Is Democracy the worst enemy of unity?

May 20, 2007

There has been an exchange of thoughts over at 1loneranger’s blog

http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/senator-gravel-offers-a-plan-guaranteed-to-end-the-war-in-iraq/#comments

between Anticant and myself that has made me write this new post.

It is known by all of us that democratic styles emerged from oppressive regimes, unions were formed in reaction to ultra-capitalist attitudes and the pseudo-democratic system was set up almost everywhere in the world. And it all came to happen because the peoples of our part of the world were subjugated by a few .

When democracy became the most praised system of government, it was done so by authors at the beginning of it all, but in actual fact I am starting to believe that Democracy is another weapon in the hands of those who have always controlled the fate of the Earth. In actual fact if you look carefully into it you will no doubt observe that Democracy divides instead of uniting. Political parties whose leaders are never chosen by their affiliates but imposed on them by their top brass who in turn have been “advised” to take them by others higher up. And this chain originated by the power and need of money.

The system of proposing a trio of persons for a particular important post is rife everywhere, the three that are presented for consideration have previously received the approval of those who are “really” interested in the ruling of that particular country where the particular post is open for a replacement. The media take care of the rest.

Then another political party does the same with its rank and file. And…there! you have the two candidates – or more – opposing each other – that is completely divided and antagonistically rivals – throwing at each other all the worst epithets and disqualifications, libels and slanders, truths and lies that may be conceived by a human mind. In sum the onset of a deeper division and antagonism among their followers. Among almost all the inhabitants of that particular country.

Which, it will not escape you, is another form of control, of dictatorship. No matter how much you shout – it was proved with the Iraq war – what has been decided up there will be carried out.

What has made people to unite is nothing else than a common sense of oppression. It did with unions – which later on were decaffed, too, by the diversification that took place when different activities started to create new unions -; and it does today with political parties. People have forgotten that there is a common interest in that Democracy be applied to please us all, not to divide us all. We must not yield to the temptations offered by those who can tempt us and which normally lead us to separate ourselves in the main body of the electorate.

Ideologies have emerged that have also been suppressed, Marxism and Communism are examples of this in our ultra-capitalist world, because those who had the obligation to uphold them did not want or could not make that this happened. Once Communism became “conservative” in the USSR it also became oppressive giving way to the present ultra-capitalist ruling the Russian Federation now exhibits. Long standing regimes give way to protests among people and therefore to changes. The concept of ruling will nevertheless be always prevalent. China is another example of what I say.

This situation leaves me with some questions :

1. Is it necessary for Democracy to work properly that a dictatorial regime be previously established in a country? You know reaction to oppression.

2. How can people uphold the democratic system once it has been attained.

3. Is it necessary that people go through a situation of oppression for them to realise that attaining Democracy – being important as it is – is as much important as upholding it? I mean does upholding Democracy need random periods of absolutism?

4. What must be done for us to uphold that democracy we enjoy in much better conditions than there exist at the present time?

Yours faithfully.

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Is Democracy the worst enemy of unity?”

  1. Hi Canarislander
    Glad I came across your site.
    My subjective view for what it is worth.

    1. No, because there is always oppression to be found in one form or another.
    2. By being actively involved.
    3. We need to evolve out of the old by seeking new soultions for old problems.
    4. Individual and collective responsibility.

  2. Jose said

    Glad you came across, Winslie.

    Your answers are clear and precise and I do agree with their contents. How we must implement them is another step to be considered.

    I’m adding your site to my blogroll.

    Thank you.

  3. Thanks Jose
    Thats a very nice compliment.

    I still have difficulty with 3. and how we find the solutions.

    In a way thank you for bringing that discussion here, because that is the process by which we just might.

    Glad to be of some assistance.

  4. Jose said

    I see you want to be of assistance, as I do want to be of assistance, too.

    Evolving out of the old as you say is the core of the problem. We have become so much accustomed to the habits of having everybody else take care of our difficulties, that we have become ourselves dependent on those who are exploiting us, those who apparently will give us the solutions that we have never tried to solve by ourselves.

    No.3 is our problem, indeed. How can we evolve out of those meshes we have been entrapped into? Thinking of it the solution seems simple, but the real “thing” is beyond our individual assessment.

    It is imperative that all that think of it get involved in the common solution, that we exchange ideas that lead us to the end that we pursue: freedom in the intrinsic sense of the word.

    In that connection I would direct you to the following site:

    http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/

  5. Thanks Jose,
    Glad to know there are others on the same wavelength and I’m not some kind of mutant.

    Will look up you link, will have to be later as dashing out the door.

    bye and catch up with you soon
    winslie

  6. Ah Jose, really glad to see you up and running again here. Your posts are always worth the read and worth the time spent pondering on. Thanks!

    Of course the pendulum swings to and fro and rarely stays in the middle for very long. Aggressively encouraged (possibly mandatory) ‘Direct Democracy’ from a young age is the answer to all these queries I believe.

    And you’ve hit the nail on the head with…
    “We have become so much accustomed to the habits of having everybody else take care of our difficulties, that we have become ourselves dependent on those who are exploiting us,”

    Again, gross pacification and laziness have brought us to this state of affairs, only an awakening on a global scale will revitalize us.

  7. Jose said

    Thank you, 1loneranger, and it’s funny that second paragraph coincides with my re-reading “Foucault’s pendulum” which I started yesterday.

    Yes, the young’s turn has come up and it would appear we should lay that responsibility on their shoulders, otherwise life is going to be awfully heavy for them in the not so distant future.

    I can see the young have forgotten, generally speaking, that blight that has always been one of our main handicaps in the battle for equality: the young have learnt that we all are equal and that would doubtlessly help them in building a world that my generation could not build but that it has in a great measure helped to.

  8. anticant said

    Apologies for not having responded to this important post yet, Jose, but I need a bit more time and space to formulate my thoughts before sharing them with you.

  9. anticant said

    Democracy, though flawed, is the best and most hopeful form of political society that we have got.

    It has, however, to be constantly scrutinised and reformed so as to ensure that the formal trappings do not conceal executive autocracy or even tyranny.

    It is not just about universal suffrage; democratic electorates can vote tyrants into power perfectly legitimately – e.g. Napoleon III, Hitler.

    Nor is it about populism; ‘direct democracy’ via plebiscites and referenda are liable – even likely – to produce intolerance and reactionary policies [the ‘tyranny of the majority’].

    So to be equitable, democracy must continue to be representative.

    The issue is, how to ensure that the representatives, and the more powerful, richer, members of society use their delegated and actual power justly.

    This is clearly not so at present. We are currently ruled by amoral and even cynical people who are unresponsive to public opinion. This is what I call the ‘Democratic Deficit’.

    It seems to me that the urgent task is not to dethrone our rulers, but to shame, and if necessary compel, them to act morally.

    How?

  10. Jose said

    But, Anticant, that “Democratic Deficit” is being upheld by the very same system because those leaders are elected. The root of the problem is that those nominated have been so not by the electorate but by other interests alien to the interest of the people in general. In fact almost never are leaders known to the public.

    Leaders who pit a part of the population against the other should be liable to being prosecuted by law, divisions should never be permitted, one of the most important roles of our leaders should be encouraging the union among all the citizens but unfortunately I have been witness to a contrary behaviour.

    When they are elected they will be approving laws that refer to the whole existence of a country and its inhabitants, therefore consensus is imperative if that union I mentioned above must be defended.

    I have clicked that link you give above but cannot see which discussion you mean me to read. Would you kindly let me know?

  11. anticant said

    I agree that consensus, and a just balancing of interest, is necessary, but I don’t see how you can have “unity” except under a monolithic dictatorship where dissent is forbidden.

    The link I gave was to a ‘Daily Telegraph’ discussion on the state of British democracy. There were some interesting comments, relevant to our theme.

  12. Jose said

    That’s true, Anticant, but it is in the interest of our countries that parties of any sign dedicate their time also to encouraging unity. I know that while things are as they are this is going to be practically impossible. The thirst of power is insatiable in leaders. And they are willing to trample on anyone that dares to be in their way.

    Their target is not the welfare of the country in general, it is their particular welfare and that of their hidden supporters.

    I’ll read that discussion you mention and will revert as soon as possible.

  13. Jose said

    I have read most of the comments, which show scepticism about democracy in most of them. Looks like the fruit is ripe for a dictatorship’s pick-up, and sadly that’s what’s covertly happening.

    One of the comments I read speaks of a multi-partisan parliament. Perhaps that might be a solution if tight monetary controls were applied to election campaigns.

    Thank you, Anticant, for sharing this.

  14. anticant said

    Party machines are a major enemy of functional democracy. Their political ‘battles’ are largely a sham, as there is so little difference between their behaviour when in office.

    You doubtless know Hilaire Belloc’s lines on a general election result:

    “The accursed power which stands on Privilege
    (And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge)
    Broke—and Democracy resumed her reign
    (Which goes with Bridge, and Women, and Champagne).”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: