I read a book recently (believe it or not). One of the things that it said was that there had never been "a proud moment in political history. Dictators have risen and fallen. Religious doctrines have ebbed and flowed. Political systems have come and gone." In many respects, I agree.
What is the high point of political history? Do we call it Democracy which is now being foisted onto nations who neither understand it nor need it, and has in fact made their life harder due to almost legitimate insurrections (like Afghanistan or Iraq)? Do I need to remind you of Germany where a man known as Adolf Hitler was appointed high chancellor after winning the vote? or the perversion of the democratic system in the 2000 US elections, where many people where disallowed the vote because they were either ex-convicts or in some cases, shared their name with their father, an ex-convict? or the countless countries that claim to be democratic only to prove that they aren't by either only allowing their citizens to vote one way, or declaring the whole vote void and exiling the leaders of the opposition party who had won (I refer here in particular to the recent Zimbabwean elections)?
Democracy has been called bludgeoning of the people, for the people and by the people, and in many cases it is. Karl Vonnegut once said that "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." and this is the other problem.
What about a benign dictatorship like Pakistan which was, between 1999 and 2008, controlled by the military who seized leadership from the government and then ruled better and fairer than the country had experienced before? A dictatorship, no matter how benign can become malignant at the drop of a hat because of the absolute control experienced by the top of the pile. If you disagree, you lose. Interestingly, many westerners will say that a dictatorship is wrong no matter the circumstances. however, in September 2007, BBC featured a Rwandan who was living in Cameroon who asked the question "Is peace and poverty under dictatorship better than bad democracy?" He said that for him, the answer was yes. Not having experienced life in a dictatorship, benign or otherwise, I can't comment on that but it makes sense, at least in my head.
What about a monarchy? A monarchy is essentially a self-perpetuating dictatorship and so the arguments above also refer to this.
What about socialism/communism? In theory, this would be the best system out of the lot - everyone is equal, the people are the actual government, and those who are in the larger demographic are in power, it has real potential for a true people's government. The downfall of this system is the baggage that it carries - all things belong to the state and are shared equally (albeit according to need). This carries with it problems in actuality. Man is inherently greedy and the ones in control, through manipulation of the masses gain power and control. Over time, when you compare them with other forms of government in a capitalist sphere you end up with a situation like the end of animal farm. The pigs started walking on their hind legs and over time, you could look "from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." Theory and Reality are not siblings, but school friends at the end of their education; unless they work hard, they drift apart until they forget they ever knew each other.
The final major governmental system I would say is a Theocracy (state controlled by the church). This is fine when the god in charge of the system is immutably benign and universally unquestioned in it's power, but when you get a true theocracy this is rarely the case. The god in charge, through his/her clergy decides that it would be a good idea for him/her to gain absolute control of everything through his/her priesthood. This once again gets us back to a dictatorship, this time ruled by an unseen master through the hands of his flawed and often self appointed human agents, who don't always agree. Or, there rises a discontent revolution of people who think that they could do better. One Civil War later, no one is in control and everyone is worse off.
I have deliberately left out anarchy as this is by definition a lack of any government.
I would like to finish with words that apply to all forms of government everywhere. This is taken from the movie V for Vendetta.
What is the high point of political history? Do we call it Democracy which is now being foisted onto nations who neither understand it nor need it, and has in fact made their life harder due to almost legitimate insurrections (like Afghanistan or Iraq)? Do I need to remind you of Germany where a man known as Adolf Hitler was appointed high chancellor after winning the vote? or the perversion of the democratic system in the 2000 US elections, where many people where disallowed the vote because they were either ex-convicts or in some cases, shared their name with their father, an ex-convict? or the countless countries that claim to be democratic only to prove that they aren't by either only allowing their citizens to vote one way, or declaring the whole vote void and exiling the leaders of the opposition party who had won (I refer here in particular to the recent Zimbabwean elections)?
Democracy has been called bludgeoning of the people, for the people and by the people, and in many cases it is. Karl Vonnegut once said that "There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president." and this is the other problem.
What about a benign dictatorship like Pakistan which was, between 1999 and 2008, controlled by the military who seized leadership from the government and then ruled better and fairer than the country had experienced before? A dictatorship, no matter how benign can become malignant at the drop of a hat because of the absolute control experienced by the top of the pile. If you disagree, you lose. Interestingly, many westerners will say that a dictatorship is wrong no matter the circumstances. however, in September 2007, BBC featured a Rwandan who was living in Cameroon who asked the question "Is peace and poverty under dictatorship better than bad democracy?" He said that for him, the answer was yes. Not having experienced life in a dictatorship, benign or otherwise, I can't comment on that but it makes sense, at least in my head.
What about a monarchy? A monarchy is essentially a self-perpetuating dictatorship and so the arguments above also refer to this.
What about socialism/communism? In theory, this would be the best system out of the lot - everyone is equal, the people are the actual government, and those who are in the larger demographic are in power, it has real potential for a true people's government. The downfall of this system is the baggage that it carries - all things belong to the state and are shared equally (albeit according to need). This carries with it problems in actuality. Man is inherently greedy and the ones in control, through manipulation of the masses gain power and control. Over time, when you compare them with other forms of government in a capitalist sphere you end up with a situation like the end of animal farm. The pigs started walking on their hind legs and over time, you could look "from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." Theory and Reality are not siblings, but school friends at the end of their education; unless they work hard, they drift apart until they forget they ever knew each other.
The final major governmental system I would say is a Theocracy (state controlled by the church). This is fine when the god in charge of the system is immutably benign and universally unquestioned in it's power, but when you get a true theocracy this is rarely the case. The god in charge, through his/her clergy decides that it would be a good idea for him/her to gain absolute control of everything through his/her priesthood. This once again gets us back to a dictatorship, this time ruled by an unseen master through the hands of his flawed and often self appointed human agents, who don't always agree. Or, there rises a discontent revolution of people who think that they could do better. One Civil War later, no one is in control and everyone is worse off.
I have deliberately left out anarchy as this is by definition a lack of any government.
I would like to finish with words that apply to all forms of government everywhere. This is taken from the movie V for Vendetta.
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
No comments:
Post a Comment