Does anyone know what the word, "democracy", means anymore? Its meaning has become so corrupted by current politics that it is now a synonym for "the good".
Sure, everyone remembers the technical meaning but now, any government that has some type of input from voters is called "democratic". This is the new, extended and watered down definition of the word. And the Bush administration, as well as its so-called opponents, all believe that democracy, as newly defined, should be forced upon the world either by military means or diplomatic coercion. They believe that this will protect freedom in the USA and will be good for the people upon whom such democracy is forced.
Note that this definition of democracy explicitly leaves out freedom, at least for other people in the world. The US government knows best. Do what it dictates, or else. The results of acting on such thinking are the increasing political mess and human catastrophe we now see in the Middle East, as well as the loss of the meaning of democracy.
Just as the meaning of the word, "awesome", has been corrupted by teen culture into a synonym for "good", the meaning of democracy is fading into mush.
Soon to be heard on the street:
- Person 1: So, how was your day?
- Person 2: Pretty damn democratic. How was yours?
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
#1 by Emmett O'Connell on July 13th, 2006
One of the most interesting parts of “We wish to inform you That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families” is an observation by (I think), the president of Uganda on the difference between democracy and human rights.
He said that he wished the West would stop agitating for broad elections, because they would lead his country into civil war. What was more important was to ensure human rights, which would in itself lead to democracy.
Democracy before developing a culture based on human rights would just be asking for trouble.
#2 by Mark on July 13th, 2006
Emmett O’Connell:
Thanks for the link to the stories of the Rwandan horror. It makes me shudder to read or think about that.
Though I agree that human rights are the first priority, two things immediately come to mind:
1. Attempting to ensure human rights by outside force would be just as catastrophic as attempting to impose democracy. The problem arises from the initiation of force, which current true believers on the right and left consider to be moral.
2. I don’t agree that ensuring human rights would or should, in itself, lead to democracy. In fact, I think that many of our troubles come from an idealization of democracy. It can lead to loss of individual rights under the assumption that the majority is right in whatever it decides to do. I would hope that ensuring human rights would lead to the maximum of individual freedom and the minimum or absence of government entirely.
Thanks for visiting.
#3 by Emmett O'Connell on July 13th, 2006
The situation he was talking about was what are post-dictator reformers (not outsiders like the US) supposed to do once they’ve taken control. He thought that holding elections wasn’t the first goal, but rather ensuring order and that human rights were being respected.
Though, in the end, I think one of the most important human rights is to participate in your own government.
#4 by Mark on July 13th, 2006
… what are post-dictator reformers (not outsiders like the US) supposed to do once they’ve taken control …
This is a difficult question; there are no short answers to it. First off, "taking control" is itself problematic. Are the reformers believers in liberty, believers in democracy, believers in monarchy, believers in socialism, believers in consensus or what? If they are believers in liberty, are they anarchists, minarchists, monarchists or what? It is certainly theoretically possible to have a free society (which is what I mean by a society that puts human rights first) under anarchy, minarchy or monarchy. It isn’t possible to have a free society, I believe, under the variants of socialism or any form of government that exerts central control over what should be voluntary human interactions. I won’t write a libertarian treatise here; there are already many.
So, I guess the first thing that the reformers should do is abolish all existing laws.
The next thing to do depends on how large a society we’re talking about and what the makeup of the society is in terms of traditional or voluntary groups. Without writing a treatise, the reformers should permit voluntary associations of people to organize themselves the way they want and then get out of the way. This means that various types of groups with different ideas about their legal and social rules would appear (if they’re not already there).
… one of the most important human rights is to participate in your own government …
I agree, assuming that your chosen society has a government. But you might find that you like it a lot better if your society doesn’t have one.
Your question really leads into a potentially enormous discussion, so I’ll stop here.
#5 by Don Bangert on July 13th, 2006
If our economy/government keeps going the way it has in recent years, we’ll be having this discussion again. Only it’ll be about “us” instead of “them”.
Great post and good comments, btw!
#6 by Libertarian on July 14th, 2006
For all of you above – NO KIDDING!
Man, you guys got THAT right!
#7 by Emmett O'Connell on July 14th, 2006
Mark: good point regarding government, forgot for a second this was libertarian territory
To rephrase that I would say to participate in the common will and common assurance of human rights.
On your point regarding abloshing all existing laws, this is a good point, but we should also take into consideration traditions and mores that guide interactions that predate, and likely conflicted with, the laws. These traditions will still exist.
#8 by Mark on July 14th, 2006
Emmett:
1. Thanks for the kind words on your blog. And you’re always welcome in "libertarian territory".
2. Your last point about existing traditions and mores was one that I tried (inadequately) to make when I talked about "various types of groups with different ideas about their legal and social rules would appear (if they’re not already there) ".
Those groups are the basis of social order and are not imposed by the central government or the "reformers". I think that any attempt to create a government that overrides the authority of those groups would re-create the very problems that the reformers want to avoid. Letting "the people" decide does not mean the imposition of collectivism, whether in the form of majoritarian democracy or socialist dictatorship.
3. Since you brought up your questions in the context of African genocide, my (not very well informed) reaction to African politics in general is that it appears to be heavily influenced by European socialist ideas as well as the notion that Africans are victims. So I would guess that if reformers are to succeed, they need to reject socialism and victimhood. These two ideas are preventing them from building freer societies with functioning economies.
#9 by Emmett O'Connell on July 14th, 2006
On your #2 point, I would guess then that the “goodness” of any given government directly relates to how well it represents the will of people and at the same time, respecint (minority) human rights.
On the third point, I think that was what the original guy I was talking about was getting at, that Africa (central Africa in this case) needed to find its own way to a democratic tradition, and requiring open elections by the west before we would open our economies to them, was backward.
An interesting note on #3 as well. In the same book they pointed out that traditionally central Africa had a thriving textile economy, even before colonialism people would make their own clothes. Very nice clothes too, I’m sure you can imagine.
But, when the post colonial economies began to collapse in the 70s and 80s, aid groups sent huge amounts of goods over to Africa, including clothes. The glut of free, western clothing meant that folks no longer had to make their own clothes, thereby killing the local textile traditions. Thats why you’d see pictures of the Rwandan genocide of guys swinging machetes wearing NY Giants shirts rather than traditional garb.
and thanks on #1, this is fun.
#10 by Mark on July 14th, 2006
Your last point about the killing off of the local textile industry illustrates just one reason why foreign aid is a disaster. It is also generalizable to domestic, government-run welfare programs as well: incentives to produce are killed and victim status is perpetuated. Not to mention that much foreign aid is skimmed off by corrupt governments and domestic welfare moneys are skimmed off by government bureaucrats and subsidized corporations.
#11 by Emmett O'Connell on July 14th, 2006
That reminds me that vision is more important than law. What I mean is that if the people don’t believe in the logic or intent of a law, it really makes no point. That was the central tenent behind the “Death of Environmentalism,” essay from a year or so back: that the environmental movement had killed itself by focussing too much effort on moving legislation and not enough on moving peoples’ hearts.
Or rather, “a people without vision will perish.”