Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘pre-emptive wars were meant to enforce democracy

Is Democracy a panacea for every social ills and for change? (December 9, 2008)

 Bush Junior and his Administration claimed vociferously that all their pre-emptive wars were meant to enforce democracy in world political systems.

Democracy was understood as a social method of governance to permit the citizens selecting representatives to the legislative body; this is a huge step forward since enacting laws confer power to the State to regulate life and think up ways to maintain order.

Many political orders do not require democratic elections to reaching the same objective of accumulating power and regulating lives.  When democracy is extended to selecting representatives to the executive and legal institutions, regulated chaos is consequently officially admitted.

How could you hire people to run your future and economic stability if the voting electorates are not versed or interested in the multitude of problems that do not concern their immediate and restricted wants and desires? How could we have separation of the branches of the legislative, executive, legal, and control institutions if they emanate from the same voting electorates?

Let us take cases of a few social institutions.  Suppose that you have a political party with strict structure, tight dogma and hierarchy, and coupled with symbolism, sort of Church-like ideology for homogenizing the people: How could democracy be capable of venting stagnation in this civil caste and transforming it into a reflective body of individuals?

Isn’t democracy then meant to psychologically satisfy the members of the caste, a reminder that they are still considered valuable entities, but not necessarily eligible to think freely outside the premises and restrictive laws of the caste?

How many political parties, regardless of their principles (socialism, communism, capitalism, racism and so on), that satisfy the criteria of caste system, have managed to elect a representative body who was not tightly linked to historical lineage of accumulated myths and aberrations?

Even the political parties in the developed States, with loose conditions to registering and no ex-communication orders for the members who jumps ranks to other parties, election results favor historical lineage.  The rare times, when the voters select an “outsider” to the recognized class of preferred representatives, are periods of utter disgust of performances or unusual catastrophes.

The voters are fundamentally aided by rich oligarchy to smoke screen the basic failure of the system:  The voters and oligarchic class select an “outsider” because they need a scapegoat to their frustrations and not because they do not like the known figures.

President Obama must have realized that fact: he is enlarging his popular base to include the factions that voted for the other candidates by including them in his administration team.  No, it is not because of the alternative candidates’ expertise or experiences that Obama selected them, but because they are still liked by many voters, who might be feeling sorry for their rash, uncalled for decisions of the moment.

The power of the US system is not in its brand of democracy, which is terribly flawed, but because the magnitude of loss in dignity, well-being, arrogance, and illusory dreams is too irritating for the common people to voting for the same class of representatives, even within the same party.  The US could have had any alternative democratic model and the result would not have changed this time around.

The alternative variations on the democratic methods are not fundamentally that serious: any democratic system is as good as any other.  What count is the level of education of the voters (in politics, economy, finance, geopolitics, and internal affairs).   What counts is the free-minded level of the voters, especially the lower middle class representing 50% of the population, as a society and as philosophical tendencies that encourage individual reflections.

What counts are climate of free opinions that are not punished once expressed, open discussions, and open communication among the groups and associations.  What count is to instituting independent governing bodies for check and balance among the powers of the legislative, executive, legal, and control branches. Then, and only then, do alternative models of democracy become viable to match the demand of the people, for more control over their destiny.

Note: After the Arab/Islamic mass upheavals, we are witnessing successions of Islamist parties, elected “democratically”  Does any sane person believe that once elected democratically, any Islamist political party will ever lose another election?  What democracy will change if the elected representatives carry the heavy burden of myths and religious biases toward the minorities?




October 2021

Blog Stats

  • 1,482,345 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 812 other followers

%d bloggers like this: