thoughts from my brain. my perception of the world around me.
Does Democracy Really Work
Published on March 23, 2004 By Gangadhara In Politics
Last night I was out for dinner with some of my Chinese colleagues and, we got to talking about whether or not people in China could make jokes about their leaders. The general consensus was that, they could not. At least, not publicly. Obviously. Who in China would dare to do this.

So, one of the great tests of democracy was that people in other countries could do so. Look at India, the USA, UK, countries in Europe. Which have democratic setups or, setups that are near democratic anyway. So, we do have cartoons lampooning the party bosses. We do have newspaper articles criticizing them. This is in the great democratic tradition, no doubt.

Yet, I am uncomfortably reminded of George Orwell's animal farm. And, the last parts where the pigs were having dinner with the humans and, where they changed the last line of the animal manifesto - all animals are equal but, some are more equal than others. Pretty cynical book but, what the hell. It's all true!!

Look at the Iraq war. George Bush looks at the war as part of his greater war on terror. Or so, he publicly claims. Yet, what was the real cause? Oil? Contracts? Contracts for whom? Cheney's firms? Vendetta because Saddam threatened to blow up his father? Truths, half truths that we suspect but, never will be told about officially?

So, despite protests from his own countrymen, the war went on. Was this in the best democratic tradition?

Look at Arnold Schwarzzenneger. I can never spell his name. One of his strengths was that he was married to a Kennedy. Dynasty!! Same goes for Bush.

Come home to India. Look at the Nehru- Gandhi dynasty. And now, I read an article in 'India Today' about the sons and daughters of our venerable politicians entering politics. Earlier, they all criticised a small politician called Chautala for his dynastic rule in his home state. But, they all do it now.

And, the corruption. The less said, the better.

Vote rigging. We all know about that.

So, what is democracy? A flawed, corrupted ideal? Or, an ideal system that never had a hope in hell. But, is convenient nowadays anyway for all politician's to use.

But, better than dictatorship, no doubt.

Yet, in the best Animal Farm tradition, some animals will always be more equal than others.

Comments
on Mar 23, 2004
Everybody says that Bush went to war over oil. Well if that's the case, why don't we go to war with Brunei, because they're a lot smaller country with a more pitiful army than Iraq, and they have as much as Iraq does!
on Mar 23, 2004
These same people also ignore the fact that France and others were against the war for money, and I don't see how maintaining a dictatorship for money is any better than waging a war against a dictator for oil.
on Mar 24, 2004
So, despite protests from his own countrymen, the war went on. Was this in the best democratic tradition?


you have to remember that there are different flavors of democracy. technically the us is a republic. and some things just shouldn't be left to direct votes: minority rights for one thing. we'd be doing all sorts of crazy stuff just becase the majority feels like it at the moment.

but "democracy" isn't a guarantee that the most perfect best decision is made every time, but that decisions are made with at least some discussion, openness, and sometimes even agreement . sometimes it looks pretty crappy, but it's better than any alternative so far.
on Mar 24, 2004
Actually, it's not a republic either. It's a representative democracy. The difference is subtle, but still there.

For instance, a Republic does not require that the representatives be elected, witness the Roman Republic.

Cheers
on Mar 24, 2004
Okay, I have to respond to some of these comments. First, I was not writing specifically about Bush. Though I do believe that the war in Iraq was unjustified.
That Saddam was a dictator is something that no one, save Saddam himself, would deny. But, what was the provocation? Those who recall some of the comments made by Bush and his team would remember that he did, several times, talk about pre-emptive strike at the source of threat. If so, you enter the realm of perception. What then, prevents anyone from murdering someone and, saying that this person represented a threat.
Brunei. C'Mon. That would be too obvious!! Anyway, if it is truly a war against terror, what about Pakistan? Why abet Pakistan? What about Korea?
Anyway, 'nuff sai. The point was not Bush. The point was democracy. It has it's pluses. Freedom of expression for one. But, the fact that those in power do encourage their own dynasties, that they arrogate power, money to themselves and, that they influence the laws to suit themselves only means that some animals are more equal than others. That's the point of 'Animal Farm'.
on Mar 24, 2004
Interestingly, I think that Orwell's book "1984" has some very close-call connections with modern day life, democracy and governments. Those who have read it recently probably noticed the similarities. A government keeping a nation in fear, in order to slowly but gradually abolish their rights. Has anyone really thought about how long it has taken us and how much blood and tears were spilled to get us the rights we take for granted? The right to a fair trial for instance?

If you havent read "1984" I would advise you to do so.

These quotes from a seemingly very wise man, Winston Churchill, also make good points for this thread...

"Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. "
--
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
on Mar 25, 2004
It's a republic to a point; that is, until the conservatives only think they are a majority. Though the country is equally divided, one group thinks it is more equal than the other.
on Mar 25, 2004
Always the same old thing...
Democracy is not the best just the less bad...
on Mar 25, 2004

Are you kidding me? Did we read the same book?!

Animal Farm more fully resembles Communism, e.g., the USSR, more closely than ANYTHING democratic.

Look at how everything happened:

The pigs decided that something needed to change = the Bolsheviks

The pigs decided that they needed to be in charge = the Reds (vs. the Whites)

The pigs decided that some were more equal than others = Lenin, Stalin, and the others running the USSR

How ANYONE could think Animal Farm resembles democracy is beyond me.

Moreover, the criticisms stated by posters herein are so typical and droll; they've been said a hundred times by a hundred people seeking to find "what is wrong with society" but who haven't learned to make an effort outside of copying something someone else said before them. "George Bush was after Oil... or whatever", "Arnold S. married into a political dynasty so he could make a legacy for himself", and on, and on and on....

Where are the original thoughts? Or are conspiracies just too good not to grab hold of and propagate?
on Mar 26, 2004
It was, I hope, an ironic statement.

Cheers
on Mar 26, 2004
Yep, we read the same book. About communism? Nah, I don't think so. About the 'original' thoughts. C'Mon. How do you define a truly original thought?

We all quote people and, we interpret them in our own ways. It's the interpretation that is original, not the actual quote. The reason for the examples used - they are 'live' examples. Simple. No more, no less.

So, was 'Animal Farm' about communism or democracy? Or, was it about human behaviour. Lenin and Stalin may have used force and, fear. There is no mention of force in the book. Certainly a lot about disinformation. Which is really something that exists in both systems, democratic and, communist. The tendency to use, or abuse, power, exists in both systems. The method changes. Or, the manner in which the method is portrayed, changes.
Therefore, to say that democracy works in perfect ways is misleading. To say that it is always better, may also be misleading.
on Mar 27, 2004
Gangadhara - "Look at the Iraq war. George Bush looks at the war as part of his greater war on terror. Or so, he publicly claims. Yet, what was the real cause? Oil? Contracts? Contracts for whom? Cheney's firms? Vendetta because Saddam threatened to blow up his father? Truths, half truths that we suspect but, never will be told about officially?

So, despite protests from his own countrymen, the war went on. Was this in the best democratic tradition?

Look at Arnold Schwarzzenneger. I can never spell his name. One of his strengths was that he was married to a Kennedy. Dynasty!! Same goes for Bush."

Your "examples" are not true examples; you give a fact and then add examples of common theories. There is no interpretation in them; they are straight copies of the same theories that run amuck across the various media - and more than likely, you heard these theories from one source (at least!) from which your mind picked them up. A thought would add something new; it would make something clear that was unclear before.

A thought comes from reading something and coming to a conclusion of one's own - for example, if you had never heard any of these theories before, and you came up with the IDEA that perhaps Bush's intentions were more fully towards profiting from Iraq's oil than in whatever else (mind though, this is still only an IDEA, not yet a thought), then you worked through the facts that you know about Bush's past actions, etc.(this could happen in a second or over an undetermined amount of time) until you came to the conclusion (i.e., THOUGHT) that, yes, in fact Bush did intend to acquire Iraq's oil based on Facts A, B, C, etc. ... THIS is a thought, although a small one. At least, though, a developed thought. Undeveloped thoughts are not really thoughts; they are IDEAS. And ideas are common. THOUGHTS are not... especially in this world.

Thoughts can be explained, or developed further. Ideas can't really; one just has them, like the idea to go to the park. (But please let me know if you think this IS, in fact, a thought. If so, we're on completely different pages.)

Thoughts take time; thoughts take effort. Ideas are more like questions - they could be good or poor ideas, as will inevitably be determined either by experience or by investigation.

Thoughts take perception; they are the expressions of what one sees in reality. Ideas are of the mind; they take into account little or nothing of reality, as in the idea of little green martians eating the green cheese of the moon (Realities: a being, the act of a being eating, the object of the moon.)

Ideas are easy to come by. Everyone has ideas; and ideas are easily propigated, especially by way of media. But thoughts are neither easy to have nor easily propigated; one must be able to think in order to express a thought to another person, even if the thought was first expressed by someone else, in which case the thought becomes one's own.

One even must be in a mode of thinking about the subject at hand in order to receive thoughts from others.

So, your "thoughts" are not thoughts, by my standards. They are merely a culmination of ideas, many of which I have heard a hundred times before from a hundred different sources. And, to me, ideas - especially those which are repeated to infinity - are boring. They circle around getting nowhere; accomplishing nothing. Ideas stir people up; and I find this stirring distrubing, unnecessary, and unproductive.

For instance, what good are you accomplishing in stirring people against democracy, even in your small ways? If people became stirred enough, perhaps they would decide to do away with democracy - then what? Dictatorship? Communism? Totalitarianism? Is this good? By your own admission, no.

This is why I ask for thoughts - original thoughts (which, actually , is a redundancy). Do you have any? Does anyone here? Is anyone actually even interested in thoughts... or just in ideas?
on Mar 27, 2004
Good points mostly. I guess it has to come back to, sure there is still disinformation in democracy, but there is more than one side that can give disinformation, so hopefully from all these sides people who do actually care can come to something close to the truth. In almost every other form of government, the there is only one side, that of the government in power. This , of course, assumes that the democracy we are talking about is actually a somewhat free democracy.
on Mar 28, 2004
Wel, well Mysterie. I am beginning to enjoy this!! Okay, let me respond to you in one sense - since you seemed to get into the argument or, debate, in a strange manner. Well, first of all, your interpretation of 'Animal Farm' is pretty superficial in itself. You have simply taken your dislike for the communists and have interpreted the events in the book to suit your perception!! Yes??
Let's talk about thoughts and, ideas. Both are born of the brain. An idea may have a subconscious root. It may take expression in a 'spark', a 'Eureka' moment as it were and, is, in itself 'simple'. It does not mean that no deep analysis has gone on in the human brain to come up with an idea. Be it a philosophical idea or, a new product idea. Yes, I agree that, from there on, the 'rational' mind 'takes over' and, rationalises the idea into concepts or, thoughts as you call them. However, all rational thought has it's basis in perceptions. Reality is, after all, perception. The 'rational' thought in itself, can rob an idea of it's original insight. It can make it more complex than required. For instance, take any religion. All religions have their basis in the same basic concept of God. Buddhism speaks of the 8 fold path. Yet, later Buddhist writings are incredibly complex and, even though meant for the laymen are, beyond him.

George Bush wants to protect civilisation by banning gay marriages. What is this? An idea or, a thought? Give me your thoughts on this one.

Similarly, his response to the bombings in Madrid, as per 'Business Week', have been muted. They feel he is more into his presidential race. Is this how he treats his ally in the 'war against terror'?

However, I still say, what I wrote is not about Bush. He has, at least, the courage of his convictions. We can debate his convictions into eternity but, that is not the point.

Democracy and communism have similar ideals - the equality of man. The practice of both is different. Communist leaders have been more obviously despotic than those of democratic countries. They have used fear and, have twisted the media. But, do you mean to tell me that this does not happen in democracies? Of course it does. And, whether you are lead by force or, deception, you are manipulated and, you are not 'free'.

So, let's argue the case and, not make trite distinctions between 'ideas' and 'thoughts.
on Mar 28, 2004
There's corruption everywhere, so there will always be disinformation, but disinformation seems to be eventually exposed. As long as the disinformation can be exposed while the information can be released, there will be freedom.