nino_savatte
No pasaran!
And South Africa? After two wars the British had to surrender that colony too.
Can a democracy be an empire and stay democratic?
- Thread starter RHOQ
- Start date
Andy the Don said:
In terms of comparative advantage the gap between Britain and its rivals was widest in the 1870s/80s/90s. The unifications of Germany and America meant that by the turn of the century they were already challenging Britain's economic dominance, and by virtue of the potential size of their economies, it was clear they would both soon surpass Britain. Coincidently or consequently, the late 1800s was characterised by new imperial expansion (scramble for Africa). In contrast to the first phases of overseas growth, which were led by poineer colonisation and trading companies, this new phase was led by Government, and was immediately characterised by direct (military) rule. Policy had become deliberatively imperial (reference debates detween Gladstone and Disraeli)
We're probably in a similar time now. American planners will have sussed that, if left to free trade, China's economy will overtake America's, so they have to change tack to a stay ahead of the game. This means a race to pin down sectors of the global economy that can be subject to US contol, and the ready use of the military/direct rule to secure those ends (Oil/ Mid-East). This is the mature phase of empire. Interestingly, Britain's mature imperial phase (lets say for the sake of argument post Versailles), coincided with the acceptance of two principles that IMO contradicted the imperial rationale. Mass democracy (excl women under 30) at home in 1918, and national self-determination, pushed by an earnestly anti-imperial US at Versailles (1918). These developments meant that Churchill, after "bombing the natives in to submission" in Iraq in the early 1920s, was by the 1930s an outcast political figure because of his advocacy of British rule in India. "Empire", before the exhaustion of WWII, had already become self-evidently hypocritical, and consequently, faintly embarrassing. But will the Americans have the same mentality?
Aldebaran said:
Sure, US history has had elements of Imperialism and racism from the very beginning. But "democracy" doesn't exist in a vacuum. It co-exists with the undemocratic forces (entrenched power) against which it constantly struggles.
My knowledge is superficial, but I believe its correct to say that the safeguarding of democracy against tyranny, government for the people, not in some Orwellian doublespeak sense, was the genuine sonorous concern of figures such as Jefferson and Lincoln (not perfect figures, their faults explained by the context of their times). And even in to the twentieth century, Roosevelt warned against overmighty corporations, Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex. There has been in the past a sensibility among the elite of that country that has sought to guard against the capture of the state by undemocratic forces.
Where the dividing lines have been between US "democracy" and "tyranny" is an academic debate. The question should be where are we now and what does it mean for democracy (genuine access to power, equal treatment under the law, respect for individual and cultural rights)?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TeeJay said:
If the US was a properly functioning democracy, everyone would have a say in how the country is run. Instead, only the M-I complex, the corporations and its paid friends in Washington have a say in how the country is run. Elections offer the illusion of change and nothing else.
If the US was a properly functioning democracy, certain states would not resort to technologically aided electoral fraud in order to preserve the position of the already powerful.
In a democracy power is meant to flow from the bottom to the top, not the other way around.
Here's a article that I found. No, it isn't written by Chomsky either.
http://www.spectacle.org/1000/demo2.html
Well that's a list of negative criteria at least, although it is very vague on details about how the system would be different to deliver these things.nino_savatte said:
You haven't however pointed to any countries that you do consider to be examples of existing democracies.
If elections were no able to change anything why would anyone bother committing fraud? Why would they need to "preserve the position of the already powerful" by alledgedly fixing elections, if elections simply "offer the illusion of change and nothing else".
It sounds more like you reject US democracy because you don't like what people choose to vote for.
For what its worth, a democracy society involves far more than simply having elections in any case, but I would like to know which countries you think are democracies, if any.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TeeJay said:
Why is it a "list of negative criteria", Teejay? Do you honestly think that the system that we live under -anywhere - is democratic? Do you feel properly served by your political representatives and leaders?
This is too risible
It sounds like you're talking out of your arse. Do you think electronic voting machines are more efficient than pen and paper? What about the lack of a paper trail? Do you think Florida 2000 was conducted in a fair a proper manner and, more importantly, do you think it was fair, right and proper for thousands of voters to be removed from the list just because they were Black, Hispanic or Jewish and were inclined to vote Democrat?
Is this a game? You challenge me to name a democracy, while you continue to claim that the US is a proper functioning democracy? Pish.
I don't have to because there is no such thing as a democracy anywhere on this planet and the country that comes close - that I have mentioned many times - is Switzerland.
You'll have to ask those who are in charge of the system that question and while you're at it, do some reading on the history of the 18th and early 19th centuries: democracy was feared by the ruling classes and there was no monarch on earth who was prepared to relinquish power. Even in this country, though we had a parliament, suffrage was not universal and one could only vote if one had the necessary property qualifications.
But tell me this, voting is meant to change anything, what has it changed? Many people voted Labour in 1997 in the hope that the railways would be brought back under public control and the NHS would be givn the money to do its job, neither of these things happened and, instead, we have a government that is wedded to the free market principles of its predecessor. No one wanted PFI for the tube in London but the government rode roughshod over the wishes of the electorate. Voting changes nothing, on the contrary, it just makes things worse.
Why didn't you comment on the link, Teejay?
nino_savatte said:
More fool them, then, as the Labour Party made it very clear that that was not on the agenda.
Yes.nino_savatte said:
Only up to a point. Some my elected representatives are people from the Green Party who I have campiagned for and helped get elected. They work very hard and have achieved various positive things. There are also various people from other parties who do a good job.
Complaining about specific events where the system doesn't work as well as it should isn't the same as saying the whole system is not democratic. If you don't think that the US is a democracy why are you wibbling on about how details of its electoral system don't work how they are supposed to? If you reject that system why do you care if it is working properly?
I notice that you have now added a "proper functioning" rider to the "democracy" part. Interesting - this implies that America *is* a democracy but isn't a perfect one, that its system is democratic but like everything in real life (as opposed to utopian theory) could do with some improvement.
I don't see why Switzerland is so different politically-speaking from a host of other countries with democratic systems.
Thanks for the history lesson but it isn't relevant.
It changes who is elected - and even if the same people get elected that is still the choice of the electorate - ie if the electorate vote for 'no change' then they get 'no change'.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
TeeJay said:
You're a weird one, to be sure and I get the feeling that you pretend to not understand what it is I am saying. I have also come to the conclusion that you really don't want to understand because it suits you to nitpick and claim the moral high ground.
But this?
Well, whoopee doo! It changes "who is elected" which means what? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the nature of the state changes when a new government is elected? LOL!!!!!
Any opportunity to belittle your opponent, eh Teejay?
You live in denial if you think it is "irrelevant". Here you make a claim that runs counter to all polls taken in the run up to the mayoral election.
Aye, only 3 people out of the millions who live in London wanted it...and one of them was T.Blair esq .
I think you're just plain wrong to say that. I also think that you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. Presumbly you tink that most people are happy with the way the railways are currently operated. I don't think they are, and survey after survey reveals widespread dissatisfaction with the railways. Perhaps all those cars clogging up the M6 simply happened overnight, without a reason.
Here you have decided to read your own meaning into my post. Where did I mention "anti-free market people"? I didn't.
Try reading and comprehending, it makes all the difference.
soulman said:
From the little I've read, I believe there are two conceptions of the state. One is as a guarantor of a common set of rules or standards of a society. The other is as an enterprise association, a vehicle by which society can achieve common goals.
Which conception is better is an academic debate. Who sets the rules and the goals is the stuff of politics. But in a democracy that process has to be open to the public and therefore amenable to the public interest. Fascism to my mind is a hidden alliance between elite private interests and the state against the public interest, and the use of mythologies to mask that reality.
I haven't read it (I will) but I think the writers of the American constitution intended it (or atleast should have if they didn't) to be an ahistorical or neutral document, a statement of enduring principles. When interests conflict within a society, politicians should theoretically ask "what does the constitution say?", or try to solve contemporary problems with the spirit with which it was written. So in that sense, yes a constitution, as the foundation set of rules for a state, tries to be a neutral fulcrum for the action of politics within a society.
RHOQ said:
i would add a third definition of the state, not neutral, but a construction designed to ensure that power, violence and the use of fear rests in the hands of a minority. a power elite. so the very existance of the state is an obstacle to direct democracy and other forms of decision making that people might choose for themselves...
OK then, let's look at Belgium then:Aldebaran said:
Country name: Kingdom of Belgium
Government type: federal parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy
Administrative divisions: 10 provinces and 3 regions
Constitution: 7 February 1831; amended many times; revised 14 July 1993 to create a federal state
Legal system: civil law system influenced by English constitutional theory; judicial review of legislative acts; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations
Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal and compulsory
Executive branch: chief of state: King ALBERT II (since 9 August 1993) head of government: Prime Minister Guy VERHOFSTADT (since 13 July 1999) cabinet: Council of Ministers formally appointed by the monarch elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary and constitutional; following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or the leader of the majority coalition is usually appointed prime minister by the monarch and then approved by parliament
Legislative branch: bicameral Parliament consists of a Senate ... (71 seats; 40 members are directly elected by popular vote, 31 are indirectly elected; members serve four-year terms) and a Chamber of Deputies ... (150 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote on the basis of proportional representation to serve four-year terms) elections: Senate and Chamber of Deputies - last held 18 May 2003 (next to be held no later than May 2007)
note: as a result of the 1993 constitutional revision that furthered devolution into a federal state, there are now three levels of government (federal, regional, and linguistic community) with a complex division of responsibilities; this reality leaves six governments each with its own legislative assembly
Judicial branch: Supreme Court of Justice ... (judges are appointed for life by the government; candidacies have to be submitted by the High Justice Council)
Political parties...: Flemish parties: Christian Democrats...; Flemish Liberal Democrats...; GROEN!...; New Flemish Alliance...; Socialist Party.Alternative...; Spirit... (new party now associated with SP.A); Vlaams Belang... Francophone parties: Francophone Greens...; Humanist and Democratic Center...; National Front...; Reform Movement...; Socialist Party...; other minor parties
Political pressure groups and leaders: Christian, Socialist, and Liberal Trade Unions; Federation of Belgian Industries; numerous other associations representing bankers, manufacturers, middle-class artisans, and the legal and medical professions; various organizations represent the cultural interests of Flanders and Wallonia; various peace groups such as Pax Christi and groups representing immigrants
link
++++
Yes, this looks like a democracy.
Now what exactly are the specific differences, in your view, between Belgium and America that make Belgium a democracy and America not a democracy?
As for your question about the US - I think it is a democracy because it has all the institutions, divisions of power, checks and balances, political processes and elements of a pluralistic and open society that go to make up a democracy.
TeeJay said:
I think this statement warrants a little more analysis. My understanding is that there are people in America waking up to the fact that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, violating a number of amendments. There are people waking up to the fact that the Bush Doctrine is unconstitutional. There is only provision for defensive war in the constitution. Only the willingfully blind would argue that the right to pre-emptive or preventative war anywhere on the globe meets this definition.
In theory the "checks and balances" and "divisions of power" will prevent the enactment of unconstitutional policies. So what are to make of the enactment of these policies? Shrug it off as temporary blimp? A temporarily ineffective Congress. A short lived politicisation of the judiciary. Or should we be concerned that the American constitution's wonderful "checks and balances" appear not be functioning, seem not be relevant? What is American Government without these checks and balances?
I think you need to justify you're apparent faith in the current situation. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of the democratic ideal. But if we get much more of what we have now, I'm afraid the word "democracy" will become meaningless to more than just the extreme left/right, or for that matter the people of the Middle East.
muser said:
It's hard to see how 'unthinkable' can be interpreted as 'possible'.
I'm not sure, mind you, if Socrates didn't think of that first.
Lock&Light said:It's hard to see how 'unthinkable' can be interpreted as 'possible'.
I'm not sure, mind you, if Socrates didn't think of that first.
Thank you for inserting the rightful owner of that text. What I wrote is intelligible, there is no need to perform an excerise in pedantry.
TeeJay said:
It is. And a very well functioning at that.
There are flaws and inaccuracies in your incomplete "factbook", by the way. (To name one: The Belgian Law system is primary based on the Napoleonistic Code Civil (Roman Law). The English common law system is someting entirely different.)
A system where only two large parties dominate the whole political scenery while on top of that these parties (and the politicians, no less) are extremely vulnarable for pressure of and influence by Corporate US, can't be a functioning democracy.
When - at that - in such a polarized system the voting is not even compulsory (and where enrollment on voting lists is by times very much corrupted too) you hardly can claim to have a representative government.
In my eyes every single US election reflects the Capitalist Mentality the best way one can imagine. The best marketed, hence best selling product wins the prize.
Would the US have (like Belgium) a - limiting and well defined- state funding of every political party furfilling the legal conditions to be recognized as such, the US would have the chance to build up a multiple party system, which in my view (and with compulsory voting added) would be a good start.
salaam.
