Ok, I’m going to be out of the country for a few weeks, so there will be a lacuna of postings of (coincidentally) the same length.
Before I leave things alone for a while, I had a few things I wanted to say about “democracy”, as the term is blithely bandied about.
Captain Ed had this to say today:
'Are We Missing An Opportunity In Turkmenistan?
When Turkmenistan's cult dictator Saparmurat Niyazov died last year, hope for reform in the Central Asian republic rose in the West, as well as the potential for an opening towards loosening Vladimir Putin's grip on the region's energy resources. Simon Tisdall reports for the Guardian that both hopes may be dashed if the West does not take more aggressive action to promote democracy.'
Now, I won’t say that I disagree that democracy is a fine idea, but (and I may be repeating myself) it is not the only possible way to run things, and not always the best. The government of China has managed to hold that country (empire, really) together AND keep it moving forward economically against a raft of possible destabilizing forces.
Jerry Pournelle (one of my favourite authors, btw) had this to say today as well (context Iraq):
‘If you want a single person most responsible for the mess (other than the President for putting us into Iraq) it would be Bremer, who ought to have known he wasn't up to the job. If you want a single idea responsible it would be the Jacobin view that democracy is somehow a natural form of government that will be embraced by people so soon as they are given the opportunity. [emphasis added]
At one time our schools taught that America was unique; that our Revolution was unique; that attempts to copy our success were myriad, and few to none were successful. That Venezuela had a Constitution modeled on ours, yet for over a hundred years never had a peaceful change of government; that much of South America was that way; that France had the ancien regime, the Revolution of 1789, an attempt at constitutional monarchy, the Terror, the Directorate, the Consulate, the First Empire, the Restoration, revolutions of 1832 and 1848 and probably others I have left out, the Second Republic, Napoleon III, the Third Republic, Petain and Vichy, the Fourth Republic, De Gaulle --- not precisely a model of stability. And that everywhere you look, with a very few exceptions, people were not well governed, there was no rule of law, and we should daily fall on our knees to thank Divine Providence for looking after us so well and giving us the stability we have enjoyed (punctuated by the Civil War, we must not forget). None of that is taught any longer, and teachers feel free to have tenure and teach that Amerikkka stinks, etc. And that all will be well when we have reformed America into something she is not. That will make things better.
At one time we understood that good government and the rule of law is rather rare, and difficult to export (we certainly tried to do so in the Philippines). I don't think many understand that now.’
I am of course biased in my choice of sources, but I include this lengthy excerpt because it precipitated my current rant. History, and I’m not talking about the ancient variety exclusively, has lessons for those who a) study it and b) are prepared to critically examine things we tend to take for granted.
“Critically examine” does not mean “test to destruction” or “reflexively reject”, but merely “don’t assume”. That should be obvious, but as far as I can tell, if things that I thought were obvious were indeed so I’d have a lot less to complain about. J
So, Democracy. As appealing as it is to be able to turf the bastards out after a few years if we don’t like them, the real level of control the people have over their government is one day of democracy followed by 3-5 years (depending on where you are) of moderated dictatorship. Indeed, in a true republic it takes great ingenuity to provide adequate “checks and balances” to keep things from turning despotic. Even in that case, the system can be overturned by apathy or brute force (a threat to any system); there is the theoretical possibility that a constitutional monarchy such as Canada and several European countries possess has a “fail-safe” in an un-elected head of state, but I’ve not seen that successfully tested. Please let me know if I’ve missed something.
Back to the main thrust; democracy only flourishes on fertile ground, and I doubt that Turkmenistan falls into that category. My point here is that good government need not be democracy, and I would rather live under a benevolent dictator than in a democracy like Iraq. These are limited choices, but a regime like China (neither of these) allows you the opportunity to get rich (it’s “glorious” after all…) but will have you shot for a wide variety of anti-social things. Personally, if I have the right to make a living in any legal way I see fit, AND I have the freedom to leave if I don’t like it, I can refrain from agitating against the government.
Yes, perhaps I am a fascist pig-dog, but I currently have more “rights” than I need to lead a happy productive life. I won’t get into specifics (although it might make an interesting discussion) but I will leave you with the legions of failed democracies around the world and ask if we REALLY need a democratic regime in Turkmenistan, or merely a good government and rule of law as mentioned above.
I’m really giving people opportunities to tear into me here, so please take advantage. I promise I’ll respond when I get home…
No comments:
Post a Comment