Is There a Difference
Between a Democracy and a Western-style Democracy?
Democracy has got to be the
most overworked and under-defined word in the English language these days – in
fact, in any language, given that memes spread across the planet faster than
the speed of light. The more ruthless and rash the United States becomes in its
determination to rule the world, relying increasingly on the power of words,
the greater the urgency of unmasking its use of the word ‘democracy’ as a
farce.
According to the
conventional ‘wisdom’, if all citizens above a certain age – usually eighteen
or twenty-one – are entitled to vote for representatives in a country’s
law-making bodies, they are living in a democracy. But if the US were really
serious about defending democracy, it would not claim that Cuba, for example,
or Russia, fail the test. These two countries, together with a long list of
other nations, are not considered members of the ‘club of democratic nations’.
In the case of Cuba, there is only one political party, and in the case of
Russia, the President wields too much power and elections are suspicious. Yet,
as reported by Medea Benjamin at Cuba has pioneered decentralized
democracy, and Putin has long enjoyed an approval rating in the eighties!
In reality, democracy is
less about elections than about who actually writes the laws. Russia is not a
beltway sanctioned democracy because when situations require it, Putin tells
the elected members of the Duma what laws to pass, which could be reagarded as
a dicatatorship in the West. The United States is a democracy because our
President can’t do that: but is it preferable for lobbyists to tell the
Congress what laws to pass, while ‘think tanks’ take over the job of writing
them from our elected representatives? Is a country that relies on military
might, intervening wherever its commercial needs are not being satisfied to
impose ‘regime change’ a democracy, when a large majority of its citizens
oppose such policies? Is it a democracy when most of the assets are in the
hands of a small minority? Or when only half the population has access to
medical care?
Across the world, kids are
taught that countries should be democratic, and as they grow up they judge
their own and other countries by the accepted definition of the words:’free and
fair elections’, a ‘free’ press, the ‘rule of law’ implemented via a system of
‘checks and balances’, meaning that the judiciary is independent of both the
executive and the legislative branches of government. But countries can boast
all of these achievements, and not really be democratic, in the sense of
responding to the needs of the majority of its citizens.
The word ‘democracy’,
which, as every school child knows, was coined by the Greeks over two thousand
years ago, means ‘the people’ hold the power. In actual fact, only male
citizens, not women or slaves, could express their opinions publicly and vote
in ancient Athens, yet politicians the world over claims that if every citizen
has a vote, the system is democratic. During the eighteenth century
Enlightenment, in a world (i.e., Europe) in which population growth made direct
participation impossible, autocracies became constitutional monarchies, a relatively benign
form of rule from above, of which Great Britain is the poster-child: although
she appoints the Prime Minister, the Queen has no power, but can only hope for
the best. Other constitutional monarchies include the Scandinavian countries, which
are social democracies that are sometimes ruled by conservatives. The
Scandinavian constitutional monarchies are considered to be the most advanced
countries in the world.
An important requirement
for a regime to be considered democratic is that it is entirely in the hands of
‘civilians’ who tell the military what to do. If a military man gets himself
elected in a ‘free and fair election’ (for example, President Al Sisi of
Egypt), he is not a dictator, even though his former military buddies can be expected
to spring into action at the slightest threat to his rule.
Non-constitutional
monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Persian Gulf do
not even pretend to be democratic. They are not among the long list of ‘our
dictators’ such as those of Africa – or until recently, Myanmar – or, going a
bit further back, the caudillos that ruled America’s ‘back yard’ until an
enduring Cuban revolution persuaded the rest of the continent to resist
American oversight. The Persian gulf monarchies occupy a unique niche located on vast reserves of
oil. American officialdom never refers them as ‘democracies’, and stations
planes and ships on their soil to protect their feudal rulers when their
people, such as Yemenis or Bahrainis, rise up demanding democracy.
What about the countries of
Eastern Europe, held for decades under Soviet, shall we say, guardianship? Now
they’re ‘free’ and you won’t find anywhere a bunch of people more committed to
the American definition of democracy. The Poles, in particular, are so
committed to American style democracy that they are itching to go to war with
‘Putin’s Russia’. The Baltic nations are so committed to democracy that
everyone is target practicing while Neo-Nazis parade through the streets, in a
page from Nuland’s Ukraine.
Currently, Ukraine is the
big democracy story. Victoria Nuland, former Bill Clinton aide and still, as
she was under Hillary Clinton, Assistant Secretary of State for Eastern
European Affairs, almost single-handedly fomented a coup against the President
of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, who had been elected in 2010 in internationally
recognized ‘free and fair’ elections. The majority of Ukrainians who
demonstrated in the Maidan for weeks in 2013-14 simply wanted to live in a
‘more democratic’ country, while Nuland’s goal was to chop off a piece of
Russia’s ‘near abroad’. Battalions of thugs who, according one of their
leaders, Dimity Yaros, http://Exclusive: Leader of Far-Right Ukrainian
Militant Group Talks Revolution With TIME, had been training for the job
for months in Western Ukraine (the part that borders on Poland which
borders on the Baltic states…) were brought in to settle the matter.
When the Ukrainians found
themselves living under a much worse regime than the one they had helped to
overthrow, those in the East, many of whom, as a result of history and
geography were mainly ethnic Russians, were appalled: the Ukrainian Nazis the
new leaders used as their shock troops were the descendants of those who had
helped the Germans kill thousands of their forebears during the second world
war. When Yaros and his buddies, as well as former presidential candidate Yulia
Timoshenko, unabashedly called for the elimination of ‘Jews and Russians’,
eastern Ukrainians refused to participate in the presi-dential election,
organizing referenda in Donetsk and Lugansk that created two breakaway entities
known as Novorossiya. Kiev responded with military force to kill them or force
them to move to Russia, abandoning Ukraine’s vast stores of coal and most of
its industry to the Kiev regime.
It would have been
unthinkable for Vladimir Putin not to support the breakaway republics, as they
are called, given the Soviet Union’s World War II losses to Nazi Germany,
estimated at 26,000,000 (compared to 70,000,000 for all of Europe and fewer
than 500,000 for the United States). And yet, that measured support is
presented as an aggression by the country that carried out the coup in Kiev!
America’s leaders promote ‘democracy’, and ‘regime change’ in the same breath,
and far too many voters fail to see the contradiction. Apparently, ‘democracy’
is about what happens inside a country, not whether it is the victim of outside
manipulation, and Americans have been led to believe that democracy is only
word they need to know when it comes to judging politics. Ideology is a foreign
notion to be shunned, thus Americans do not have the knowledge that would cause
them to be shocked when fascist militias are used to shore up a ‘democratic’
regime.
Unlike the United States,
Europe is steeped in ideology. The European Union represents the highest level
of civilization the world has achieved, its almost thirty countries
functioning as democratic welfare states, with parties from the far left to the
far right participating in the political fray. Worried that Americans might
eventually demand the same six week vacations and free medical care enjoyed by
Europeans, the Wall Street-led military/industrial/financial complex engineered
an economic debacle that has brought the welfare state to its knees. Combined
with the presence of ever larger Muslim minorities, the situation is driving
Europe into the arms of new fascists similar to those who clubbed their way to
power in the Maidan.
This leads to an
impertinent question: If allowing all citizens to vote fails to prevent power
from residing in the hands of a few, should the word ‘democracy’ be used as the
criterion for proper government? Socialists of all stripes insist that it isn’t
enough for democracy to be ‘political’, giving each citizen a vote. It must
also be ‘social’, ensuring that the needs of all are met. They are opposed by
‘liberals’ who would like us to believe that guaranteeing ‘equality of
opportunity’ suffices to ensure the well-being of all. Increasingly around the
world citizens are coming to the conclusion that ‘democracy’ as the sole
criterion of government is a God that has failed.
In 1949, six eminent
writers, the Americans Louis Fischer, Stephen Spender, and Richard
Wright, the Hungarian-British Arthur Koestler, the
French Andre Gide and the Italian Ignazio Silone published a
book on their conversion to and subsequent disillusionment with communism,
titled The God that Failed. What is interesting about this book is
that Fischer called the moment in
which some communists or fellow-travelers decide
not just to leave the Communist Party but to
oppose it as anti-communists ‘Kronstadt’.
‘Kronstadt’ was a 1921 military rebellion during the young Soviet Union’s
struggle against Western armies seeking ‘regime change’. In bold below are
Kronstadt’s demands that are still being made today across the ‘democratic’
world:
1 Immediate new elections
to the Soviets; the present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers
and peasants. Thenew elections should be held by secret
ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda for
all workers and peasants before the elections.
4 The organization, at the
latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and
sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5 The liberation of
all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned
workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and
peasant organizations.
6 The election of a
commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7 The abolition of all
political sections in the armed forces; no political party should have
privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this
end. In place of the political section, various cultural groups should be set
up, deriving resources from the State.
8 The immediate abolition
of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9 The equalization of
rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10 The abolition of Party
combat detachments in all military groups; the abolition of Party guards in
factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated,
taking into account the views of the workers.
11 The granting to the
peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own
cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired
labour.
12 We request that all
military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this
resolution.
13 We demand that the
Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14 We demand the
institution of mobile workers’ control groups.
15 We demand that
handicraft production be authorized, provided it does not utilize wage labour.
Like today’s voters, the
Kronstadt recruits – demonstrating as citizens – wanted more bread and less
control. But the similarities end there. Although the rebellion was put down
militarily, Lenin recognized that their demands echoed those of the population
at large, and replaced what today we call ‘austerity’ with a less punishing New
Economic Policy that lasted until 1928. The fledgling communist state was
probably saved by recognizing that it had to respond to the workers’ demands,
while today’s ‘democratic’ European and American governments insist on
maintaining crippling austerity.
In the same year that the
Russian revolutionaries took power, the American President Woodrow Wilson made
the agonizing decision to enter the first World War that was devastating
Europe, against Germany. One sentence from the speech he made to the American
Congress to request a declaration of war, became a watchword: ‘to make the
world safe for democracy’. If you read the speech, which can be found at http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/,
you will see that Wilson was referring specifically to the fact that Germany
was not a democratic country, that its attacks on unarmed merchant vessels
bringing supplies to European countries at war would not have been possible had
it been a democracy, because ‘the people’ would not have tolerated such an
immoral action. In Wilson’s mind, the phrase that became famous with a
different meaning seems to have meant: ‘We have to go to war with Germany to
make the world safe for democracies such as ours, which would never carry out
such immoral attacks on civilians as are being carried out by an undemocratic
Germany.’ It did not, at the time, mean what it was later taken to mean, i.e.,
‘The US has to rule the world to make it safe for the financial/industrial
complex, to rule’. Under the pretext of ‘bringing democracy’ to a country, the
US modifies its entire political structure in order for it to serve the
financial/military/industrial complex.
The most extreme form of
that reorganization is embodied in the two major trade agreements that the US
is trying to impose on the Pacific and European worlds, the TPP and TAFTA. As a
telling example of the scope of these agreements, they would establish a
framework for the re-privatization of the one of the European Union’s most
significant features: free health care for all.
Notwithstanding the vast
cultural and political differences between ‘Kronstadt’ and ‘Occupy’, the
commonalities are striking. The austerity imposed on citizens by the world’s
bankers to recoup losses created by their own reckless behavior has pulled the
left out of decades of disarray. Parties like Syriza in Greece and Podemos in
Spain are fomenting a modern equivalent to the Kronstadt rebellion. All over Europe,
demonstrating has become an almost full-time occupation, now combining
resistance to austerity with opposition to Muslim refugees. According to a 2015
article in the NYT:
Mario Draghi, president of
the European Cenetral bank, acknowledged that Europeans “are going through
very difficult times.”As a European Union institution “that has played a central
role throughout the crisis, the ECB has become a focal point for those
frustrated with this situation,” Mr. Draghi said in prepared remarks. “This may not be a fair
charge — our action has been aimed precisely at cushioning the shocks suffered
by the economy. But as the central bank of the whole euro area, we must listen
very carefully to what all our citizens are saying.”
Fischer’s reference to
Kronstadt was about Lenin’s repression, but Draghi was admitting that ‘austerity’ is modern Europe’s ‘Kronstadt’ and that the
people will only put up with so much. According to a detailed report by the
German Deutsche Welle news service:
France’s Up all Night isn’t
some rag-tag little group of anarchists. It’s a leftist alliance composed of
more than 90 organizations from across Europe – some big, some small – that
have united in opposition to the European crisis, which Greece shares its five
years of austerity with thousands of refugees while wealthier countries tout
their generosity .
This, then, is the face of
21st century ‘democracy’ defined as a system based on ‘free and fair
elections’. At the same time as the European left is finding its feet after a
long decline, in the United States, after decades of worker passivity, Bernie
Sanders has galvanized Americans eager for progressive change. For more than
half a century, since the days of McCarthy, the mainstream media had
successfully claimed that ‘Americans are not interested in foreign
affairs’ to justify keeping its coverage to a minimum. But social media
campaigns are international, and they have gradually widened American awareness
of what the rest of the world is thinking and doing. In a stunning innovation,
Ferguson’s Black Lives Matter has coupled its fight for justice with
that of the Palestinians of Gaza, and more of these alliances are sure to
follow.
As long as ‘democracy’ is
defined as one man, one vote, that will not happen.
Deena Stryker is an
international expret, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of
international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online
journal “New Eastern
Outlook.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.