lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (02/09/86)
People on this list have a fettish with a certain formal system of
government known as representative democracy.
They seem to feel that countries which have this form of government
are inherently good. That the people there are happy, or what have
you. They also seem to feel that it is the (God-given?) duty of the
United States to insure that all nations without such a form of
government get one, and soon.
Wake up people! Democracy is a means to an end, not an end unto
itself. (That end being the construction and maintainence of a
society which permits the maximum feasable amount of personal and
societal growth.) Democracy is only a meaningful concept in societies
in which the voting population is composed of relatively autonomous
informed agents, and where the people who make up that governmnent
actually beleive in it.
Think about your own lives. How much of your happiness depends on the
fact that we have a republican democracy in this country? How much of
it depends upon your income, your perceptions of your security, and
ability to find a satisfying social niche?
The Philipine constitution is virtually identical to ours. Why then
can Marcos rule as a dictator for 20 years? And why is there a
significant Marxist insurgency? (Or, why isn't there one in this country?)
Oh, but they don't have a true Democracy in the Philipines, you might
say. OK, how does it differ from ours, except in degree?
El Salvador has supposedly free elections. What good were they? The
Army is still more powerful than the President. And the entire
government is subservient to the orders of the U.S. ambassodor. Land
reform is at a standstill, and the majority of the populace lives in
squalor.
There is no U.S. style democracy in Yugoslavia, yet by any measure, the
potiential for personal development is much higher there than in
Salvador.
Do you think Guatamalan indians care about democratic government, or
about living lives which give them dignity and self-respect. If a
relatively benign dictatorship could give that to them much faster
than a democratic form of government, do you think that will give them pause?
It is not at all clear to me that American Style democracy is a valid
model for developing third world countries. A stable democracy
requires that a majority of the population be sufficiently satisfied
with their lot to be willing to accept the position of loyal
opposition. In most third world countries, being out of power means
being excluded from the fruits of development. This is intolerable in
a country that is underdevloped.
We may try to foist our pie in the sky scheme on others, but as the
filipino example clearly illustrates, if a society is not ready for
it, we are just wasting our time.
Its time we stopped moralizing and meddling in countries whose
internal structure we know nothing about.
The new sweetheart of the rabid right is Jonas Savimbi, the guerilla
leader in Angola, who is currently touring the U.S. as part of a
$500,000 public relations campaign. He supports democracy, he says.
Don't count on it. Have you seen the giant Soviet-esque wall posters
of his likeness at his headquarters? Do you think he gave the Chinese
the same line he's giving Reagan when he asked for aid from them?
Does the fact that his tribe is out of power in Angola have anything
to do with his opposition to the current regime?
What we are observing in Angola is the sad result of western
imperialism, which carved countries out of the map of Africa, with
little respect for tribal boundries. Virtually all of the internal
strife in Africa is due to national leaders attempting to hold their
countries together against the forces of tribal antagonism. Its a
stupid losing proposition, but not unexpected, given the love of
power of all national leaders.
For the United States to get involved in one of these tribal conflicts
(as in Angola), is naive, or stupid, or evil. Take your pick.
--
larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate)
UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk
ARPA: lkk@mit-mctan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (02/11/86)
> [Larry Kolodney] > People on this list have a fettish with a certain formal system of > government known as representative democracy. > > They seem to feel that countries which have this form of government > are inherently good. That the people there are happy, or what have > you. They also seem to feel that it is the (God-given?) duty of the > United States to insure that all nations without such a form of > government get one, and soon. - Countries are neither inherently good nor evil. GOVERNMENTS that are totalitarian or authoritarian are inherently evil. Benevolent despotism flunks because there is no way to guarantee the despot remains benevolent. --- > Wake up people! Democracy is a means to an end, not an end unto > itself. (That end being the construction and maintainence of a > society which permits the maximum feasable amount of personal and > societal growth.) Democracy is only a meaningful concept in societies > in which the voting population is composed of relatively autonomous > informed agents, and where the people who make up that governmnent > actually beleive in it. > > Think about your own lives. How much of your happiness depends on the > fact that we have a republican democracy in this country? How much of > it depends upon your income, your perceptions of your security, and > ability to find a satisfying social niche? - PLENTY of my happiness comes from the fact. Ask anyone who has recently come here from the Soviet Union, giving up their income and social niches in the process. As far as I am concerned, democracy is my second priority, exceeded only by having enough to eat. --- > The Philipine constitution is virtually identical to ours. Why then > can Marcos rule as a dictator for 20 years? And why is there a > significant Marxist insurgency? (Or, why isn't there one in this country?) > > Oh, but they don't have a true Democracy in the Philipines, you might > say. OK, how does it differ from ours, except in degree? ----- 1) The suspension, by Marcos, of free elections for 20 years. The Phillipines has not been a democracy since 1972 at least. 2) The assassination, by Marcos or his supporters, of Benigno (sp?) Aquino. 3) The massive accumulation of personal wealth by Marcos and his family. 4) The jailing of many of Marcos' political opponents. ----- > El Salvador has supposedly free elections. What good were they? The > Army is still more powerful than the President. And the entire > government is subservient to the orders of the U.S. ambassodor. Land > reform is at a standstill, and the majority of the populace lives in > squalor. > > There is no U.S. style democracy in Yugoslavia, yet by any measure, the > potiential for personal development is much higher there than in > Salvador. ----- Apples and oranges. You are comparing a European country at peace to a third world country in the middle of a civil war. Why not compare Yugoslavia with Greece or Italy and El Salvador with Nicaragua. ---- > Do you think Guatamalan indians care about democratic government, or > about living lives which give them dignity and self-respect. If a > relatively benign dictatorship could give that to them much faster > than a democratic form of government, do you think that will give them pause? > > It is not at all clear to me that American Style democracy is a valid > model for developing third world countries. A stable democracy > requires that a majority of the population be sufficiently satisfied > with their lot to be willing to accept the position of loyal > opposition. In most third world countries, being out of power means > being excluded from the fruits of development. This is intolerable in > a country that is underdevloped. ---- If so, how come democracy has, on its own without U. S. intervention, been making such a strong comeback in South America. Even Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, has a democratic government. Those Bolivians know something you apparently have not learned yet. ----- > We may try to foist our pie in the sky scheme on others, but as the > filipino example clearly illustrates, if a society is not ready for > it, we are just wasting our time. ----- If you think the Phillipines were not ready for democracy, you must love Marcos. That was his very argument for declaring martial law. I assume, therefore, that you must support him. (only 1/2 -) ) ----- -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/14/86)
Followup to Michael Lewis: for democracies outside Europe & North America -- how about India, Ceylon, Chile before the coup? Or for stable representative gov't -- Japan? To describe South Vietnam as the product of our "shoving democracy" down Vietnamese throats is pretty farfetched (& shows how degraded the word "democracy" is): Ngo Dinh Diem was "groomed" as prospec- tive head of state by Cardinal Spellman. The South Vietnamese gov't was pretty corrupt, & once the American intervention began, its functioning was not that different from say the Marcos regime. Whatever pressures toward real representative gov't the US may've brought to bear obviously didn't get far, so they cannot be blamed for what happened to South Vietnam. If they had succeeded more, Saigon would've been stronger, when you consider how important was the deep discontent with Followup to Roeseler: I find this posting a morass of specious metaphors. Why not talk about actual governmental forms, like Frank Adams in his "types of gov't postings"?