Why there is no such thing as democracy

[segovius]

Exhibit A (http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040921&hn=12424)

It seems Saddam intends to register as a candidate for the upcoming election. He has the right and it is legal.

It seems that 42 % of Iraqis would vote for him - that's possibly enough to gain him power. Again, he has the right and it is legal.

So why won't it happen ?

A: because democracy is a fiction, a lie if you will. A lie that they sell you to keep you enslaved and stop you rising up against the powers that control your lives.

You can see it easily in places like Iraq because they don't finesse the details as much as is necessary in the west but it's the same sh*t from the same jokers.

Think of our own western situation - they say we have freedom but to anyone whose analytical processes are not completely attenuated it is clear that what we have actually is not freedom but choice - we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that the two are the same thing. They are not.

Another example: you can go out and buy your 'favourite' newspaper. Mine will be the opposite of Scott's (say) but we can both only choose from what is available in the marketplace. And this is defined for you buy the people who rule your lives.

All you can do is choose from a spectrum of possibilities that they allow you.

In Iraq under Saddam you could choose a media source with one view - the only view that he allowed.

In the US you can choose X sources with X views, The only views that they allow.

The real argument is not about freedom or democracy, never has been because it doesn't exist; it is about choice and the quality of choice- whether you have one newspaper defined for you, one TV channel, one authorised perspective or 10, 15, 300 papers, channels, or authorised perspectives.

I don't give a flying **** about choice (especially when defined for me by some culturally inert cro-magnon throwback), in fact I want less of it - let's try personal freedom for a while. Democracy™ is clearly fubar.

[SDW2001]

Yes, yes, we know. Democracy is a fallacy. It's all a ruse. Fight the power, man.

Or, as Scott used to say: "Rock and Roll Baby. Freedom of Speech."

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, yes, we know. Democracy is a fallacy. It's all a ruse. Fight the power, man.

Or, as Scott used to say: "Rock and Roll Baby. Freedom of Speech."

See, that's exactly what I mean. You really didn't want to say that - you wanted to say something far worse but had to resort to this because it was the only appropriate authorised response™.

You only have choice (and a very limited and circumscribed apology for choice at that) that is predefined for you and not real freedom to express yourself.

Why are you happy with so little ?

[Scott]

If it's legal for him to register then the laws are wrong.

[shetline]

First of all, let's be clear about our terminology: First of all, you complain that their isn't any true democracy, but the you go on and give examples of how your choices are limited -- that you don't have enough freedom.

Democracy and freedom aren't the same thing. In fact, sometimes they are conflicting interests.

Democracy is the power of the people as a whole to determine the course of their society. In its most extreme form, democracy becomes majoritarianism, or "the dictatorship of the majority". Having 60% of the people vote to enslave a 10% minority, and then enforcing that enslavement, would be a type of democratic outcome. But it obviously wouldn't lead to freedom.

Freedom is a condition where personal liberties are protected, even from the will of the majority. This freedom obviously can't be absolute -- if I'm free to abduct you and put you in a cage, you can't be free at all. If you don't want anarchy which quickly devolves into the powerful lording over the weak, individual liberty must be limited.

One of the best formulas for maximizing personal liberty, short of anarchic extremes, is this: Allow each person the most liberty he or she can have while allowing everyone to have that same degree of liberty at the same time. One way this notion is sometimes expressed is "Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose."

In common usage the word "democracy" is typically used to refer to modern societies which combine popular power with constitutionally protected individual rights. I'd like to say that this is the common understanding of the word, rather than merely the usage, but I'm afraid too many people use the word "democracy" without understanding it well. That ignorance can be a threat to democracy.

I have no problem with the idea of not allowing Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi ballot. Majoritarianism would permit a majority of Iraqi voters to impose the rule of Saddam on all of the people of Iraq, but in democratic society tempered by respect for individual liberties, the rights of the sizeable minority who would not wish to sacrifice their freedom to Saddam would have to be protected.

If we could expect Saddam to "play nice" and stick by constitutional limits on his power, and abide by constitutional separations of power, then perhaps you could make a case for allowing him to be elected. But that's not realistic, and it doesn't settle the issue of Saddam's past crimes. A hypothetical majority of Iraqis wouldn't have the right to make all Iraqis give up any hope of seeking redress for the harm Saddam has caused them.

[Paul]

it would be quite ironic if iraqis got IRV (instant runoff voting) as a result of this and us in the states are still left in the 1800's :rolleyes:

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
First of all, let's be clear about our terminology: First of all, you complain that their isn't any true democracy, but the you go on and give examples of how your choices are limited -- that you don't have enough freedom.

Democracy and freedom aren't the same thing. In fact, sometimes they are conflicting interests.

That's my point. It is Bush who equates freedom with democracy - they are terms he uses interchangeably. On Saturday he said the following:

"The enemies of freedom are using suicide bombings, beheading and other horrific acts to try to block progress. We are sickened by their atrocities, but we will never be intimidated, and freedom is winning," he said. "We're making steady progress."


Link here. (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1078&dept_id=151021&newsid=13004881&PAG=461&rfi=9)

So we are entitled to ask "what is freedom ?" or more specifically "what does Bush mean by freedom ?".

The answer is clear - Bush - and almost every westerner - frames the answer in a political sense, and that includes democracy. But the problem is that the ME and Islamic nations never have. If they suffer under a dictator then THEIR answer is to remove the dictator and replace him, not remove him and replace the system which is what Bush is trying to do. And also why he is failing and will continue to do so.

If he really wanted to serve the cause of freedom then he could have removed Saddam and left it at that. Freedom for the Iraqis would have been achieved. But that wasn't the object, 'regime change' is not about freedom per se - it is about installing western processes of societal norms and these require removal of obstacles such as Saddam or the mullahs, almost as a by-product.

Iraqis want freedom. They want freedom from the US in the short term and freedom from western pernicious meddling in the long-term. This is what the fighting is about and it is what Islamic radicalism has always been about from the Balfour declaration on.

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
...or more specifically "what does Bush mean by freedom ?".
Bush, unfortunately, makes for a very poor spokesperson for the cause of freedom since he barely comprehends freedom himself. Freedom for businesses to do as they wish clearly means more to Bush that personal freedoms, such as being able to marry the one you love or getting a fair trial if you're an "enemy combatant" (read: hapless goatherder) picked up in Afghanistan and rotting in Gitmo for nearly three years now.
The answer is clear - Bush - and almost every westerner - frames the answer in a political sense, and that includes democracy. But the problem is that the ME and Islamic nations never have. If they suffer under a dictator then THEIR answer is to remove the dictator and replace him, not remove him and replace the system which is what Bush is trying to do. And also why he is failing and will continue to do so.

If he really wanted to serve the cause of freedom then he could have removed Saddam and left it at that. Freedom for the Iraqis would have been achieved.
Creating an enormous power vacuum and throwing a society into civil war is hardly granting that society "freedom". Bush's incompetent handling of securing the peace in Iraq is turning into a long, drawn out, and expensive version of doing just what you've suggested anyway.

You keep using the words "they" and "their", as if the Iraqi people were some monolithic entity, as if some Iraqis don't need individual freedom and protection from what other Iraqis might do to them. Yes, I know it's hard to speak of such things without blurring the line between protecting individuals and imposing Western values of individual freedom, but I think it's more dangerous to anthropomorphize societies, speaking of them and treating them as if they were individual people making sovereign decisions about one collective person's life.

There's more I want to say about this now, but I'm not "free" to get out of helping a friend this afternoon, ripping out carpet and cabinetry and otherwise helping him redo his laundry room. :D

[segovius]

Originally posted by shetline
You keep using the words "they" and "their", as if the Iraqi people were some monolithic entity, as if some Iraqis don't need individual freedom and protection from what other Iraqis might do to them. Yes, I know it's hard to speak of such things without blurring the line between protecting individuals and imposing Western values of individual freedom, but I think it's more dangerous to anthropomorphize societies, speaking of them and treating them as if they were individual people making sovereign decisions about one collective person's life.

There's more I want to say about this now, but I'm not "free" to get out of helping a friend this afternoon, ripping out carpet and cabinetry and otherwise helping him redo his laundry room. :D

Just want to pick up on this first sentence about the Iraqis as a monolithic entity - what I mean to convey is that Iraq is a very religious society and as such has a different benchmark of 'freedom' than a secular one.

I suppose the nearest analogy would be a western 'born-again' who would regard himself as 'free' in the spiritual sense. He may be living in a totalitarian regime that forbids his faith but he would still regard himself as 'free' because he lives his life on the spiritual plane. Conversely someone who was in the same situation but had a political secular paradigm would not see themselves as free in this way.

This is what I meant by the different definitions of freedom - the Iraqis are monolithic in this sense because although there are deep sectarian divides, religiosity runs at nearly 100%. That is why Sunnis, Shi'i and all the myriad schismatics under each umbrella can find some unity in the current situation: the vast majority see the situation as essentially a secular (ie western) vs spiritual clash whatever their doctrinal position.

Sure there are some Iraqis who want to become western but not many yet.

Good luck with the diy.

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
Just want to pick up on this first sentence about the Iraqis as a monolithic entity - what I mean to convey is that Iraq is a very religious society and as such has a different benchmark of 'freedom' than a secular one.
If your family is killed during an Iraqi civil war, that's probably not going to sit well with your sense of freedom.

If you are locked in a jail cell as a political enemy of (one of) the new Iraqi government(s), I don't think you'll call that freedom.

If you were a woman accustomed to having a career and going about your life in regular street clothes and not having to have a male escort everywhere you go, you're not going to find the enforcement of sharia very much like "freedom", regardless of how religious you were in your own personal way.
This is what I meant by the different definitions of freedom - the Iraqis are monolithic in this sense because although there are deep sectarian divides, religiosity runs at nearly 100%. That is why Sunnis, Shi'i and all the myriad schismatics under each umbrella can find some unity in the current situation: the vast majority see the situation as essentially a secular (ie western) vs spiritual clash whatever their doctrinal position.
I don't claim to be any expert on Iraqi society under Saddam Hussein, but I do know that it was one of the most secular societies in the Arab world. You could go out to a bar and get a drink. You could go out to a club and dance with your girlfriend -- yes, <shudder> men and women who weren't immediate family socializing together in public places!

That's not to say life under Saddam wasn't oppressive -- it certainly was that. I sure a good number of the citizens, especially the Shiites, felt that Saddam's secularism was part of what was oppressive. That said, I'm also sure there were quite a number of Iraqis who preferred living in a more secular society regardless of their religious beliefs. Many such Iraqis will find, should it come to pass, a rigid Islamic-law government to be even more oppressive than Saddam's regime, and might end up looking back on pre-invasion life as "the good old days".

I'm sorry, but if we're starting with taking Saddam out of power as a given, you've said nothing which convinces me that creating that enormous power vacuum and then immediately getting out and heading home to let the Iraqis fend for themselves in the aftermath would be anything other than highly irresponsible and terribly unwise.

Of course, Bush's handling of the aftermath has been so bad that the end result is nearly the same as unseating Saddam's government and then skipping town, except for having more American dead and more time to foment ill will toward the US.