Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama

Covert Drone War: Obama Worries Future Presidents will Wage this kind of Perpetual wars.

President Obama warns in a new interview of a future in which a U.S. president could engage in perpetual covert wars “all over the world.”

But he claims that the accountability and transparency measures he is instituting will make that less likely. (As if when the warriors want to go to war will be unable to circumvent any measures)

In the interview, with New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait, Obama expressed agreement with one of the most salient critiques of his drone war, that it risks creating “institutional comfort and inertia with what looks like a pretty antiseptic way of disposing of enemies.”

Obama explained that he had looked at “the way in which the number of drone strikes was going up and the routineness with which, early in my presidency, you were seeing both DOD and CIA and our intelligence teams think about this.”

Andrew Bossone shared this link

Eisenhower 2.0? Promotes war then warns of its consequences after you leave.

He continued: “And it troubled me, because I think you could see, over the horizon, a situation in which, without Congress showing much interest in restraining actions with authorizations that were written really broadly, you end up with a president who can carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate.”

[See update below, in which the White House press secretary says Obama was actually talking about how he felt before he instituted his reforms.]

The president expressed a sense of urgency to rein in these powers that seems particularly appropriate given that both candidates for the White House have indicated receptiveness to intensifying the use of military force abroad, with Donald Trump going so far as expressing openness to killing the families of suspected terrorists.

“By the time I leave here, the American people are going to have a better sense of what their president is doing,” Obama said.

“Their president is going to have to be more accountable than he or she otherwise would have been. The world, I think, will have a better sense of what we’re trying to do and what we stand for. And I think all of that will serve the American people well in the future.”

But the one existing transparency measure Obama touts as an example in the interview — the administration’s release of its tally on civilian casualties from drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia — was viewed by many in the human rights community as a farce, largely because it pointed to a death toll far lower than outside observer tallies.

The release, made public on the Friday afternoon of Fourth of July weekend, reported that between 64 and 116 civilians were killed during Obama’s two terms.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, by comparison, has estimated that between 492 and 1,077 civilians have been killed by drone strikes during the eight years of Obama’s presidency.

And critical questions about those operations remain unanswered, such as the circumstances that led to the death of Momina Bibi, a 68-year-old Pakistani grandmother killed in an October 2012 airstrike;

or the reason for the attack that took the life of Salim bin Ahmed Ali Jaber, an anti-al Qaeda imam in Yemen a month earlier;

or the full story of how American forces came to target a wedding convoy, also in Yemen, a year later, killing 12 people.

Those questions remain unanswered, in part because when the administration released the civilian casualty report, it did so without detailing a single specific incident in which the deaths of civilians were confirmed — thus foreclosing any possibility for follow up or public accountability for those operations.

(See The Intercept’s series The Drone Papers describing the secret military documents that exposed the inner workings of Obama’s drone wars.)

What’s more, the alarming changes that Obama describes as over the horizon are already here.

“What’s so interesting is that President Obama acknowledges this problem — that future presidents will be empowered to kill globally, and in secret.

What Obama doesn’t acknowledge is how much of a role his administration had in making that a bizarre normal,” Naureen Shah, director of national security and human rights at Amnesty International, told The Intercept.

“There is something so strange about the person who many would say is very responsible for this situation actually acknowledging it and saying he tried to plan for it,” Shah added.

“What we’ll be left with from the Obama administration is a far more dangerous precedent of secret, global killings than what we started with.”

From the very beginning of his presidency, Obama tightly embraced legal arguments, including the “state secrets privilege,” to deflect inquiries into the government’s use of lethal force in foreign countries;

he fought vigorously for years to keep his rationale for assassinating an American citizen secret;

he never explained how the U.S. came to kill that same American citizen’s 16-year-old son; and he has never once forced his premier intelligence agency to publicly answer for the deaths of non-Western civilians — of which there have been many — during an eight-year covert bombing campaign.

In the New York magazine interview, Obama gave human rights groups and “the left” credit for pushing him on issues of transparency in targeted killing — but at the same time indicated they had little impact on his own decisions.

“I’m glad the left pushes me on this,” Obama said. “I’ve said to my staff and I’ve said to my joint chiefs, I’ve said in the Situation Room: I don’t ever want to get to the point where we’re that comfortable with killing. It’s not why I wanted to be president, to kill people.”

(What he intended and wanted, do Not match his desires to feel comfortable with the war institutions)ri

“Do I think that the critiques are fair or fully informed?” the president went on to say. “Not always. Sometimes they are. Much of the time they’re not.

To give you the most basic example: People, I think, don’t always recognize the degree to which the civilian-casualty rate, or the rate at which innocents are killed, in these precision strikes is significantly lower than what happens in a conventional war.”

While the Obama administration characterizes drones as a surgically precise weapon, the facts don’t always support that conclusion.

In 2013, for example, research by Larry Lewis, a former research scientist at the Center for Naval Analysis, found that drone strikes in Afghanistan were 10 times more likely to kill civilians than piloted airstrikes.

Obama’s critique of Congress — that it doesn’t seem to care enough to rein in the drone program — is both on point and ironic, coming from him.

Far from encouraging Congress to weigh in, the Obama administration has actively fought Congress’s attempts to even get basic information about drone strikes.

The White House, for instance, refused to show the legal memos authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki to Congress until 2014, when Obama nominated the memos’ author to become a federal judge, and a group of senators threatened to hold up the confirmation until they could read the memos.

Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union said he was not impressed by Obama’s own sense of restraint. “The president has left behind very broad claims of executive authority to order lethal strikes away from traditional battlefields. Even if he’s instituted some processes, and some minor levels of transparency — such as aggregate levels of casualties — it is still a very broad power with almost no meaningful checks on it.”

Update: 6:15 p.m. ET
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Monday told reporters that Obama’s comments about a future president potentially waging perpetual wars actually referred to a state of affairs in the past, which he has since averted.

“He was talking about the situation he inherited,” Earnest said. “In the early days of the administration, he was considering the tools that had been made available to him, and considering the way in which they were being used, and he was considering how, over the horizon, was a scenario in which there would not be sufficient transparency in place to contain this extraordinary authority that, based on new technology, could be wielded by the president of the United States.”

Earnest insisted that “what the president and his team have steadily worked to do is to try to impose greater transparency and to impose constraints that would address those concerns that the president had from his earliest days in office.”

But rather than wind down a Bush-era program, Obama dramatically escalated the pace of drone warfare, conducting nearly nine times the number of strikes as his predecessor. (More drones and performing drones were made and needed testing in the battlefield?)

Obama’s moves toward increased transparency and accountability are, as mentioned above, limited. And Congress has neither conducted oversight nor passed legislation that would restrain a future president.

And as Obama himself said in the interview, he has not arrived at “a perfect solution.”

He told New York magazine that the country still needs to find a balance between “not elevating every terrorist attack into a full-blown war” and “pretending as if we can just take shots wherever we want, whenever we want, and not be answerable to anybody.

What I’ve tried to do is to move the needle in the right direction, to set some trends in the right direction. But there’s gonna be a lot more work to do.”

Backed by the U.S: Five human rights abusers you never heard of

Lands of the free?

You’ve probably never heard of Hissene Habre, but you should have.

Former Chadian dictator (Hussein) Hissene Habre gesturing as he leaves a Dakar courthouse after a hearing on June 3.

An official truth commission report in 1992 accused his regime of committing some 40,000 political murders — although only 4,000 victims were officially named.  (Sey Llousey/AFP/Getty Images)

Andrew Bossone shared this link
The U.S. government continues to court some of the world’s most corrupt and brutal autocrats.|By Sudarsan Raghavan

Your taxes helped fund his brutal regime in Chad in the 1980s for 8 years.

The former dictator was one of Washington’s many “men” in sub-Saharan Africa. Backed by American dollars, they brutalized their own people in the name of fighting communism or terrorism. They were feted by American presidents and invited to state dinners in Washington, even as they jailed and tortured anyone they deemed a threat to their way of life.

In Habre, the United States and its close ally France saw a way to counter Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

Brought to power by covert CIA support under the Reagan administration, Habre’s security forces were trained by key American allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. Habre used them generously and lethally:

His secret police are accused of killing some 40,000 people in political prisons between 1982 and 1990, according to findings by a Chadian truth commission. An additional 200,000 had been unjustly imprisoned and tortured.

Now, Habre is finally being held accountable.

His trial for allegedly perpetrating crimes against humanity and war crimes began this week in the Senegalese capital, Dakar, where Habre, 72, has lived in exile, peacefully, for the past quarter century.

A special court, formed especially to prosecute him, will serve as a test of whether African nations, who have a long history of dictators among them, have the power and the will to punish one of its own members.

On Monday, Habre was hauled into court by masked guards as he shouted in protest and tried to resist being seated inside the court.

Justice could soon be served for all the relatives of Habre’s victims. But the support of vicious human rights abusers remains an integral part of U.S. foreign policy.

Here are five of the most egregious U.S.-backed violators operating today that Americans have never heard of.

Islam Karimov — president of Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov attends an informal Commonwealth of Independent States leaders summit on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 8. (Host Photo Agency/RIA Novosti via Reuters)

Former Communist party leader Karimov has ruled Uzbekistan with an iron first since it won independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

He has brutally quashed all political opposition and jailed dissidents and journalists.

Human rights activists speak of forced child labor and systematic oppression of anyone who poses a threat to the regime.

The most infamous abuse occurred in 2005,  when Karimov’s security forces fired into a crowd of demonstrators in the city of Andijan, killing hundreds, according to activists.

Now, the Obama administration is courting Karimov, seeing Uzbekistan as vital to U.S. goals in Afghanistan, as well as to fend off the growing presence of the Islamic State in Central Asia.

This year,  the United States gave about 300 armored vehicles to Karimov’s military, the largest donation of military hardware from the U.S. to a former Soviet Central Asian country.

2.  Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa — king of Bahrain

Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa waves to reporters after a meeting with French President François Hollande at the Elysee Palace in Paris on Sept. 8. (Christophe Ena/AP)

The minority Sunni Muslim monarchy, led by Khalifa, cracked down heavily on largely Shiite protesters during 2011 Arab Spring revolutions with the help of soldiers from neighboring Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

More than 30 were killed, mostly at the hands of Bahraini security forces, and hundreds more were wounded, according to human rights groups. Hundreds more were arrested and scores faced trials before a military court.

Washington has significant geopolitical interests in Bahrain.

Key U.S. ally Saudi Arabia backs Bahrain, and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain.

So it comes as no surprise that the U.S., after initially criticizing the monarchy for the crackdown, has resumed military aid to a nation that the watchdog group Freedom House describes as “Not free.”

“The Obama administration’s decision to lift the hold on military assistance to Bahrain cannot be attributed to improvements in political rights or civil liberties in Bahrain because no such improvements exist,” Mark P. Lagon, president of Freedom House, said this summer in a statement. “Thousands of Bahrainis remain imprisoned  for voicing opposition to the government, and reports of torture are widespread. If anything, punishment and discrimination for ordinary Bahrainis is deepening. As a result of its latest decision, the United States has stepped away from trying to improve respect there for fundamental human rights.”

3. Emomali Rahmon — president of Tajikistan

Tajikistan President Emomali Rahmon attends a meeting  at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing on Sept. 2.  (Lintao Zhang/Pool photo via Reuters)

Under Rahmon, Tajikistan’s human rights abuses have grown. He has cracked down hard on political opponents as well as independent media.

His security forces routinely use torture to obtain confessions, according to Human Rights Watch.

They have also targeted lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, and cracked down on religious freedoms. Freedom House describes the country as “Not free.”

Last month, the group said that a banning of an opposition  by Rahmon’s government confirms that the country is now a “dictatorship.”

Rahmon, in a 2010 U.S. diplomatic cable leaked by WikiLeaks, was described, along with his family, as playing “hardball to protect their business interests, no matter the cost to the economy writ large.”

It described a culture of “cronyism and corruption” plaguing the country. The United States, though, considers Rahman as vital to American interests in Afghanistan  and preventing Islamic militancy and opium smuggling from spreading into Central Asia.

In late August, Gen. Lloyd Austin III, head of U.S. Central Command, visited Rahmon in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, to discuss bilateral cooperation in counterterrorism and to fight the drug trade.

 Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov — president of Turkmenistan

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, right, and Turkmenistan President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, hold a meeting in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Aug. 27. Berdymukhamedov was on an official visit to Kabul to discuss issues of mutual interest with Afghan leadership. (Jawad Jalali/Pool photo via AP)

Berdymukhamedov, who came to power in 2006, presides over one of the world’s most repressive nations.

Virtually every basic right — from freedom of expression to media to religion — is denied.

Berdymukhamedov and his relatives control all aspects of public life.

According to Human Rights Watch, relatives of people jailed during  waves of mass arrests in the late 1990s and early 2000s still do not have any information about their fates.

Berdymukhamedov, though, has allowed U.S. military aircraft en route to Afghanistan to fly through his country’s air space.

Also attractive to U.S. interests in the region is Turkmenistan’s vast gas reserves — the largest in Central Asia. He has discussed strengthening energy relationships with then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Washington views Turkmenistan as a vital piece of its goal to bolster Afghanistan’s economy by creating a new “Silk Road” — investment projects and regional trade blocs that would bring economic growth and stability to Central Asia.

Chief among the projects is a long-proposed gas pipeline that would flow from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India via Afghanistan.

This year, Freedom House named Turkmenistan one of its 10 “worst of the worst” nations in terms of democracy, human rights and other basic freedoms.

The list includes North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Central African Republic — and Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo — president of Equatorial Guinea

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, president of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, and wife Constancia Mangue De Obiang arrive for a dinner hosted by President  Obama for the U.S. Africa Leaders Summit on Aug. 5, 2014.  (Susan Walsh/AP)

He is Africa’s longest-reigning autocrat, in power since 1979. Oil-rich Equatorial Guinea is one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Obiang and his family own luxury properties around the world, drive expensive cars  and fly in a private jet, as the vast majority of his people live in dire poverty, and one fifth of children die before  age 5.

There is virtually no freedom of the press, no political opposition. Allegations of torture of political prisoners abound.

Washington has long sought to keep strong ties with Obiang because of Equatorial Guinea’s oil reserves, seen as a way to lessen dependence on Middle East crude. U.S. oil companies are one of Equatorial Guinea’s largest investors, playing a lead role in oil and gas exploration and extraction.

Last year, during the U.S.-Africa leaders summit, President Obama posed for a photo with Obiang and his wife, who were his guests at a White House dinner.

The magazine Mother Jones at the time labeled Obiang one of Obama’s “5 most atrocious dinner guests.”

Apache, Tomahawk… Any common relation to  Usama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky wrote an article on his opinion for the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  I adopted the article and did a few editing and offered further opinions. Thus, Chomsky’s original article was rewritten, altered in many parts, and opinions added to coincide to my style and views. You may read the original version on

The operation for the assassination of Osama bin Laden was a planned months ago, demonstrating that the intelligence services of Pakistan, the US, and a few other nations knew the location of the symbolic Al Qaeda leader.  It appears that the US decided not to give Pakistan prior notice of the operation on its soil, though President Obama acknowledged the cooperation of Pakistan authority in his speech.  The US never desisted to multiply violating elementary norms of international law, even after the election of Barak Obama.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.”

In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot (blowing the Twin Towers) was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany.

What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus, President Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. Bin Laden boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination.

Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, Bush’s Jr. crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime , differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal), for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghanistan civilian deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There’s more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the “Bush doctrine” that societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling for invasion and destruction of the U.S. and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk, Geronimo… (the original enemies of the USA, the original Indian tribes).

Would the US have appreciated that Germany fighter bombers, missiles, and operations…the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew”, King George, Roosevelt, and “Gypsy?”

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.

Note: You may read my post:

Who was assassinated 500 yards from a Pakistani military base? Is he Osama bin Laden or Al Liby?

You may think this article a fiction of the imagination, and it is.  It might turn out not to be such a fiction story.

I thought Osama bin Laden was dead, long time ago.  Any sane person knew that Al Qaeda was finished long time ago. Osama was killed by the Afghan forces as they ousted the Taliban regime in 2002.  The Tora Bora and subsequent war stories of chasing after the illusive Bin Laden is the real fiction.  The US needed the image of Bin Laden alive to resuming its preemptive strategy on Iraq, and staying in Afghanistan.

Osama’s second in command, the Egyptian Al Zawahiri was badly injured in 2008 by a missile.  They both sent videos to Al Jazeera, giving the impression that they are alive and kicking.  With the new audio-visual technology, almost everything can give the impression of reality.

I wanted to believe that the assassinated man was Osama, simply because Obama said so.  You don’t want to believe that the most powerful President might take the chance of lying through his teeth.  Someone important was assassinated, 500 meters from a Pakistani army base.  Was he Osama bin Laden?  There are no proofs, and the picture of the dead person is not convincing.   Who is this assassinated member of Al Qaeda?

That the body was dumped in the ocean is evidence enough that the scheme is characteristic of US Hollywood style of smoke-screening the planet with falsehood.  It is not proof of Bin Laden being “eliminated” that many governments expressed relief. The body could have been shown to independent parties for DNA testing and then sent overboard scuba diving.  It is funny to think that the task force was carrying sophisticated equipment to test DNA samples of killed people: “Hello Mr. President. The DNA sample matches 100%. Shall we carry on the dumping expedition of the body?”

president Obama also proclaimed that all the soldiers returned safe to base.  It was not true: US soldiers died in that assassination operation that Obama gave the green light on Friday.  A US attack helicopter was downed, and not mechanically as reported.  Why this team had to take the trouble of loading a dead body and dump it in the ocean, instead to letting it burn and disintegrate in the ashes of the helicopter that was destroyed?

You have people claiming that Al Qaeda existed because bin Laden argued that the regimes of the Arab world were dictatorial and oppressive. That Osama argued that the United States was supporting those regimes and, as a result, Muslims had to engage in terrorism against the United States and those regimes. That Osama claimed that the only way to achieve change was through violence, terrorism and Islamic extremism.

I don’t know; did anyone believe that Bin Laden had not figured out alternative dictatorial or oppressive regime of his style?  Like instituting the Caliphate of the old Arab Empire period?  Many want to believe that the Arab Awakening has already crippled the basic rationale of al Qaeda.   I thought that Al Qaeda was already dead, long time ago.  Even the Lebanese army defeated Al Qaeda in the Palestinian camp of Nahr al Bared.

Al Qaeda has been dead for many years now. It is the symbol Osama bin Laden that the US wanted to keep alive until all the US soldiers withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq. Bin Laden was a scarecrow tactic for the US strategy of preemptive wars.

So, who was assassinated, without carrying any weapon, five hundred meters from the Pakistani military base?  Could he be the other important Al Qaeda Libyan commander Al Liby?  Al Liby was the one focusing his struggle to defeating Qadhafi, his arch nemesis.  The US and the European leaders were not about to executing Qadhafi prior to insuring that Al Liby is done with:  The flow of oil demanded that Libya does not turn to another Afghanistan with its vast territory.

Al Liby was disposed of.  Next in line was Qadhafi who somehow survived the missile attack on a house, killing this youngest son Saif Al Arab and a few grandsons.

Qadhafi, if not already dying, must be dying of terror. The road is clear for the Libyan “revolutionaries” to taking over a 40-year old regime.

Very soon, President Obama will go on the air proclaiming the death of Al Liby.  The pictures of the supposed Bin Laden will show Al Liby.  Obviously, Al Liby will go scuba diving too:  Libyans cannot afford to have Al Liby buried in Libya and the grave enshrined for the worshipers, like the one done to Saddam Hussein in Takrit.

It might not be a science fiction after all

Note 1: The assassinated man was crippled and was shot in his bed. No wonder President Obama is feeling shame to displaying the whatever video he has in his possession.  The CIA will need time to tamper with the video to make it presentable to the public.

Note 2:  The Pakistani and US authorities knew for long time who was living in the enclosed compound.  The US decided for a great show right now, for particular internal interests.

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?




March 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,518,924 hits

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

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: