Democracy not ours to export, just to guard jealously (1 Viewer)

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Democracy not ours to export, just to guard jealously

April 4, 2006

Arrogance makes us believe that the rights we take for granted are immortal, writes Neville Wran.

DEMOCRACY is a work in progress. When we of the West talk about building and spreading democracy, even fighting wars for democracy, we ought to have the grace to realise our own shortcomings and hypocrisies.

We talk as if these values - democratically elected assemblies, equal representation, the sanctity of the ballot, the secular state, freedom of religion, including freedom from religion as a political test, the equal status of women, the right of organised labour, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the presumption of innocence … the list goes on - were all self-evident truths and inalienable rights which we uphold as universal, immutable and immortal … as if we guaranteed them in our own societies.

In all our arrogance, we talk about these values as if they were so much part of the natural order of things that we have a divine right to impose them on the rest of the world, even if it means war. Yet not one of these values has not been under challenge in our societies in our lifetime.

What are we to make of the very principle of responsible government itself - the accountability of ministers - in the wake of the Cole inquiry into the oil-for-food scandal? What are we to make of the massive attack being made on everything we were entitled to believe from 120 years of decisions made in this Parliament, about one of the most fundamental democratic rights - that of workers to organise?

How fragile and vulnerable, how hard and recently won, are those concepts which we now demand, in all our arrogance and hypocrisy, shall be accepted by the rest of the world without question. We ought, at least, to have a decent humility about these things. We did, in fact, fight a great war to make the world "safe for democracy", as we were told. This was 1914 to 1918.

In less than two decades, the democracy we were supposed to have established in Europe - in the very heartland of Western civilisation - had been destroyed; in Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Yugoslavia, Austria and, above all, Germany.

Just three years ago, at the start of the war against Iraq, the American writer Norman Mailer wrote in his pamphlet Why Are We at War? these prophetic words: "Democracy is never there, in us, to create in another country, by the force of our will. Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally over centuries. You can't play with it. You can't assume we're going over there to show them what a great system we have. This is monstrous arrogance."

And, separately, he wrote: "Democracy is a state of grace attained only by those countries that have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom, but to undergo the heavy labour to maintain it."

That captures the message and the true meaning of the important events which we will celebrate in May, the meeting of the first elected Legislative Assembly of NSW on May 22, 1856.

Neville Wran was NSW premier 1976-86. This is an edited version of a speech he gave late last week about the sesquicentenary of responsible government in NSW.


---


Finally some sense in the SMH to all the democratocunts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

yy

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
287
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
wars are always waged in the name of religion or democracy
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Liberal-democracy is the end of history. I believe its principles to be fundamentally universal. However I agree that hard power isn’t the way to go about spreading it. Soft power, like Hollywood film depicting court battles/right to fair trial is the best bet.
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
so, if we can't try to export democracy, do we also not have to export aid in the form of money or food?
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
yy said:
wars are always waged in the name of religion or democracy
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
I diasgree very very few wars are fought for religion of other ideologies they are fought as a result of power politics realism. Strong nation states rape weak nation states, leaders make this more palatable by depicting the weak as infidels, heretics, backward etc and themselves (the strong) as just, moral, enlightened etc.

I agree with Iron - the idea of using hard power to spread democracy (to force democracy on people even) is at best a foolish contradiction in itself. Soft power is how to successfully spread democracy - it is hard to spread thinking with bayonets and bullets however easy to spread thnking with trade and culture.

I propose a policy of 'killing through kindness', that is to say embracing autocratic regimes, integrating them into world markets, spreading our thinking with our dollars. By engaging in dialogue at all levels of society we will bring them into contact with our thinking and they will inevitably gravitate towards us over time.

I am utterly convinced that if or example the US had not declared an embargo against Cuba but had rather kept trade links open the US would have continued as Cubas biggest trading partner, Cuban living standards would have risen, the cuban missile crisis not eventuated and Fidel Castro fallen from power long ago.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
loquasagacious said:
I propose a policy of 'killing through kindness', that is to say embracing autocratic regimes, integrating them into world markets, spreading our thinking with our dollars. By engaging in dialogue at all levels of society we will bring them into contact with our thinking and they will inevitably gravitate towards us over time.

I am utterly convinced that if or example the US had not declared an embargo against Cuba but had rather kept trade links open the US would have continued as Cubas biggest trading partner, Cuban living standards would have risen, the cuban missile crisis not eventuated and Fidel Castro fallen from power long ago.
The biggest democracy problem isnt Iraq; it's China. Trade in products and culture is putting good pressure on the one party system. To hark back a bit, I beleive that the protestors in Tiananmen Square had a mini statue of liberty.
However it's not the fastest way to change and when things go a bit hairy, with genocide and all that business, it's probably not always sufficient.
 

yy

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
287
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
loquasagacious said:
I diasgree very very few wars are fought for religion of other ideologies they are fought as a result of power politics realism. Strong nation states rape weak nation states, leaders make this more palatable by depicting the weak as infidels, heretics, backward etc and themselves (the strong) as just, moral, enlightened etc.
i said "in the name", which means it's not the reason behind it, but they promote to the public that it is.
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
loquasagacious said:
I propose a policy of 'killing through kindness', that is to say embracing autocratic regimes, integrating them into world markets, spreading our thinking with our dollars. By engaging in dialogue at all levels of society we will bring them into contact with our thinking and they will inevitably gravitate towards us over time.
Where is your justification that democracy is any better than autocracy? With democracy comes liberties that inevitably arise through popular struggle in the societies that exhibit them. Your gravitation generalisation does not account for societies where the realisation of liberties is potentially dangerous. Nor does it explain how the export of liberties will arise without popular struggle.

Democracy isnt perfect. Democracy isnt even ideal. I would contend that the biggest democratic problem is its denial by the people who most ardently justify it, politicians. How can a nation's government on one hand advocate democracy as being the most progressive and fair system of government and on the other hand block or attempt to dispose of liberties and rights? Well, because liberties and rights are dangerous. And as people's conscienceness evolves over time they become increasingly unruly and ungovernable. Thats why liberties and rights have to be dismissed, people have to be segregated, and governments have to breed fear. Hence, democracy (or what you believe to be the ideals it proposes) doesnt work in practise and can never work until the populace is virtually self-governable.
 

MRCUNT

Banned
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
28
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
absolution* said:
Where is your justification that democracy is any better than autocracy? With democracy comes liberties that inevitably arise through popular struggle in the societies that exhibit them. Your gravitation generalisation does not account for societies where the realisation of liberties is potentially dangerous. Nor does it explain how the export of liberties will arise without popular struggle.

Democracy isnt perfect. Democracy isnt even ideal. I would contend that the biggest democratic problem is its denial by the people who most ardently justify it, politicians. How can a nation's government on one hand advocate democracy as being the most progressive and fair system of government and on the other hand block or attempt to dispose of liberties and rights? Well, because liberties and rights are dangerous. And as people's conscienceness evolves over time they become increasingly unruly and ungovernable. Thats why liberties and rights have to be dismissed, people have to be segregated, and governments have to breed fear. Hence, democracy (or what you believe to be the ideals it proposes) doesnt work in practise and can never work until the populace is virtually self-governable.
which country was first to be democratic? and think back was that country truly 'democratic'?.
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
MRCUNT said:
which country was first to be democratic? and think back was that country truly 'democratic'?.
As far as im aware it came about through the Bill of Rights under William and Mary in 17th century Britain. And no, they were not democratic. No state will ever be democratic in the true sense of the word as opposed to the colloqualised sense of the word. The reason being, as alluded to in my earlier post, that on one hand the veyr definition of democracy holds government by the people and rule by the people. However, in practise, nation states cannot and will never be ruled by the people. The electorial system is a farce providing the illusion of rule by the people but power structures will never allow complete rule by the people until the people are ready the self-govern.
 

MRCUNT

Banned
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
28
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
absolution* said:
As far as im aware it came about through the Bill of Rights under William and Mary in 17th century Britain. And no, they were not democratic. No state will ever be democratic in the true sense of the word as opposed to the colloqualised sense of the word. The reason being, as alluded to in my earlier post, that on one hand the veyr definition of democracy holds government by the people and rule by the people. However, in practise, nation states cannot and will never be ruled by the people. The electorial system is a farce providing the illusion of rule by the people but power structures will never allow complete rule by the people until the people are ready the self-govern.
yes. so then just wandering would you consider Palestine led by the Hamas government to be democratic nation? now? can you still be 'democratic' and still be a terrorist organisation.
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
MRCUNT said:
yes. so then just wandering would you consider Palestine led by the Hamas government to be democratic nation? now? can you still be 'democratic' and still be a terrorist organisation.
The Bush Adminstration doesnt seem to be doing too badly. In fact, Palestine is at least theoretically much more democratic than the United States. Take for example, the 2004 United States Federal election. The two major candidates both were born into affluence, attended the same exclusive university, were members of the same exclusive club where they were trained how to be elite ruling class etc. Both parties are funded by the same people and corporations. Both tend on all policy analysis to be far to the right of the general population. Compare that to Hamas who have a clear policy platform which differentiates it from every other running party, a majority mandate (unlike the US due to the lack of compulsory voting) and a leader who actually stands for something. Whether you agree with the stance or not is irrelevant. In pure theory, the political process is far more democratic than the US.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Could you be confused with representative democracy and direct democracy?
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Iron said:
Could you be confused with representative democracy and direct democracy?
I guess what i was alluding to is the fact that when there is no real choice for elected representative, no significant differentiation between policy schemes, as was the case in 2004, the electoral process amounts to little more than popular autocracy. My previous comments were arguing against the falsity of representative democracy. It is a broken system. Pure democracy, the sort of democracy of people's rule, the sort of democracy the United States likes tot hink it has, or direct democracy as you call it, can only come about when power structures are dismantled and thus the people are self-governing.
 

supercharged

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
789
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
If the overwhelming majority of a population of a country wanted democracy, they would naturally develop it themselves over time. US bombing countries in the name of democracy to rid the world of terrorism is a ludcrious joke.

Why wouldn't a democratic government support terrorism if the majority of its voters saw that terrorist activity as a justifable cause? The Palestians democratically elected Hamas, yet the US-EU are trying to force Hamas into renouncing terror and recognising Israel with sanctions. Now what happened to "freedom and democracy" and letting people decide for themselves there? If the Palestians voted for a governement vowing to destroy Israel, what so-called 'democratic' arguments are there against it.

Same with Iran, the current hardline president was also democratically elected (even though the president doesn't hold the ultimate power in Iran). Iranian voters wanted a hard line against the US and its efforts to de-nuclearise it. And that's what they got. A strongly anti-US government. Would the US allow Iran to develop long range nukes even if it was 100% democratic? No way. "Democracy on the march", is just a smokescreen for using the American military to further US geopolitical interests and to make it all 'warm & fuzzy' to the home audience.
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
supercharged said:
If the overwhelming majority of a population of a country wanted democracy, they would naturally develop it themselves over time. US bombing countries in the name of democracy to rid the world of terrorism is a ludcrious joke.

Why wouldn't a democratic government support terrorism if the majority of its voters saw that terrorist activity as a justifable cause? The Palestians democratically elected Hamas, yet the US-EU are trying to force Hamas into renouncing terror and recognising Israel with sanctions. Now what happened to "freedom and democracy" and letting people decide for themselves there? If the Palestians voted for a governement vowing to destroy Israel, what so-called 'democratic' arguments are there against it.

Same with Iran, the current hardline president was also democratically elected (even though the president doesn't hold the ultimate power in Iran). Iranian voters wanted a hard line against the US and its efforts to de-nuclearise it. And that's what they got. A strongly anti-US government. Would the US allow Iran to develop long range nukes even if it was 100% democratic? No way. "Democracy on the march", is just a smokescreen for using the American military to further US geopolitical interests and to make it all 'warm & fuzzy' to the home audience.


Heh, and add to that list at least 15 or so South American and Aftrican democratically elected governments that the United States has forcibly removed post WWII.
 
S

sparklingsylph

Guest
I think on a larger scale democracy can be subject to many flaws, especially with the two- party preferred system, when there sometimes is really no difference between their stances on issues, yet voting for smaller parties is viewed as 'futile' because they could never take control of the parliament. It seems to work quite well at a grass roots level, in local democracy when party politics become rather irrelevant and voters can vote for specific candidates' stances rather than a sometimes faceless electoral party representative. But of course it would be impractical to translate such a system to larger scale politics. Hm.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top