoken by Neocons. Democracy is such a noble experiment of the people. Churchill called democracy the “worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” What else is better than a free and democratic society?
After reading numerous blogs celebrating democracy and from President Bush’s Inaugural Speech, as well as from comments posted on this site, and the current debate taking place in the foreign media, there seems to be mass confusion as to what democracy actually is. This is mainly because of the Bush administration’s mishandling of Iraq and his insistence that democracy imposed from the outside is free and fair. From what I can tell, most people, including the president, seem to think that democracy is the ability to hold elections. I wish democracy was this simple.
Democracy is not elections. The Soviet Union held elections all the time. Would anyone call them a democracy? China recently held elections also. Does that make them a democracy? In 2002, Iraq held elections and Saddam won 100% of the vote. People lined the streets to cast their vote. Some voted for Saddam in their own blood. Is that democracy?
No. None of it is. Elections primarily have nothing to do with democracy. A free and democratic society is one that has free institutions able to operate liberally and without government interference. A liberal democracy has open institutions that produce free thought and randomly makes decisions outside of the realm of government or even politics. These institutions are what formulate democracy, not elections.
If we as Americans are supposed to go into all the corners of the earth and spread democracy what is it that we are supposed to bring with us? Should we bring our hanging-chads or our scan-tron ballots? Should we bring our Constitution with its four amendments changing voter eligibility? Should we bring our Electoral College rules that allow for the president to be selected without winning the popular vote? Should we bring our gerrymandered mapmaking? Should we bring our bombs? Or should we bring our free institutions that allow a society to ponder all that they desire without restriction?
I must concur with Churchill and state that democracy is so much better than anything else we have going for us in this world. But, democracy isn’t perfect either. And there is so much more to a democratic society than the electoral process. If people would only understand, this world would be much safer.
President Bush, whether he planned to or not, has placed the extension of democracy at the vanguard of American foreign policy. I also do believe that his speech, lacking in substance as it did, has been entirely misunderstood. However, Not since the heightened days of the Cold War has the world received so much preaching about democracy. But during all the debate about an American imposed democracy and elections, the Middle East already held it’s first real election. It was in Palestine and the world seemed not to notice. I wonder why Bush isn’t celebrating the Palestinian road to democracy like he lauds the elections in Iraq. I mean they just held an election that appeared free and fair. Why then, Mr. President, is that not a democracy?
Some suggested reading:
Taking Liberty to Revise Famous Speeches
FactCheck.org
Onward and Upward and...
Freedom is not a Doctrine
January 25, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks Hymer for the comment.
ReplyDeleteIt's not true that elections have to take place before a democracy takes root or for the institutions to exist. They thrive off one another. And one cannot exist without the other. Again, I will use George Washington as an example.
Washington was not elected by the people as president for his first term in office. And it wasn't like one day, the American colonists woke up and decided to start a revolution and form a democracy. Institutions were already in place. Free thought was happening everyday. It was being censored by the British Monarchy, but the very foundations of a free society were taking place. It was a process that grew over time.
Iraq has none of the institutions, none of the ability to prosper. Mainly because they haven't been given a chance. I'm not saying democracy in Iraq won't work. I'm saying give it time, secure the place first. Bush has put way too much emphasis on elections.
As for bringing hope, well, you should read the site more. I spoke about bringing hope in my post "Iraq is a Distraction." Bush told the world that we would bring hope. There's no hope, only death and violence. I have many friends in Iraq and talk to them quite often. Talking to them is much different than watching Fox News. There's no spin zone when talking to Baghdad.
Finally, publicly congratulating Abbas is just a formality. Bush publicly congratulated Putin also- who won by a landslide in the most undemocratic election ever held. Bush also publicly congratulated the Chinese leader as well. That's a communist state, it's all formality. Musharaf visits Washington all the time. He's a dictator that's propped up by Bush. Nothing democratic about that.
And your last sentence really sums up everything from Neocons: "Actually, he really should have waited until we determined what Abbas was going to do before inviting him to Washington."
"Until we determined what Abbas was going to do," now what does that mean? Are we the Almighty who decides what a democratically elected official is supposed to do?
Abbas was elected in the first democratic election ever held in the Middle East. The Palestinian election was entirely more legitimate than Iraq will be. His people chose him. Why is it up to us to judge his agenda before we allowed him a formal state visit? Abbas does not have to answer to us, nor does he have to seek our permission to rule. America does not grant democratic rights throughout the world. And if we are supposed to, we are doing a shitty job.
Always fun.
Thank you Hymer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments about elections. "Someone in our government," ultimately Bush- I don't understand why he never gets blamed for anything, it's always someone elses fault- decided to rush elections in order to form some sort of exit strategy. I'm not disagreeing with elections. I'm arguing against the logic behind them, and the way Bush has presented them. Just like how Bush rushed to war, he is now rushing elections.
I also disagree with how Bush is defining elections. He is making them out to be democracy, and they aren't. He's trying to save face, rush elections, call it a victory and then do his smirk. I disagree with all that.
Bush screwed all this up from the beginning. Iraq is simply not the war we were told it would be. He did not do his job right. If I don't do my job right, I lose it. I would have voted for anyone besides Bush.
I think you agree that we are doing a bad job of fighting this war on terror. That is nearly the basis for everything that I post. It made no sense to rush to war and now, to me, it makes no sense to rush elections. We rushed to war and it created total chaos, what will happen from these elections? I hope it creates some stability. I hope Bush is right this time. He wasn't right the first time, so I'm not going to blindly follow this time. As Bush says, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice- uh, uh, uh, well, can't be fooled again.
You say that you absolutely believe that Bush was truthful when he made claims about WMD. That's fine, I agree. But I thought we invaded to spread democracy. I wasn't aware the we invaded to disarm. Something must have changed.
I agree we can't pack up and leave. That's what the British did. If we do, we will be back in 10 years. But, we can't rush everything either. There has to come a time when Bush grabs his balls and admits that his plans are failing. He doesn't even have to do that publicly. He can do it with his advisors privately and start making good policy decisions. I hope that he will do that.
You want the U.S. to be strong and powerful and even feared. I understand. Now stop, just for one second and think logically. Is rushing to war, mismanaging an occupation, stretching your military as thin as it can go, ignoring the rest of the world, rushing elections and losing total credibility the way to go about that? Does that accomplish the goal?
If we had exhaustively planned for this war, removed Saddam quicker, and left the world with their jaws to the floor then we would have accomplished your hopes. We haven't done that with Iraq at all. We are not feared in the way that you wish, we are mocked.
I do disagree with your Abbas assessment. You fear that he might be another dictator that supports terrorists. Therefore, we should wait and see what he does. What is Saudi Arabia? And, you must know, that we armed and supported Saddam, as well as Bin Laden, in the 80s. I hope you aren't suggesting that America would never comply with dictators and tyrants.
I apologize for the Neocon comment. Sometimes it's a reaction more than anything. And yes GWB is a Neocon.
Thanks again, and look forward to more.