Democracy ... or Hypocrisy

[MHCN]

Excellent Poster

All our leaders are CORRUPT and our system is also CORRUPT. One way out, implementation of Shariat via KHILAFAT system.

 

[Wounded Healer]

Found the Following article a long time ago, thought it is relevant to what is being discussed here:

Democracy is a tender topic for a writer: like motherhood and apple pie it is not to be criticized. One will risk being roundly condemned if he, or she, points out the serious bottleneck that is presented when a community attempts, through the democratic process, to set plans for positive social action. A man is not permitted to hesitate about its merits, without the suspicion of being a friend to tyranny, that is, of being a foe to mankind?

The notions of goverment and of democracy are independent notions and do not, from what I can see of the case, depend on one another. What is likely required for the masses of people, as we see in "modern" world societies, is an established system of government. Where there is a need for an established system of government, it will likely, naturally come about; and will do so, whether, or not, it has the consent of the people, -- real or imagined.

Putting aside, for the moment, the arguments of hobbes and locke, I believe, on the basis of plain historical fact, that governments come about naturally and maintain themselves naturally without the general will of the people; indeed, I believe, with many others I suspect, that our long established democratic governments in the world (the United States and Canada being among them) did not come about by the general will of the people, at all; nor is it necessary that it should be maintained by the will of the people.One should not conclude, therefore, that democracy is necessary for good government: It may not be.

What is necessary for optimum prosperity is a state of acquiescence, which, as it happens, is the hallmark of western democracies. It may be, that the only thing needed is but the trappings of democracy.

An individual or group of individuals may take and maintain power by the use of coercive force. From history we can see that this is the usual way by which power is gained, and maintained. However, it has long been understood that people might come together and explicitly agree to put someone in power.

A precise definition of democracy might be had by consulting the OED. Democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In modern use it vaguely denotes a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. walter bagehot gave it a more uncelestial definition: "Each man is to have one twelve-millionth share in electing a Parliament; the rich and the wise are not to have, by explicit law, more votes than the poor and stupid; nor are any latent contrivances to give them an influence equivalent to more votes.

In considering the word, "democracy," what I first drawn to your attention is the suffix, "-ocracy." This suffix expresses the operative meaning of the larger word, "democracy"; it is the indicator of the dominant, superior, or aspiring class who would rule; it is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning strength or power. Any word might be added to this suffix, which will then indicate the type of rule, such as: plutocracy (rule by the wealthy), ochlocracy (mob-rule), angelocracy (government by angels), etc. Democracy is the rule by, or the dominion of, the people; it comes from the Greek word, demos. It is often referred to as popular government. Democracy, historically speaking, is to be compared with monarchy, rule of one; or with aristocracy, rule of the "best-born," or rule of the nobles.

Whatever its origins (and we will consider its origins) democracy has come to mean a principle or system to which most all political parties of the western world, no matter their political beliefs, would subscribe. It is politics. It goes beyond the periodic act of voting; it is characterized by participation in government, viz., involving members of the community in governmental decisions, allowing them to take part in anything at all which amounts to a public demonstration of popular opinion.

1 - Grecian Democracy:-

The first democracy, of which we have record, is that which was practiced in ancient Athens. In his capacity as a history writer,Aristotle, in his work, The Athenian Constitution (350 BC), writes that the Athenians practiced democracy only to the extent of putting and keeping in power members of a very exclusive group, a group which formed but a minority in the universal group we stylize as society. The Athenian constitution was oligarchical, in every respect. The poorer classes were the serfs of the rich. They cultivated the lands of the rich and paid rent. The whole country was in the hands of nine magistrates, called archons, who were elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. These ruling magistrates held their positions for life, except for that latter period when they served for a term of ten years. In time, this Greek notion of democracy was set aside in favour of the draw.

"... the method of election in the choice of archons is replaced by lot; some way must be found to keep the rich from buying, or the knaves from smiling, their way into office. To render the selection less than wholly accidental, all those upon whom the lot falls are subjected, before taking up their duties, to a rigorous dokimasia, or character examination, conducted by the Council or the courts. The candidate must show Athenian parentage on both sides, freedom from physical defect and scandal, the pious honoring of his ancestors, the performance of his military assignments, and the full payment of his taxes; his whole life is on this occasion exposed to challenge by any citizen, and the prospect of such a scrutiny presumably frightens the most worthless from the sortition. If he passes this test the archon swears an oath that he will properly perform the obligations of his office, and will dedicate to the gods a golden statue of life-size if he should accept presents or bribes."

Durant in Our Oriental Heritage continued to write that the head man, the archon basileus, must "nine times yearly ... obtain a vote of confidence from the Assembly" and any citizen may bring him to task for an inappropriate act of his. "At the end of his term all his official acts, accounts, and documents" are reviewed by a special board, logistai, which is responsible to the Council. "Severe penalties, even death, may avenge serious misconduct."
Grecian democracy, however, such as it was, was soon covered over with the murk of the middle ages. Democracy's re-flowering in the world, in respect to the rights of the people, first appeared in England with the glorious revolution of 1688. A study of an era known as The Enlightenment, is the study of the beginnings of modern democracy.

2 - The Enlightenment:-

Out of the Dark Ages, in gradual awaking stirs, came the Age of Reason. The enlightenment was fully established and growing vigorously by the eighteenth century. As the shackles of oppression, so firmly clamped on during the middle ages, became loose, men sought to apply reason to religion, politics, morality, and social life. With the coming of the enlightenment men began to express their minds; no longer were most all men cowed by the great mystery of the universe, and, their minds, through ignorance, ruled by fears: The Enlightenment was a time when human beings pulled themselves out of the medieval pits of mysticism. It was a spontaneous and defused movement which fed on itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in natural law and universal order sprung up, which not only promoted scientific findings and advancements of a material nature; but, which, also drove the great political thinkers of the time, such as: Francis bacon (1561-1626), Bernard mandeville (1670-1733),Charles Louis de Secondat Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1766),Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-88), David Hume (1711-76) and, of course the brightest political light of all, John Locke (1632-1704).

3 - Democracy In Action:-

In a monarchy, or, for that matter, any state where rule is carried out by a privileged class without consulting with the masses in any direct way, it was recognized, at least in the 18th and 19th centuries, that what was needed was a submissive, a confident and a stupid people. Such people in these earlier centuries existed in predominate numbers. Sadly, yet today, even as the 21st century dawns, it is rare, even in the western democracies, to find many people who are independently working through for themselves and taking fixed positions on important political concepts such as democracy, freedom and government.

For democracy to work there must, as a prerequisite, be a people educated and be a people ready to inform themselves of the great issues which face them. Unfortunately, a politically educated public, this important ingredient to the proper working of democracy, is missing.

First off, it must be recognized, that the country is not run, at least not in between elections, with the executive checking with the people by way of referenda (as the Swiss do). However, the people who possess government power and who would like to keep it, are bound to proceed on the basis of popular opinion; the difficulty is that public opinion arises as a result of an agenda which is set by minority groups to which vote chasing politicians cow, a process which is generally aided and abetted by an ignorant press.

"[Proper political conclusions] cannot be had by glancing at newspapers, listening to snatches of radio comment, watching politicians perform on television, hearing occasional lectures, and reading a few books. It would not be enough to make a man competent to decide whether to amputate a leg, and it is not enough to qualify him to choose war or peace, to arm or not to arm, to intervene or to withdraw, to fight on or to negotiate. ...

When distant and unfamiliar and complex things are communicated to great masses of people, the truth suffers a considerable and often a radical distortion. The complex is made over into the simple, the hypothetical into the dogmatic, and the relative into an absolute. ... the public opinion of masses cannot be counted upon to apprehend regularly and promptly the reality of things. There is an inherent tendency in opinion to feed upon rumors excited by our own wishes and fears." (Lippmann, The Public Philosophy, p. 25.)

We should never hope or aim to choose a bully, but the elective process will give no guarantee that the people will not end up with one. Democracy, no matter its imperfections, is a way by which the people can bloodlessly turn out leaders; but, the democratic process will only work with the consent of the leaders. The best that can be expected of a constitutional democracy, the best that can be expected by any political system, is a process by which the people turn up a leader or leaders which are prepared to deal with both the bullies amongst us and those at our borders. Hopefully, the leader or leaders, so turned up by the "democratic process," do not turn out to be a worst set of bullies than that which might exist in an ungoverned state. If, in the "democratic process," an elected leader turns into a bully; well, then, one should not rely on democracy, except as a rallying cry, to turn him out. To turn out a powerful bully, great quantities of spilt blood are needed.

4 - Democracy, Government, and Freedom:-

Democracy, in my view, is only compatible with a free economy; it can only exist, in substance, in an economy of ideas. Like a fish to water, democracy can only exist in a total atmosphere of freedom of action; it is completely incompatible with a system that provides for a governing authority with coercive power. If one accepts (anarchists, for example, do not) that a government, to some extent or other, is necessary for a civilized society, than it is to be recognized that the business of governing (as apart from the business of electing representatives) cannot be conducted in democratic matter. Lippmann deals with this problem:

"... there has developed in this century a functional derangement of the relationship between the mass of the people and the government. The people have acquired power which they are incapable of exercising, and the governments they elect have lost powers which they must recover if they are to govern. What then are the true boundaries of the people's power?... They can elect the government. They can remove it. They can approve or disapprove its performance. But they cannot administer the government. They cannot themselves perform. They cannot normally initiate and propose the necessary legislation. A mass cannot govern.

Where mass opinion dominates the government, there is a morbid derangement of the true functions of power. The derangement brings about the enfeeblement, verging on paralysis, of the capacity to govern. This breakdown in the constitutional order is the cause of the precipitate and catastrophic decline of Western society. It may, if it cannot be arrested and reversed, bring about the fall of the West." (Op. cit., pp. 14-5.)

The notions of freedom and of democracy, we might reasonably conclude, rest on the same foundations. This is not the case for the concepts of government and freedom: they will have nothing to do with one another: they work against one another. The principal business of government is the taking of freedom away from people; it is how government achieves its ends.

5 - The Press and Democracy:-

To begin with: those charged with informing the public, such as our journalists, should very carefully examine the "expert evidence" that is thrown their way. Our government experts must be cross-examined and asked if they have any interest in the outcome? The answer is that most of them do -- if, for no other reason, than they are in the pay of the government, as either; bureaucrats, lodged in the upper end of the government echelon; or those resting in publicly funded universities; or those who are in the social welfare business.

The result of the syndrome is predictable, for, as the public conflict grows, people come to doubt expert pronouncements. Normally people primarily judge the propositions before them in a most obvious way, by their source. For example, "Of course she claims oil spills are harmless - she works for Exxon." "Of course he says Exxon lies - he works for Nader." When established experts lose credibility, the demagogues take over and we are left in our mass democracy with groups trying to outshout one another.
"When their views have corporate appeal, they take them to the public through advertising campaigns. When their views have pork-barrel appeal, they take them to legislatures through lobbying. When their views have dramatic appeal, they take them to the public through media campaigns. Groups promote their pet experts, the battle goes public, and quiet scientists and engineers are drowned in the clamor."

Do the important issues get debated in the mass media? Some things seem to work well enough without any notice being taken by the public: and, often, these are the most simple and important workings of society such as family cooperation. In the media, as in human consciousness, one concern tends to drive out another. This is what makes conscious attention so scarce and precious. Our society needs to identify the facts of its situation more swiftly and reliably, with fewer distracting feuds in the media. This will free public debate for its proper task - judging procedures for finding facts, deciding what we want, and helping us choose a path toward a world worth living in.

6 - The People:-

I now deal with the concept, "the people": and, in particular Burke's notion that it consists of not just the aggregate of living persons, but; "those that are dead and those who are to be born."

"That is why young men die in battle for their country's sake and why old men plant trees they will never sit under. ... This invisible, inaudible, and so largely nonexistent community gives rational meaning to the necessary objectives of government. If we deny it, identifying the people with the prevailing pluralities who vote in order to serve, as Bentham has it, "their pleasures and their security," where and what is the nation, and whose duty and business is it to defend the public interest? Bentham leaves us with the state as an arena in which factions contend for their immediate advantage in the struggle for survival and domination. Without the invisible and transcendent community to bind them, why should they care for posterity? And why should posterity care about them, and about their treaties and their contracts, their commitments and their promises. Yet without these engagements to the future, they could not live and work; without these engagements the fabric of society is unraveled and shredded." (Lippmann, Op. cit., p. 36.)

Conclusions.

-- Is democracy workable? -- Can it work at all? For a free and democratic nation to work, a politician must, in the first place and right off the bat, in an honest fashion, convince the electorate that democracy is what they need, if they are to get what they want -- optimal human conditions for the medium term. The reality of things, with no exceptions that I can think of, is that what people desire is the soft and the easy; what is needed is the hard and the difficult (if only to achieve the soft and the easy).

"Faced with these choices between the hard and the soft, the normal propensity of democratic governments is to please the largest number of voters. The pressure of the electorate is normally for the soft side of the equations. That is why governments are unable to cope with reality when elected assemblies and mass opinions become decisive in the state, when there are no statesmen to resist the inclination of the voters and there are only politicians to excite and exploit them.

There is then a general tendency to be drawn downward, as by the force of gravity, towards insolvency, towards the insecurity of factionalism, towards the erosion of liberty, and towards hyperbolic wars." (Walter Lippmann, pp. 45-6.)

Much is asked of democracy: for while by definition no one within a democracy is to have special privileges; it, as a system, is to accommodate all groups of people, no matter how unalike they may be, one to the other. It may be that democracy can only work where the great mass of people are alike, or at least striving to be alike. This may be the reason why, through the years, democracy has worked so well in countries such as Canada and the United States. Historically, the United States (and Canada as well) was the great melting pot where newcomers came: -- their wish was to be American and to raise their children as Americans. However, there are now signs that democracy in our countries, as a system, is breaking down. More and more, it seems, there are groups, particularly in Canada, which arise and are no longer content to strive to stay in the common middle and share common ideals, but rather they diverge; and, this divergence, unfortunately, has been supported by government action in a combined effort to hold and promote distinctiveness of these existing and emerging groups.

Thus, democracy, as past experience will demonstrate, works only where the population shares, fundamentally, the same goals and aspirations.

Historically, God and country have been the two banners under which the great masses could proudly stand; but, in a modern society, God and country mean less and less, while, at the same time, the goals and aspirations of various groups increase and diverge. It maybe that democracy is, and, indeed, has always been, unworkable; but we must continue to hold the ideal high and see to it that its trappings are securely fixed in place as, well -- as a bulwark, such as it is, against tyrannical rule.

The reality is that we are forever fixed with an oligarchy (government of the few) masquerading as a democracy. The purpose of the ruling few is to execute its constitutional functions, which, because democracy is unworkable, should be tightly circumscribed. The ideal of democracy is to be promoted, as it has been, to the rulers and the ruled, as a sacred icon; never mind that it cannot be used to put a society into action, to pass laws, and never mind that it will rarely cast up honest and wise leaders; it is, in the final analysis, a system that will routinely and inexpensively rotate those in charge; a manner of bloodlessly changing the guard.

 

[muse]

Some who shoudl know better, make claims that the scriptures carry "legislation" and they go even further, that in the Text, the right to legislate is that of God.

Whatever their intentions, do such persons realize that this idea reduces, diminshes the Majesty of the All Mighty - The Text makes clear that it is Guidance, not a "How To" manual of everything.

In the temporal, earthy affairs of men, it is men who legislate, as is good and right for His "Ashraf".

Now, we are agree that it is "legislating" by elected "legislators", that is at the heart of a system of governance we may respect, we must therefore, insist not on "politiicans" but on those legislators who seek to refine and introduce legislation that empowers individuals to pursue their happiness in a open economy dedicated to freeing itself of governments attempts to restrict economic activity.

 

[Flintlock]

Other Quotes:
H. L. Mencken:
“Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and …”.

Thomas Jefferson:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”.

Please don't quote Thomas Jefferson out of context. It makes me cringe.

For those of you putting all the blame on democracy...sure...go ahead and embrace the alternative....autocratic rule by a tyrant. Sheesh.

 

[cactuslily58]

If democracy makes 51 % take over the 49 % , how does it compare with tyranny wherein one man with his cohorts takes over the affairs of the 99.99%...

 

[muse]

If this is "democracy" lets have none of it - lets have none of unelected zardari and inelligible Nawaz - the Patriotic guardians must act to save Pakistan:


Pakistan coalition: Hundred days of inaction
BY NASIM ZEHRA (Vantage Point)

12 July 2008
Since its March installation, the cardinal sin of the Gilani government has been its inability to comprehensively and competently engage with Pakistan's fast multiplying problems. Its sin has not been the creation of these problems.

Some problems have been spawned from an accumulated inheritance of many decades, others were aggravated by the bad politics and the unrepresentative character of the previous regime and then the external factors. For our own past historical baggage combined with a penchant to perpetually mismanage our affairs, we are the frontline nation in the global triple meltdown — security, economy and politics — hence suffering the most.

So does this pose for us, as a nation, an insurmountable set of problems?

Absolutely not. Pakistan has all the ingredients it takes to battle hard times. Above all, a people who are still steeped in a collective good mindset, PROVIDED they can see that those leading the 'collective good' moves are sincere and capable.

With all the cribbing when it comes to the crunch, it is a nation still willing to sacrifice for a larger a higher good. Two, we have the competence in the many fields ranging from commerce, agriculture, education, industry, science, technology, security required to arrest the slide urgently in many areas.

Three, among these competent and skilled people majority are not dollar-greedy, thousands are willing to chip in to make a credible effort at reviving our fortunes as a viable, vibrant and self-respecting nation. Four, we have models of excellence in every area ranging from industry to education and from technology to health.

Five, by virtue of the stark unfolding realities right in front of their own eyes and combined with the media presence, there is a greater degree of awareness among people about the complexity of the problems and hence the expectation of instant miracles is absent. However, will this maturity become an asset for those national forces managing the nation in these tough times? Or will this maturity, repeated disillusioned, transform into cynicism and reactionary mindsets and bloody actions?

Six, the national restiveness and resentment has made people feel they can no longer bank on the State alone to provide the answers, hence alongside peoples' disappointment and disgust, there is also renewed and motivated collective energy looking for 'new answers.'

Who taps it is the million-dollar question. Those who want to create their own sub-states amidst a dilapidated State structure or those who may want to revive the Pakistani state to ensure better administration? Lastly, while pain and disappointment are beginning to spread, the national spirit is intact; the belief that we can still 'turn it around' lingers close beneath the spreading depression.

Indeed, linked closely to the presence of these ingredients needed to pull us out of our current State is the dreadful reality of all of this going waste, indeed going sour. Signs of the eventuality of the Chronic Pakistani optimism and the Eternal Pakistani dream of 'turning it around' all sliding into chaos are too present.

This clearly means that now we, as a state, a government and a society, especially the privileged section, no longer have the luxury of functioning in our 'business as usual' mode. The question then is who can stop this slide?

Obviously the political government alone can ensure that. A legitimate mode of functioning is not one that only is manned by elected men and women. Instead it is one that also delivers successfully on peoples' legitimate expectations and on other the national challenges. Successful functioning involves good politics, competent management and honest and credible leadership. Especially within Pakistan's context where the problems are mounting and expectations need to be managed unless the leadership through active personal example will show that it will 'walk the talk' itself too, a disgruntled problem-crushed public will turn to other ways of problem-solving presented to them. It doesn't matter whether it is the Taleban, the labour unions, the Jamaat-e-Islami or ethnicity-based politics. Whatever the framework for conflict resolution, be it Baloch nationalism, Shariah enforcement, Marxist approach, people turn to the messiahs who promise deliverance.

Lack of political coordination can translate correct steps into half-failures. For example lets take the issue of the crisis of internal security. As Pakistan's government continues to grapple with an acutely complex and compromised security situation, its primary and immediate focus is on how to revitalise the two law enforcement mechanisms; one in the settled areas and the other in the tribal areas.

Steps in the right direction, combining dialogue with the local traditional powers, with the new emerging groups and backing this by smart and sporadic application of force has been made. Yet the national chorus is mostly against the steps taken. Mostly this opposition is a reflection of the government's failure to convey the parameters of the Operation and its objectives to the media and through it to the public.

Likewise the government did not fully take its allies on board, especially the PML(N). Interestingly, while within NWFP the political coordination was better, no real coordination existed at the national level .

What is missing in the present government? Lack of accountability of those who are exercising power, the absence of the parliament as the main forum for policy debate, the failure to develop a workable mode to coordinate policy-making among the ruling coalition, no politically bipartisan Working Groups on issues like the Lal Masjid issue and the A Q Khan issue that require special handling are there. On key issues including economic crisis, Balochistan, Tribal Areas, Internal Security collective political effort with technocratic input within a Task Force framework is still missing. More transparency in key public and bureaucratic appointments is needed etc.

These are the minimum steps that the elected government must take to present itself as the legitimate representatives who can pull the country out of the current state. It can be done. It merely requires political will. Pakistan does not have the option to go back to the tried and failed system of a military government or to look towards failed khaki rulers of the past as messiahs for the future.

Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad -based national security strategist