The democracy trap

WorldNetDaily ^ | May 17, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[philman_36]

I've been criticized for "splitting hairs" over semantics.

For years, I have been cringing, shuddering, rebuking at the frequent use of the word "democracy" by U.S. policymakers – President Bush included – who hold up this political system as the best the world has to offer.

Why would we here in the United States – the beneficiaries of the rejection of democracy by our founders – want to foist that failed, corrupt and immoral system on the rest of the world?

Worse yet, some in the United States actually expect to see good results from experiments with "democracy" in places that have no experience with self-government, places that have long histories of ethnic and religious groups victimizing one another, places that have no understanding of basic human rights.

We're about to see such chickens come home to roost in the nascent state of Palestine.

Parliamentary elections are scheduled for July in the Palestinian Authority. The choices facing the people – already programmed by years of schooling and officially controlled media hatred of Jews and Americans into a jihadist mentality – are slim and none.

On the one hand, we have those the West has determined falsely to be "moderates." Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, the political heir to Yasser Arafat, has spent his life in the Fatah party. It's not so much a political party as a guerrilla terrorist organization that came to power through 40 years of extortion and has squandered billions of dollars on guns, bombs and the personal excesses of its leaders. It believes in "compromise" and "negotiation" only as tools of longer-term goals – gaining a stronger foothold and better military position to spread jihad, destroy Israel and kill infidels.

On the other hand, we have the challenger – Hamas, a radical terrorist organization of true believers. Hamas has more in common with al-Qaida and Hezbollah than even Fatah. It does not believe in compromise. It believes only in spreading jihad, destroying Israel and killing infidels.

Not surprisingly, it is Hamas that has captured the hearts and minds of the people of the Palestinian Authority and which stands to make major, sweeping gains in the July elections.

Therefore, Abbas, the phony moderate reformer, is seriously considering calling off the elections for at least a year.

So much for Islamic-style democracy.

It's difficult for westerners to understand, but there is a reason representative government – a much better term, by the way, than democracy – has never succeeded in a Middle Eastern country dominated by Islam. Only one Arab country has ever sustained an experiment in representative, constitutional, republican-style government for any length of time. That was Lebanon, when the country had a population of about half Christians and before it came under foreign domination by Syria.

Islamic radicalism is like a mental illness. Try to imagine governing a nation where the majority of the population is suffering a mental disorder characterized by delusion, an inability to distinguish between right and wrong and the kind of mass psychosis that gripped Nazi Germany leading up to and through World War II.

That's the phenomenon we see in the Palestinian Authority today. And we have incubated and nourished this disease by insisting that this territory, which has never been a nation-state in the history of the world, needs to move toward nationhood as a prerequisite for peace in the Middle East.

It's never going to happen. It can't happen. If it did happen, it would be a disaster for peace and for freedom in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, we keep playing pretend. We keep pretending that "democracy" is a cure for a problem, when, in fact, democracy is a problem itself – even for societies much more stable than the Palestinian territories.

Democracies always descend into tyranny. Our founding fathers knew it. That's why they avoided creating one here in America. Even among populations fully capable of and practicing self-government, democracy always represents a lethal deathblow. Yet, somehow, too many of us fail to understand the critical distinctions between constitutional representative governments – that protect the absolute, inalienable rights of minorities – and democracies, in which the mob rules.

What can we do at this point?

Stop pretending.

Stop supporting this charade in nation-building with American tax dollars.

Stop interfering with Israel's absolute right to defend itself from its hostile neighbors.

And, most of all, stop calling for the spread of an inherently immoral political system – democracy – that will only make matters worse.

[philman_36]

An older article...No to democracy

I've been criticized for "splitting hairs" over semantics.
We've got something in common there!
For years, I have been cringing, shuddering, rebuking at the frequent use of the word "democracy" by U.S. policymakers – President Bush included – who hold up this political system as the best the world has to offer.
I can relate. For years, I have been correcting, admonishing and rebuking the frequent users of the word "democracy".
I'm not sure if I'm winning the battle or not...

[coconutt2000]

You're not winning the battle.

We can split hairs over the semantics of the word "Democracy", but is pointless. Technically, you're right, as is the author. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Pure democracies don't work, and haven't worked all that well everywhere it has been tried.

But here's the thing. Spreading "democracy" isn't about instituting pure democracies, but is about spreading the freedom that the democratic process engenders. Planting the seeds of democracy and freedom is about hoping that the fully matured result will be a Republic, founded on the principles of a Democracy - in that the representative government is responsible to the people that it governs, and that regular elections are the method by which the public voice is heard and implemented.

So, you're losing the argument because the technicality does not recognize the reality. You can point it out from time to time, but people will typically just shrug and go on calling the U.S.A. a democracy, because in our heart of hearts, we feel as if we own the government, and that, my friend, is what a Democracy is all about.

[philman_36]

You've split two hairs and still came out bald.

[Carry_Okie]

Inasmuch as I agree that the term "democracy" is way over-blown, the parliamentary system to be used in Palestine is a form of representative government; it is not a pure democracy.

[DB]

According the Britancia Online encyclipedia.

The first definition:

Form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections.

I don't have a problem with that, do you?

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9362508&query=democracy&ct=

[DB]

I spelled Britannica wrong... Figures...

[philman_36]

Let's quibble. I like quibbling.
...the parliamentary system to be used in Palestine is a form of representative government; it is not a pure democracy.
It might very well be the first. Time will tell.

To establish democracy, a nation must establish constitutional structures that provide for individual freedoms and guarantees, while giving the government the power to implement fundamental reforms and social reconstruction. (note that it doesn't state "To establish a representative government"...)
Snip...The draft Basic Law of the Palestinians is to embody the preliminary structures of their emerging state. Dr. Al-Qasem has stated that the aim is to establish a democratic parliamentary system with free political parties and political expression, due process, and "where the rule of law is respected by all."
Snip...In drafting the Basic Law, Palestinians must confront the inevitable tension between the demands of democracy and Islam. Dr. Al-Qasem has stated that "the influence of the sharia would be limited to the general principles of law which are recognized in any legal system." There will not be an Islamic state, as in the Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Iran. Western secular law has displaced the sharia in most of the Middle East countries, especially in the constitutional and public law areas. This has caused tension because Islam is not only a religion, but a way of life, whereas a democracy is based on the concept of majority rule rather than on God's inspiration.

Democracy, even if called by another name, is still Democracy De-mob-crazy.
Sorry.

[Carry_Okie]

Democracy, even if called by another name, is still Democracy De-mob-crazy.

I am quibbling with Farah. Here is what he said:

It's difficult for westerners to understand, but there is a reason representative government – a much better term, by the way, than democracy – has never succeeded in a Middle Eastern country dominated by Islam.

Parliamentary government is a form of representative government.

[philman_36]

I don't have a problem with that, do you?
Yeah, I do. Firstly, the Founding Fathers didn't form a Democracy, they formed a Republic and "democracy" is never mentioned in the Constitution. Secondly, The Federalist Papers, written by many of those same Founding Fathers, denigrates Democracy. Read 'em for yourself. There are plenty of websites that have them up.
Thirdly, have you seen your own source's definition of Republic? (BTW, definitions are a dime a dozen from dictionaries. try political treatises, such as Locke's Two Treatises of Government or the FP referenced above for better definitions of political systems)
republic
Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace.
The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

If they were "the same thing" then why are they worded differently? Different words mean different things otherwise there wouldn't be two seperate words for them.
And isn't it funny that "#5" under a search there for democracy gives one republic...
Check it!

[philman_36]

Parliamentary government is a form of representative government.
Yes, there are many "forms" of representative government.

Automobiles as "forms" of "representative government"...to make it simple
A car (a form of an automobile)...a Parliamentary government (a "representative government")
A truck (a form of an automobile)...a Republic (a "representative government")
A van (a form of an automobile)...a Democracy (also a "representative government")
A "vuck" (a form of an automobile)(a van front w/truck bed on back)...(America today "a vuck in the muck" through ignorance of our form of government)

[DB]

Actually, the definition of words are dynamic. They change with time.

Democracy simply means a government by the people. There are many forms of a Democratic government. A Republic is one of those forms. Parliamentary is another.

[philman_36]

Yep, you bought the vuck.

[philman_36]

Actually, the definition of words are dynamic. They change with time.

Language is alive. Words come and go. Definitions change. And many, if not most, words wind up with more than one meaning, which is referred to as polysemy. When the meanings are contradictory you have a contronym.
We have a contronym, not a polysemy, with the word democracy. The meanings between republic and democracy are contradictory.

[DB]

Don't be so gay about it...

[philman_36]

Don't be so gay about it...
BWAHAHAHAHA! What a riot you are!
Take your transference/projection elsewhere. It's not wanted here.

[DB]

What?

You were expressing so much joy in your replies to me. You know, gay, happy, joy? Or were you thinking something else?

I guess words do change...

[mongrel]

Here's an article that does a good job in detailing the changing meaning of the term democracy:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP3.HTM

[DB]

Interesting read, thank you.

[philman_36]

You know, gay, happy, joy?
Yeah, right. You forgot context, as in "Everything in context". If you had meant it in that manner then you would've used it in context in that manner and not have been so "open" with your statement. And "I was trying to give you an example" isn't floating either. The bucket has lots of holes.
Or were you thinking something else?
No, though it seems that you were.
I guess words do change...
No, the words themselves don't change. They do, however, get additional definitions added to them, as in your word of choice. Consider the name Theodore "Beaver" Cleaver from the old TV show "Leave It To Beaver". I don't think that "Beaver Cleaver" would get by the censors today, do you? Think of the uproar by NOW over that! The word beaver hasn't changed, it just got an extra slang definition added to it over time.
And, you know, sometimes words are used exactly as they were meant and as they were intended and sometimes they're even properly interpreted as they were intended.

[philman_36]

Here's an article that does a good job in detailing the changing meaning of the term democracy:
Here is part of your "good job" article...Besides its electoral characteristics, one kind of democracy has characteristics, which while neither necessary nor sufficient for democracy to exist, are crucial to your freedom. These involve the recognition of certain human rights (what happened to inalienable rights?) discussed in the previous chapter. One is the freedom to organize political groups or parties, even if they represent a small radical minority, and for the party to nominate their members to run for high office. Another right is that to an open, transparent, government, in particularly knowing how one's representatives voted and debated. Also there are the rights to freedom of speech, particularly the freedom of newspapers and other communication media to criticize government policies and leaders; freedom of religion; and the freedom to form unions and organize businesses.
One of the most important of these rights is to a fair trial and rule by law. Above the state there must be a law that structures the government, elaborates the reciprocal rights and duties of government and the people, and which all governing officials and their policies must obey. This is a constitution, either as a single document as for the United States, or a set of documents, statutes, and traditions, as for Great Britain.
If a democracy recognizes these rights, we call it a liberal democracy. If it does not, if it has only the electoral characteristics, but suppresses freedom of speech, leaders put themselves above the law, representatives make and vote on policies in secret, then we can call it a procedural, or better, an electoral democracy.

A liberal democracy is just a stones throw from a social democracy which is...SOCIALISM! Have a cup of coffee on me and WAKE UP!
You've bought the vuck as well!
Sorry, but that "explanation" doesn't work for me.
While it might work for you, it doesn't work for me and you and that author can keep your changing meaning. I'm trying to keep the meaning from changing, which seems to cause quite a bit of angst from some folks for some reason. I guess "there must be Democracy no matter what".