NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/revoluti/counter/27

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!copper!aaldoubo
From: [e-mail] (Shaqeeqa)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: What is this newsgroup about?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 10:16:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver
Lines: 68

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>The advantage of democracy over dictatorship is inertia.  A dictator
>can change his mind every day, implementing a bunch of insane programs.
>In a democracy, you have to convince 51% of the people before you
>can get your programs through.  The programs are not necessarily
>better, but chances are you will only have a lot of insane programs
>if most of the population has gone insane.

I disagree here.  A dictatorship is, and has been, a very stabilizing
factor politically in many countries because of its policies; however,
it doesn't necessarily mean that reforms are not introduced into the
society.  Case in poin is Iraq.  While the Ba'ath Party maintains an
iron fisted policy and is extremely ruthless in enforcing its position,
it has, infact, provided many necessary social and economic reforms.

Now, the West may allow certain freedoms socially and politically for
its citizens, as well as a limited role in policy making and reforms,
but it is the corruption of the government, misuse of federal funds,
and the class-system (based on power, money, and influence), which
maintains instability and chaos in, what is supposed to be, a well-
balanced 'democratic'/non-dictorial system.  And many argue that
a capitalism structure does not promote equality because of its
ideology, and that is self-interest, power, and categorization of
people - under a very white male dominated society with little
tolerance for anything below its 'standards'.

>To add even more inertia into the system, we have constitutions that
>were written by leaders in the past at a time when supposedly
>(hopefully) the leaders weren't insane.  Since it is difficult to
>change the constitution, and most people have some reverence for it,
>some basic governmental ideas move even slower than everything else.

Are you kidding?  Don't you think the country was instable and just
a little insane during that period of time?  What, with the civil war
for automony and a break from Mother England?  Perhaps is was not as
complex as it is today - so as to detail the laws and rights of
Americans, which would be suitable and applicable for everyone.

>Also, one problem with dictatorship is that even though a utopian
>benevolent dictator would be very good, in general only the worst
>of our society would want to be dictator.  In a democracy, you tend
>to have a mediocre government, which is much better than a nutcase
>dictator, though not as good as the ideal.

Don't forget that most, if not all, of these "nutcase dictators"
were installed, maintained, and supported financially by the governments
of the West.  This isn't a conspiracy theory.  Just look at the case of
Iraq (again) while the Khomeini regime was in power:  the U.S. and its
puppet regimes in the Gulf bankrolled Saddam Hussein to wage a war on
Iran and to cripple it economically and so that it would be vulnerable.
The U.S. knows that Saddam Hussein used the most extreme measures against
the Kurdish populations in Iraq prior to the Iran-Iraq war, but that was
not an issue at all - even after the Gulf War (which, again, the public
discovered that the U.S. was supplying Iraq militarily up to the invasion
of Kuwait), when Bush told the Kurds he could not help them.  And Saddam,
despite his raping and pillaging another country, is still with us today -
regardless of Bush's promises to take him to world court or abolish his
Hitler-like rule.

And then you have to keep in mind the double standards and hypocrisy
of the democratic governments who want to 'spread democracy' to unenlightened
countries.  Well, look at what happened in Algeria.  Look at what happened
in Bosnia.  When political stakes are at hand, intervention in the name of
democracy (western standards of), make a country's future extremely vital.

Anisa