Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!lkk From: lkk@mit-eddie.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: On Democracy Message-ID: <109@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Sun, 9-Feb-86 08:16:30 EST Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.109 Posted: Sun Feb 9 08:16:30 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Feb-86 22:18:28 EST Distribution: net.politics Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 95 People on this list have a fettish with a certain formal system of government known as representative democracy. They seem to feel that countries which have this form of government are inherently good. That the people there are happy, or what have you. They also seem to feel that it is the (God-given?) duty of the United States to insure that all nations without such a form of government get one, and soon. Wake up people! Democracy is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. (That end being the construction and maintainence of a society which permits the maximum feasable amount of personal and societal growth.) Democracy is only a meaningful concept in societies in which the voting population is composed of relatively autonomous informed agents, and where the people who make up that governmnent actually beleive in it. Think about your own lives. How much of your happiness depends on the fact that we have a republican democracy in this country? How much of it depends upon your income, your perceptions of your security, and ability to find a satisfying social niche? The Philipine constitution is virtually identical to ours. Why then can Marcos rule as a dictator for 20 years? And why is there a significant Marxist insurgency? (Or, why isn't there one in this country?) Oh, but they don't have a true Democracy in the Philipines, you might say. OK, how does it differ from ours, except in degree? El Salvador has supposedly free elections. What good were they? The Army is still more powerful than the President. And the entire government is subservient to the orders of the U.S. ambassodor. Land reform is at a standstill, and the majority of the populace lives in squalor. There is no U.S. style democracy in Yugoslavia, yet by any measure, the potiential for personal development is much higher there than in Salvador. Do you think Guatamalan indians care about democratic government, or about living lives which give them dignity and self-respect. If a relatively benign dictatorship could give that to them much faster than a democratic form of government, do you think that will give them pause? It is not at all clear to me that American Style democracy is a valid model for developing third world countries. A stable democracy requires that a majority of the population be sufficiently satisfied with their lot to be willing to accept the position of loyal opposition. In most third world countries, being out of power means being excluded from the fruits of development. This is intolerable in a country that is underdevloped. We may try to foist our pie in the sky scheme on others, but as the filipino example clearly illustrates, if a society is not ready for it, we are just wasting our time. Its time we stopped moralizing and meddling in countries whose internal structure we know nothing about. The new sweetheart of the rabid right is Jonas Savimbi, the guerilla leader in Angola, who is currently touring the U.S. as part of a $500,000 public relations campaign. He supports democracy, he says. Don't count on it. Have you seen the giant Soviet-esque wall posters of his likeness at his headquarters? Do you think he gave the Chinese the same line he's giving Reagan when he asked for aid from them? Does the fact that his tribe is out of power in Angola have anything to do with his opposition to the current regime? What we are observing in Angola is the sad result of western imperialism, which carved countries out of the map of Africa, with little respect for tribal boundries. Virtually all of the internal strife in Africa is due to national leaders attempting to hold their countries together against the forces of tribal antagonism. Its a stupid losing proposition, but not unexpected, given the love of power of all national leaders. For the United States to get involved in one of these tribal conflicts (as in Angola), is naive, or stupid, or evil. Take your pick. -- larry kolodney (The Devil's Advocate) UUCP: ...{ihnp4, decvax!genrad}!mit-eddie!lkk ARPA: lkk@mit-mc