I really enjoyed Mohammad Seyrafi’s post on the hanging of an Iranian revolutionary. The photo is incredibly haunting. It took me a while just looking at it to clue in that this man was actually going to be hanged. The smile on his face suggests that he is doing a stunt or magic trick. Its incredible the amount of dedication some people have to political change. And also incredible how unafraid they are of death as a potential consequence. I liked this post because it had a great picture which grabbed my attention, and a short but powerful writeup.
I really enjoyed writing this post, and I think it is one of the better rants I’ve posted on this blog. I had just finished watching a few documentaries, The Fog of War with Robert McNamara, and Why We Fight. Both of these got me a little steamed up about American foreign policy, and I think it showed when I sat down to update my blog. I had found the graph online, but when I went to post it I got carried away.
I like this post because it sums up my core feelings about American foreign policy. I truly dislike how many people believe that the US military is a big green democracy machine, committed to saving the world. The official justifications for going to war seem so flimsy to me, and the actual motivations so obvious, I find it amazing how easily people can be brainwashed by the mass media to believe the official story.
I think this post is an important one because it gives a history lesson which puts democratization into perspective. The text and images are below in all their glory. Enjoy.
DEMOCRATIZATION
So here’s a pretty sobering graph..
Green: Iraqi Civilian Casualties
Blue: Afghan Civilian Casualties
Grey: US Casualties in both Wars
Red: September 11th Victims
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” , it seems, was a bit of a misnomer. True, US troops are finally out of Vietnam, sorry, i meant Iraq.. Freudian slip… And they have left a ‘functioning parliamentary democracy’ in their wake, but we should not forget that this was the least of the effects the ‘war on terror’ had on Iraq.
As I elaborated in my previous blog post about Myanmar, democratization is a ultimately a self serving motivation. It seems that helping a ‘country in need’ to ‘transition to democracy to free it from the clutches of a tyrannical dictator’ immediately adds a shining veneer of legitimacy to the wanton destruction of a nation’s infrastructure and social fabric for gains other than humanitarian ones. This trend is hardly new in history. Even democratization itself can be the self-serving motivation for somehow promoting democratic transition abroad. We saw it done in the Cold War, where democratic regimes were propped up by the United States around the globe simply to counter the spread of Communism. It was the apparent basis for the Korean War, and later, Vietnam.
Democracy for the people by the people is never the endgame for foreign support of democratic transition. We live in an anarchic international arena. Realist interpretations are the only ones which make any sense. The second which democracy in a country doesn’t work for the foreign power, it is entirely expendable. We saw this in Iran. The democratically elected government was going to nationalize the foreign owned oil industry, much to the opposition of USA and British interests. Result: the CIA stages a military coup to overthrow the perfectly legitimate government of Mosaddegh and install the fiercely autocratic one of Pahlavi. Democracy is simply a buzzword to legitimize foreign action. In Iraq, the stated objective was to free the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and to install a democracy. Interestingly, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein wasn’t a problem for the US when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew their autocratic Iranian Pahlavi puppet government and started becoming a problem. In fact, the US funded and supplied intelligence to Saddam Hussein throughout the Iran-Iraq war to counter Iran’s growing power. Democratization wasn’t even on the table at the time, it didn’t serve any US interests. This is also around the time where the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein took place, which were the basis of the evidence that he needed to be overthrown… only some 30 years later.
I feel I might be being a bit cynical, but the evidence seems to suggest that democratization always has an ulterior motive. If those motives are absent, then western democracies couldn’t care less if people are being oppressed by a dictator. If they are being made to feel guilty by international or domestic pressure to take action against said dictator, they do it for PR reasons, not out of the goodness of their heart. There is always a motive. Democratization by governments in a realist international arena is a self serving behavior. If you believe that this is being done for humanitarian purposes, explain how it is only done when convenient and opportune.
Alberta election finances laws among the most lax, says Democracy Watch
This article is basically an attack on the election finance laws in Alberta, stating that they have the highest limits in the country, and also very few regulations on who can donate. For example, corporations and unions are allowed to donate, and the donation limit is more that 3x the federal amount.
Does this hurt democracy? A logical view of elections would state that people can only be involved and informed on issues if candidates have enough money to campaign and hold rallies. Without this, it would be impossible for them to have their platforms publicized and we would be voting in the dark. Political parties do not get their campaign funds from the public purse, but from personal wealth or donations. Therefore, the Alberta voters, having spent the most on finance, have the most informed election, right?
Well, to a certain degree, yes. But this is not democracy enhancing. The fact that corporate entities and unions can offer huge nearly unlimited contributions means that one party could have significantly more money to campaign with than an other party. While this can harm the balance of power in elections, I think that the biggest danger is what happens after. If you received a huge contribution from a corporation, you will feel the pressure to make decisions benefiting that donor one you are in office. This can essentially amount to unofficially buying a politician. Therefore many small donations are far better than a few large ones.
Despite the less than perfect vocals, punk legends NOFX actually have a very keen awareness of social issues. The lyrics are often very pointed, critical, and above all funny… probably because it’s true.
Check out the 4th verse in bold at timecode (1:55) so that I can relate this post to democracy. The melody also changes during that verse for a really nice ska-influenced bridge, probably to emphasize those lyrics. Anyways, as far as punk goes, NOFX is my hands down favorite. Their lyrics are everything. FAT MIKE FOR PRESIDENT!
There’s no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred Majority rule, don’t work in mental institutions Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
The Idiots are Taking Over – NOFX
It’s not the right time to be sober
Now the idiots have taken over
Spreading like a social cancer, is there an answer?
Mensa membership conceding
Tell me why and how are all the stupid people breeding
Watson, it’s really elementary
The industrial revolution
Has flipped the bitch on evolution
The benevolent and wise are being thwarted, ostracized, what a bummer
The world keeps getting dumber
Insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason
Darwin’s rolling over in his coffin
The fittest are surviving much less often
Now everything seems to be reversing, and it’s worsening
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool
Now angry mob mentality’s no longer the exception, it’s the rule
And I’m starting to feel a lot like Charlton Heston
Stranded on a primate planet
Apes and orangutans that ran it to the ground
With generals and the armies that obeyed them
Followers following fables
Philosophies that enable them to rule without regard
There’s no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated Political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred Majority rule, don’t work in mental institutions Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions
What are we left with?
A nation of god-fearing pregnant nationalists
Who feel it’s their duty to populate the homeland
Pass on traditions
How to get ahead religions
And prosperity via simpleton culture
I am firmly of the view that this ruling, although going through a non-democratic courts system, still embodies the very essence of democracy. The important thing to remember is that we aren’t talking about pure democracy, where decisions are made by the majority with no concern for any other limiting factors. We are talking about a consitutional democracy. This is an important distinction because this country has given a set of rules for itself so that democrtic whims do not allow the country to stray off its founding principles. Waldron called this precommitment.
In this case, the precommitment is the constitutional promise that all people will always be subject to the same law. Even if the democratic organs of the state prefer this man not to be indicted, the principles laid down and entrenched by the nation’s founders are what ultimately set the boundaries. One can look at this as an impediment to democracy, sure, but one must also consider that the pure democracy which this type of precommitment prohibits is what aristotle would call democracy, the tyranny of the many.
The courts are there to make sure that politicians do not step outside the bounds of this precommitment. They are undemocratic, yes, but that is the point. While they may limit pure democracy, their primary purpose is to make sure that South African Democracy stays at a consistent quality.
