0
   

Spreading Democracy

 
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 04:08 pm
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 04:24 pm
Exporting 'Democracy' - Importing Trouble

"The cost of George W. Bush's global democratization project - $300 billion so far, and slated to surpass the $1 trillion mark before it's over - is so out of proportion to its possible benefits that it is hard to see how it could be justified on any terms. One is hard pressed to imagine how anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative could possibly endorse it

The central paradox of the democracy-exportation scheme is that as we ramp up attempts to spread our system to the far corners of the globe, we subvert the foundations of the constitutional order right here on the home front. War, as Randolph Bourne memorably put it, is the health of the state. The growth of state power always and inevitably makes a "great leap forward" as we prepare for the conflict. A state of perpetual war - in a struggle that will take, as the president avers, a full generation - means the exponential growth of government beyond anything we have experienced. We aren't just talking about "Big Government," as the conservatives like to term it: we are talking about humongous government. It's no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that this supposedly "conservative" regime is claiming the power to read our e-mails and listen in on our phone conversations, and sees the president as having powers equivalent to a king. The absurdity of expanding state power in America while purporting to shrink it in, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, should be obvious - except, of course, to those who today call themselves "conservatives," and are anything but.

There is another sense in which the paradox of American power works against the ambitions of "democratic" imperialism. A military campaign to impose democracy at gunpoint would undermine the very democratic forces we claim to support. By tying these forces to U.S. foreign policy and making them, in effect, elements of a "Democratic International" under Washington's leadership, we provoke a nationalist response and marginalize the proponents of liberalism


The inherent problems of a campaign to export democracy, either at gunpoint or by any other governmental means, are manifold, and yet one that has only recently begun to be discussed is particularly relevant to our present situation. If we look at what U.S. policy has actually wrought, rather than the abstract pronouncements of intent, we can see that "democracy" of any recognizable sort - recognizable, that is, to Americans - has absolutely nothing to do with our foreign policy. In Iraq, we have installed a Shi'ite theocracy that lionizes the late Ayatollah Khomeini and looks to Iran as a model for the region. Throughout the Gulf emirates, we have allied ourselves with tyrants, and in North Africa, too, we are backing the killers - in Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Pakistan. So what game are we playing? What's the objective behind the "democratic" rhetoric, which only a fool, an opportunist on the make - or a very desperate man - would take at face value?
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8830
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2007 05:55 pm
Obviously you can't "promote democracy" while helping put in power a global system of authoritarian governments like Marcos's, Mobutu's, Suharto's, the Arab sheiks', and numerous military governments in Latin America (among others). Here again is where you need the claim of "mistakes" and an alleged mistaken focus on superficialities to cover over the fact of a systematic and basic policy hostile to democracy.
In fact, the mainstream media have long served the "national interest" in the numerous awkward cases where their government has backed military and terror regimes by simply taking at face value official expressions of concern over client state violence, and accepting phony demonstration elections as "encouraging," while ignoring their country's persistent and undeviating support for the institutional arrangements and governments that yield the terror. This structure of apologetics was conspicuously evident in the media's reporting and editorializing on El Salvador throughout the 1980s.
A good case can be made, based on solid historical evidence, that more often than not the United States has been "exporting autocracy" in its own backyard and elsewhere over the past century. But the autocracies and limited democracies that it has supported have all shared a common characteristic in their ability to provide an "open door" to U.S. business and to fend off the threats of socialism and populism.

We can reasonably conclude, therefore, that what the United States is exporting is a favorable climate of investment, not democracy, and certainly not a substantive democracy, which would, in fact, threaten the investment climate.
http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political11.htm
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2007 02:42 pm
Every country is controlled by an elite whose interests usually are not merely different but often inimical to the general public of the country. Support from the public is imperative if the elite's interests are to be pursued and satisfied. While those interests are constantly at variance with those of the public, they must never allow the public to wise up and gain the upper hand by revolting against their betters. Therefore, influence is exerted primarily on government -- those millions in campaign contributions can do wonders; but also on the media -- the barons of the mass media are high-powered members of the elite; and on educational institutions -- whose myths extolling national achievements and triumphs will instill loyalty in the masses.

The real motivations of the elite cannot be disclosed to the public, heaven forbid, so a scenario is concocted that when implemented will permit those interests to be pursued while gaining acceptance of a naive public. The government will spin that yarn; the media will publicize and extol it as will the educational establishment.

So intent is the elite on promoting their interests that they will sacrifice without a second's thought millions in casualties from a designated enemy and from the home forces as well. The only thing to snarl their plans are fears that the suckers doing their dirty work will see through the propaganda and overthrow them. And so, they are concerned that the public is and remains patriotic. While they wave the flag, proclaim the glories of chauvinism, and talk of their public-spiritedness they will clandestinely deal with the enemy if it means profits. During the good war, WWII, secretly of course, such eminent individuals as Henry Ford, Andrew Mellon, and John and Allen Dulles were Nazi sympathizers, and blue-chip companies like Ford, General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil, International Telephone, IBM, Alcoa, the Chase Bank, and JP Morgan, were profitably supplying Adolf Hitler's Reich with their products and services. Well why not -- as Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman insists, the purpose of a corporation is to amass profits for the stockholders; it has no social responsibility.

The elite are continually at work screwing the public so on any day of the week there is evidence, if one takes the time and effort to search, of how efficiently they operate. But, most importantly, ignore the rhetoric, the bullshit story, meant to befool the gullible public who usually buys it. Concentrate on their actions over time and observe how they make a killing at the public's expense.

Current US conditions are suitable for analysis. The actions of the Bush administration and their co-opted government allies have done a magnificent job for their elite masters. Dubya's beneficence has rewarded them handsomely. Investments in campaign contributions returned dividends far in excess of what any other investment would bring. In each instance where any elite interest was served, some cock-and-bull story accompanied the scam. And guess who was being milked for those payoffs?

The super deluxe con of all, the swindle that has been a goldmine, a bonanza, a golden goose, and an El Dorado all rolled up together is the "War on Terrorism" properly renamed "The Long War." It's intended to be an everlasting gravy train! The 9/11 terrorist attacks materialized into that "new Pearl Harbor" that the neocons deemed necessary to expedite their goals. Wasn't that unexpected event, looked at from their warped perspective, most fortunate? And was it really unexpected?

Wasn't the attack really a crime? Wasn't the earlier attack on the World Trade Center treated and resolved as such? Treating it as an act of war rather than as a crime eliminated some anticipated problems and opened the door for innovation.

Pending agendas that could not be handled previously could now be taken up. Well before 9/11, regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq were on that agenda.

The Union Oil Company, hoping since 1995 to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, treated the government there, the Taliban, royally. But the generous offer the company eventually made to them was not good enough. Those Taliban bums had to go. 9/11 provided an ideal scenario for ousting them. They were the protectors of the terrorists Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Although the Taliban offered to surrender Bin Laden their offer was not accepted. War was what was wanted; war ensued; and a former Unocal employee, Hamid Karzai, became the president of Afghanistan. Because security in the country remains a problem the pipeline remains a pipe dream.

Since Gulf War I the U.S. had been hoping to depose Saddam Hussein with a pro-American strongman who would comply with its dictates, but all CIA attempts to effect a coup were unsuccessful. A war was needed. So with enough baloney fed to the UN, the Congress, the public -- although most of the peoples throughout the world did not buy it -- a pre-emptive war did the trick. But as the situation kept deteriorating and the promised cakewalk turned into a quagmire, the propaganda lies that justified the war were revealed.

Democracy, that old standby, then became the key to resolve the turmoil in the Middle East and frustrate the terrorists. Wasn't that nice? How many boobs actually believed it? Well, Uncle Sam asked for it, encouraged it, pushed elections, attempted to fix them as it did so successfully in the past. The electorate's overwhelming response was so great for the "wrong" candidates that Sam's vote tampering could not alter the popular choices.

"Democracy, democracy, democracy" repeated over and over again in various contexts is the rhetoric. True democracy is not what is wanted. The U.S. wants a nice compliant regime that will accede to its demands and can effectively control its people. Any such government, irrespective of how it accomplishes it, will be proclaimed a democracy and designated a strong and loyal ally of the U.S. That is what Afghanistan and Iraq were intended to become. As long as the U.S. remains in those countries and continues its military campaign that goal will be pursued.

Historically, that is how the imperialist U.S. has acted. Nationalist leaders who had the loyal support of their people, were acclaimed far and wide, and willing to peaceably and fairly deal with all foreign governments would eliminated by the U.S. if they were independent of ALL foreign influence. The US rogues gallery included such popular leaders as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Sukarno, Nasser, Lumumba, and Allende. Its democratic leader list included the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Marcos, and Pinochet -- who were subsequently routed by their own people's uprisings -- and were never referred to again with the democratic label.

Analyzing actions rather than rhetoric applies to all governments. The recent election in Palestine put Hamas in the driver's seat to the consternation of the Israelis, who refuse to deal with that terrorist organization -- an organization they supported to weaken a more formidable opponent, Yasser Arafat and his PLO.

When Arafat eventually weakened, accepted the rhetoric of peace, and controlled the Occupied Territories while the Israelis, in violation of that supposed peace, expanded the settlements, the former terrorist was lauded. But he reverted to a scoundrel when he could no longer control his people. The claim that there is no one to make peace with will persist as long as there are Palestinians in areas the Israelis covet who will not abide by the onerous conditions imposed on them. Terrorists, shmerrorists, it's all part of the rhetoric bullshit. Nobel Prize-winner Menachem Begin was a terrorist who became a prime minister of Israel, and so was Yitzhak Shamir. Throughout the world there are popular and democratically-elected leaders who are designated terrorists by imperialists frustrated by the independence of those leaders.

Don't sell those democratically-elected terrorists short. The big bully has been weakened considerably by his ill-fated war and he may be compelled to accept the continued presence of leaders who are now telling him off and emphatically saying "NO" to his demands
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/pgreen84.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 04:46 pm
That word "democracy" does not appear in the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land. As a matter of fact the architects of that document feared democracy and in designing the Constitution they did their best to keep it at bay. Whatever elements of democracy were added to the Constitution or were enacted into law were forced upon the government by the demands and protests of, by and for the people.

Unfortunately even when laws favored by the people are enacted, those laws are not adhered to by the people's representatives. The police, the military, the courts will clandestinely violate laws whenever they feel it's necessary.

Laws or no laws, the wishes of the country's real rulers will be accommodated by the government.

Who are the real rulers? The men and institutions (mega-corporations) of wealth. Their allies in government and the media are amply rewarded for exerting influence to achieve their objectives.

Over and over throughout the history of the U.S. the rights of the people have been trampled in violation of the Bill of Rights itself. The executive branch, without authority, commits gross violations; the legislature sits by passively and/or ratifies those illegal actions; and the Supreme Court proclaims that it is all constitutional -- even when a simple reading of the relevant laws show how obviously wrong they all are.

Fixing the system is not the answer. Micro changes over the years have not brought about democracy. If democracy is what is wanted the entire system must be junked.

Until such time more pertinent descriptive terms, based upon context, should displace the misnamed "democracy." The created or existing replacement would consist of a prefix -- a designated ruling group or condition -- combined with the suffix -ocracy.

In many instances aristocracy, plutocracy, corpocracy and even greedocracy will fill the bill.

Theocracy captures the increasing influence of the religious right.

What word would describe a government that responds to the covert demands of its contributors? Pornocracy! According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, it's a "government by prostitutes."

The kidnapped Africans who created so much wealth for their masters and the country lived in a slavocracy.

From the earliest days of the republic until the end of the nineteenth century, Manifest Destiny destroyed the civilization of the indigenous population. The proper term for the government during those years should be genocidocracy.

Shortly thereafter the U.S. stretched beyond its borders. It learned that the Filipinos had the ridiculous notion that they could govern themselves. The US military convinced them by means of a stratocracy -- government by the military -- that they were not yet capable of such a complex task. The Iraqis are learning a similar lesson today.

Over the years, the people in several countries where America had interests legitimately chose their rulers and government. The election of one of them, Salvador Allende of Chile, prompted Henry Kissinger to express the attitude of American leaders when he stated: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people."

Wherever the U.S. went by hook or crook it installed new rulers. US presidents loved those rulers; extolled their virtues; and claimed they had brought democracy to their countries Their names are well known. Among the list are the Shah of Iran, Somoza, Suharto, Papa and Baby Doc, Batista, and Pinochet. In spite of their repressive regimes and the generous support they received from the U.S. they were ousted by popular uprisings of their people. But during their heyday they were well rewarded for complying with US demands. Each of those governments were puppetocracies.

The Bush administration has been able to bamboozle the public into accepting so many dubious activities by lying, lying, lying, and then lying some more. What else but "hyprocracy" could convey the proper meaning?

It is apparent that there are ample terms to specify in a somewhat limited scope the rulers of various forms of government. However, the word I was most anxious to create had me stymied initially.

Then I recalled how H. L. Mencken masterfully created a most descriptive term by changing a couple of syllables in one word and, voila, one class of individuals became a new and different class. Bourgeoisie became booboisie.

By similar magic we could change democracy to dumbocracy to describe those poor souls who actually believe the U.S. is a government of, by and for the people...


Oh, no. You don't expect someone to read the entire essay and come to a conclusion with a weasel word like dumbocracy -- a stupid word, a dumb word -- do you? How can Swans attract and hold readers with drivel like that?

Hmmm . . . Ocracy, shmocracy. The idea is not too bad. But you should have goosed it up more. Bushocracy -- a government that robs benefits from the poor to subsidize the rich. Neoconocracy -- a resurrection of the Third Reich; a government of lies determined to conquer and enslave those deemed inferior. A collapsocracy or blowbackocracy -- the chaos that will ensue when the war against the terrorists is lost.

You could have created some clever riddles with your ocracies. What is a viagrocracy? A government of played out old geezers who have high hopes!

Why don't we have readers send in their ideas of the best ocracy to replace democracy. The best will appear in the letters section of an upcoming issue.

· · · · · ·
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/pgreen58.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 04:38 am
Musharraf shuts down two of Pakistan's biggest private television news channels
Excerpt: The way the transmission of GEO-TV and ARY TV were stopped last night has exposed the ugly face under the cover of which the government wants to snatch people's freedoms. We understand that it is not only a measure against freedom of the press but equivalent to economic murder of certain people.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/19/crackdown_on_the_press_general_musharraf




Last night in an interview with ABC News, President Bush "offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf," nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule. Bush said that Musharraf hasn't yet "crossed the line" and insisted Musharraf has "advanced democracy in Pakistan."


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/21/bush-musharraf-has-not-crossed-the-line/
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 05:14 am
Can we really brag that we are a model of exportable democracy:
*when 1% give more money to candidates than the other 99% -- and have a bigger say,
*when Brazil has an 80% voter turnout and nearly all vote online - while we hit 35% in congressional elections, miscount butterfly ballots and deny hundreds of thousands of black voters their franchise after they've paid their debt to society for crimes,
*when legislatures draw lines that enable 99% of incumbents to win their "elections";
*when tens of thousands of the working poor can no longer afford to go bankrupt or get access to justice;
*when there are 66 lobbyists per member in Washington DC - which helps explain a drug bill that enriches drug companies more than it helps seniors and an energy bill that contains more corporate subsidies than ways to decrease our reliance on foreign oil;

*and when a government lies us into a war that drains us of lives, funds and allies for a real war on terrorism.

You know, if that Korean scientist who DIDN'T clone a live person had to confess to his fabrications and is now shunned - why is Cheney still vice president?

America has always been a brain with two parts -- a left sphere where the voice of democracy is located and a right sphere where the commerce of capitalism is located. Both were needed in a complex balance for our great experiment to prosper. But recently, the right sphere has been subsuming the left, as companies buy not just other companies but congressmen themselves - and the values of the market come to dominate not just the private sector but the public sector as well. Think Tom Paine vs. Robinson Crusoe - we're all in this together vs. we're all in this alone.

But democracy means literally rule by the people - and is grounded in the values of participation, transparency and accountability. It means that decisions are made from the bottom up. But that is exactly what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and James Dobson and Ken Lay and Jack Abramoff dont believe in.

So where's the media as our democracy is in a long, slow descent? The disappearance of poor Natalie Hallway and the decline of poor Terry Schiavo each got perhaps 100 times the attention of our disappearing and declining democracy.

But the goods news is that, just as its darkest just before the dawn, there are now thousands of activists, advocates and authors who won't let the new autocrats and plutocrats posing as populists steal our democracy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-green/saving-our-democracy_b_14274.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 05:34 am
The US government does not deny this, showing self-satisfaction. But knowledgeable people point out, there are three deadly weak points for the "democratic offensive'' the Bush administration has launched.

First, the motive that the Bush administration "exports democracy'' to other countries is impure. It is not for letting the people of other countries live a rich life like Americans do that the US government exports American democracy, but for their own interests. This is the double-standard crux that the US government often adopts on the issue of democracy. It is for fostering pro-American regimes that the Bush administration instigates "color revolution'' in the Central Asia. By doing so the US will surround Russia further from geopolitical strategy, in order to prevent the latter from regaining its past successes. And for its own out-and-out supporter, even this country is autocratic in US' view, the US government will turn a blind eye to it too. In short, even if there is something democratic as long as it is disadvantageous to the US the US government will suppress it too. Samuel P. Huntington, Professor with Harvard University and US well-known scholar, once pointed out precisely: "Democracy needs promotion, but if the democracy makes the Islamic fundamentalists come into power, then that will be a horse of another color.

Second, Bush administration's way of "exporting democracy'' is immoral. The method that the US government exports democracy is autocratic extremely. This includes conspiracy behind the scenes, willful subversion, monetary bribes or even launching a war. Unexpectedly a few days ago the American army kidnapped two Iraqi women by force in Baghdad with the inexplicable reason of "safeguarding Iraq's democracy'', aiming at forcing their male relatives at large to give themselves up. In order to promote the so-called democracy in the Middle East and in the Central Asia, the US government has spent much silver. American Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan once said publicly, they have spent more than 10 million US dollars on the oppositions in Kyrgyzstan. At the same time they have asked the US Congress to add more than 20 million US dollars in order to help the oppositions to rise in revolt against their government with the aim of forcing their government down finally. This is similarly true for other countries too. The soft and hard strength from the US has interfered and destroyed the normal electoral procedures of these countries. It is hard to say that this kind of elections is democratic and just. This forced underhanded way of "democracy'' makes the "democracy'' that the US government advocates cut rate.

Third, dangerous consequences are available for the Bush administration to "export democracy'' by force. Historical experiences prove time and again that the things exported by force may not be acclimatized and go bad with alienation. A comment published by Britain's "Guardian'' points out, "It is very dangerous to think that the (western) standardized mode of democracy is universally suitable, can achieve successes in any place, solve the present difficult problem surmounting national border lines and bring along peace instead of making confusion''. In fact, the activities of "disseminating democracy'' have aggravated national conflicts, causing national splitting in multinational areas after the First World War and the Cold War. At present the chaotic situations in the Middle East and the Central Asia seem to hint that US "democracy promotion'' has opened a Pandora box bringing along a new round of national conflicts''.

Probably realizing forcible "democracy promotion'' has brought about questions, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research specialized in policy research under the US Department of State has drafted a research paper recently with the topic being quite thought-provoking - "Iraq, the Middle East and innovation: domino won't work. I wonder whether this report could let those people making earnest efforts to promote American democracy become a little calmer.

The "democratic offensive'' pursued by the Bush administration shows to the world that in fact it is not the American democracy that is lovable, but the American arbitrariness that is hateful.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200504/26/eng20050426_182771.html


The Realities of Exporting Democracy
A Year After Bush Recast Foreign Policy, Progress Remains Mixed

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401901.html
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 05:43 am
It might be useful to define clearly what that democracy promotion is and is not.
It is not about imposing an ideology
It is not about foisting a Western concept on other peoples
It is not about telling people what they should aspire to
It is not about using the rhetoric of freedom and democracy as a tool for
governments to advance parochial interests
Advancing freedom is about respecting people's aspirations for liberty in their own
cultures and helping them, on request, with the resources - intellectual, political and
material - to realize them.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/AckermanPrague0607.pdf
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 05:44 am
Great thread.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 06:02 am
Spendius
Thanks.

India will not export its democracy to Myanmar: Pranab
Mukherjee, addressing a two-day security conference, also said it will keep its hands off the peace process in Sri Lanka.

"It is not only a question of Myanmar, but in many other countries, there are different types of governments. Our basic principle is to live in peaceful coexistence and we do not believe in exporting ideologies," Mukherjee said.
"It is for the people of the countries to decide what type of government they would like," he said, in response to a question if India can help promote democracy in Myanmar where the military has been in power since 1962.
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/june-2006/india-will-not-export-its-democracy-pranab
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 07:18 am
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Dec, 2007 03:43 pm
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Dec, 2007 09:25 pm
Seek Democracy .
But be careful to import American Democracy.
This is my wish to the people who enjoy imported democracy in Afganisthand and Iraq
Iran is awaiting beside Venezu
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 02:13 pm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 08:38:31