The lie that goes by the name "democracy"
Elliot R. | 19.01.2006 13:58 | Analysis | Culture | Social Struggles
No matter what the statement you think you might make by voting (Labour, Liberal, Tory or Socialist), the continuous onslaught of truth shows our choices to be empty gestures devoid of any real effect. Take a case in point: as Thatcher helped fund Saddam in the 80's (so that he could afford British weapons to use against the Kurds) 'New' Labour was in opposition, and as such had no reason to support such nefarious actions and by proxy support the tyrant of Bagdad. However, no-one of the New Labour leadership (either then or current) raised objections to our funding of a dictator. Both the Thatcher government and the opposition supported the US imposed policy of "stability" by supporting tyranny instead of democracy (though they would have prefered a "strong military junta which would rule [Iraq] with an iron fist", but were perfectly happy to sponsor Saddam as a credible alternative).
Years later, Tony Blair denounces the man he tacitly supported and bombs his civilians (ignoring better plans, such as removing the sanctions that UN diplomats Halliday and von Sponeck had denounced as "genocide") whilst inexplicably causing little damage to the actual military infrastructure and oil rescources.
This is not surprising, considering western governments' previous records. When the World Court ordered the US to stop giving military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua (in order to depose a left-leaning democratically elected government) they ignored its ruling, vetoed any UN security council resolutions to reinforce said ruling and redefined all such aid as 'humanitarian'; thus allowing them to claim that they were doing good works, so long as no-one bothered to check where the money was going. This was under the rule of Reagan, and promptly forgotten when he died and was hailed as a hero in much of the mainstream press (though doubtlessly he is less fondly remembered in Nicaragua and other South American countries). Returning to Thatcher, her orders to destroy the Aregentian ship the General Belgrano (sold to them by the Americans no less) despite the fact it was retreating at the time were hailed as a heroic move; and the civil servant who corageously broke ranks and reveal this fact was taken to court, and when the ruling failed to go her way, Thatcher changed the law to prevent anything "in the public interest" (as it was dubbed at the trial) being revealed again and preventing the case from becoming a legal precedent.
The destruction of democracy (if it ever existed) continues apace, as moves towards free speech are made in both the major coalition countries. Our own country is bringing in laws to deport and remove peoples' citizenship should they be deemed as supporting terrorists. Tangable support is all very well, though high likely to be abused by the home office, as even now there are still people in jail with little evidence available against them. But not even these measures are enough; "indirect incitement to violence" is a harshly punished crime now - if you belong to an organisation that the government thinks might influence members to later progress to violent atrocities (even if the organisation itself stresses non-violence) you can be incarcerated, or even deported should you not have the correct papers. Considering the police are allowed to shoot people dead even if they have no real cause to believe they're dangerous (i.e. they just look a bit foreign) it's likely this power will be repeatedly abused. If, as i have done in the case of the Bolivian people, you express support, even tactily, for groups branded as terrorists (as the Bolivian peasants were during their blockades), you can be arrested.
In the case of what Noam Chomsky calls "democratic deviation", the decision by a government to listen to its people, such countries are punished severly. Turkey's application to join the EU was most vhemenantly opposed by Britain on the grounds of a poor human rights record. Whilst these concerns are viable, Britain's real objection can be traced back to Turkey's "democratic deviation" during the build-up to the Iraq war. The Turkish people were aggressively opposed to a war (including groups of Kurds in the south, who realised that their kinsmen on the northern Iraq border would bear the brunt of an assault from that border), and eventually the government broke ranks and joined its people, denying the US and British forces use of its borders for a ground assault. Thusly, Turkey must be punished, denying her access to the improved economic benefits provided by EU membership is fitting retribution in Westminsters eyes. As for human rights abuses, we find it easy to ignore those commited by our own people, as well as those in Guantanamo and Egypt. Another fine example, as it happens, lies in Egypt also. It's elections were hailed as a "step to democracy", paving over its restriction of voting rights by denying the franchise to women and various other groups. Mugabe's elections were widely denounced (quite rightly) as a sham. Both have brutal and comparable human rights records, the difference is that Egypt is an ally of ours, willing to torture people our laws prevent us from torturing, in other words, an outpost of US-UK terrorism.
This much for our claims to be democratic.
Years later, Tony Blair denounces the man he tacitly supported and bombs his civilians (ignoring better plans, such as removing the sanctions that UN diplomats Halliday and von Sponeck had denounced as "genocide") whilst inexplicably causing little damage to the actual military infrastructure and oil rescources.
This is not surprising, considering western governments' previous records. When the World Court ordered the US to stop giving military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua (in order to depose a left-leaning democratically elected government) they ignored its ruling, vetoed any UN security council resolutions to reinforce said ruling and redefined all such aid as 'humanitarian'; thus allowing them to claim that they were doing good works, so long as no-one bothered to check where the money was going. This was under the rule of Reagan, and promptly forgotten when he died and was hailed as a hero in much of the mainstream press (though doubtlessly he is less fondly remembered in Nicaragua and other South American countries). Returning to Thatcher, her orders to destroy the Aregentian ship the General Belgrano (sold to them by the Americans no less) despite the fact it was retreating at the time were hailed as a heroic move; and the civil servant who corageously broke ranks and reveal this fact was taken to court, and when the ruling failed to go her way, Thatcher changed the law to prevent anything "in the public interest" (as it was dubbed at the trial) being revealed again and preventing the case from becoming a legal precedent.
The destruction of democracy (if it ever existed) continues apace, as moves towards free speech are made in both the major coalition countries. Our own country is bringing in laws to deport and remove peoples' citizenship should they be deemed as supporting terrorists. Tangable support is all very well, though high likely to be abused by the home office, as even now there are still people in jail with little evidence available against them. But not even these measures are enough; "indirect incitement to violence" is a harshly punished crime now - if you belong to an organisation that the government thinks might influence members to later progress to violent atrocities (even if the organisation itself stresses non-violence) you can be incarcerated, or even deported should you not have the correct papers. Considering the police are allowed to shoot people dead even if they have no real cause to believe they're dangerous (i.e. they just look a bit foreign) it's likely this power will be repeatedly abused. If, as i have done in the case of the Bolivian people, you express support, even tactily, for groups branded as terrorists (as the Bolivian peasants were during their blockades), you can be arrested.
In the case of what Noam Chomsky calls "democratic deviation", the decision by a government to listen to its people, such countries are punished severly. Turkey's application to join the EU was most vhemenantly opposed by Britain on the grounds of a poor human rights record. Whilst these concerns are viable, Britain's real objection can be traced back to Turkey's "democratic deviation" during the build-up to the Iraq war. The Turkish people were aggressively opposed to a war (including groups of Kurds in the south, who realised that their kinsmen on the northern Iraq border would bear the brunt of an assault from that border), and eventually the government broke ranks and joined its people, denying the US and British forces use of its borders for a ground assault. Thusly, Turkey must be punished, denying her access to the improved economic benefits provided by EU membership is fitting retribution in Westminsters eyes. As for human rights abuses, we find it easy to ignore those commited by our own people, as well as those in Guantanamo and Egypt. Another fine example, as it happens, lies in Egypt also. It's elections were hailed as a "step to democracy", paving over its restriction of voting rights by denying the franchise to women and various other groups. Mugabe's elections were widely denounced (quite rightly) as a sham. Both have brutal and comparable human rights records, the difference is that Egypt is an ally of ours, willing to torture people our laws prevent us from torturing, in other words, an outpost of US-UK terrorism.
This much for our claims to be democratic.
Elliot R.
e-mail:
invitro_666@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/anarchcity/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c=
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
some comments
19.01.2006 19:01
If Blair had his way, Turkey, a country so closely allied to Israel it might as well call itself a zionist colony, would be a member of the EU today. The reason Turkey is making so little progress in its attempt to join the EU is precisely because of its obscene human rights record. Did you know the vast majority of doctors working in Turkey today have given FORCED virginity exams to turkish women? It will take GENERATIONS of reforms in Turkey before this country comes close to matching the required levels of Human Rights as recognised by the EU.
However, Turkey is needed for the future wars of Blair, and Bush's Neocon puppet masters. Turkey expected EU membership as a reward for its active participation in previous campaigns. This thinking has proven somewhat naive, but believe me, the importance of Blair's military bases in Turkey means that they are constantly rewarded in other ways.
Mugabe's elections a sham??? You spend far too much time watching Blair's Mass Media. Blair and Mugabe are alllies, NOT enemies. Mugabe's fixers include the Israelis (see the recent trial of the opposition leader) and Van Hoogstraten (a murderer who was 'magically' able to set aside his conviction despite a mountain of evidence against him). However, Mugabe heads the largest 'tribe' in Zimbabwe, so his people were most certainly elected to power with a damned sight greater legitimacy than 2-in-10 Tony Blair, or Bush (who was able to use electronic intelligence gathering to finesse a 50-50 election campaign in his favour). However, I forget, Mugabe is Black, isn't he- which always seems to make a difference when it comes to mud-slinging.
What Mugabe does illustrate, however, is the potential tyranny of the majority, even within a so-called democracy. Few people in the UK, given our thoroughly broken system, would even understand this dilemma, a fact that Blair exploits to the max. Here, Blair states that he has absolute power, and is thus entitled to make whatever changes he so wishes. This would make no sense whatsoever in a country with a written constitution. Blair does not have to overturn a constitution, he merely has to convince the British public that WE are not governed by, and have no use for such a thing. His implied appeal is that there should be no limits to his power, because then there is no limit to our power, THE SIREN CALL OF EVERY DICTATOR THE HUMAN RACE HAS KNOW.
Now, if you look closely, you will notice that Blair is destroying democracy by 'using' democracy, just as Adolf Hitler did before him. Why is this so important? Because this is the birthing process of a totally new form of power, and the 'better' the circumstances of the 'birth', the stronger and longer lasting will be this new power. Dictators MUST carry the people with them. This may SEEM like a paradox, but it is actually a fundamental requirement. However, the dictator is free to use any trick or lie to achieve his ends. The support of the people is a must, but the reason for that support needs no basis in truth, reality, or decency.
Do British people really understand what democracy is? Well, yes and no. Ask fundamental questions about the ideal nature of society, and expect advanced, enlightened answers. HOWEVER, ask questions about the ACTUAL mechanisms of elections, government, and law enforcement, and expect answers that parrot whatever Blair's propaganda masters have been spouting on BBC, Channel 4, or in the newspapers recently. You see, Hitler knew that you never concern yourself with people's principles- they are far too hard to change or manipulate. Instead you target the mechanisims of daily life, where people EXPECT to severely compromise their principles at the best of times. Blair simply takes this to the next stage, using all the advancements in thought control that have occured since Hitler's time.
Can democracy survive a monster such as Blair. Well, we're living the answer, aren't we, and that answer is a resounding NO!!! Could a democracy be tailored to ruthlessly identify and eliminate potential threats like Hitler or Blair? Probably, but this would require that the elimination of corruption be made the highest priority, with ABSOLUTE openness under ALL circumstances, and minority groups denied disproportionate power. A written constitution is a must, and this must focus on individual rights and freedoms (and from these rules would flow minority rights). There must be NO concept of privacy for governments. ALL government activity, official or unofficial MUST be publically available in ALL detail.
In other words, democracy had to constantly improve and refine itself to survive, otherwise its current vunerabilities would become to apparent and tempting for life's monsters (a bit like computer operating systems, and viruses). Idealism in this context can be thought of as a force miantaining forward momentum. Of course, Blair's 'John the Baptist', Thatcher, applied the brakes hard enough to loudly dissipate most, if not all of our idealism, leaving our democracy static, and highly vunerable.
Today, encouraged by Blair's Mass Media propaganda, British people spend too much time discussing the situation in other countries, and far too little in their own.
Of course women in Egypt have the vote-
I'll try very hard to give 'Elliot R' the benefit of the doubt over this 'johnny foreigner' slur, and humbly suggest that other posters try hard to drop the 'superiority complex' when refering to nations inhabited by dark-skinned humans. At this moment in history, we British have as little to feel superior about as did the people of Nazi Germany.
twilight
Clarification
20.01.2006 10:43
On the other hand I feel compelled to retract my statement about women not being allowed to vote - i can accept when i am proven wrong. This was written a short while ago and in updating it I seem to have missed out one or two corrections (indeed, i think there are even some spelling mistakes depite running it through the spell checker).
However i will not modify my stance on either Egypt, Turkey or Zimbabwe's governments. Many of Mubgabe's votes are gained through intimidation and opposition leaders were imprisoned. Also, all three are autocratic and tyranical, as you point out. All are "bad governments", and must be stopped. I may go so far an complain that there are almost no "good governments" in the world (or at least what is conventionally termed "the west"), though some of those in south America may try to be.
But I never said that Mugabe and Blair weren't allies - Blair's public condemnations, it should be noted, were half hearted and 'fuzzzily' worded - clearly not intended to offer any offence; plus, threatening military action would have been pointless - such action would divert troops from the precious Iraq war, a useless endevour to the Blair/Bush allianace (both white, notice twighlight) since there arnt enough natural resources to pillage, and those that are can easily been gained by the on-going trade that our countries do with the regime.
In short, i must apologise for any misunderstanding, but at the same time I'd point out that wild accusations of racism are NOT helpful. If I'd complained about the human rights abuses and electoral inadequacies in China would you have accused me of "Orientalism"? There would have been as much grounding for it.
Elliot R.