I made a comment here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/06/02/dont-tell-me-words-dont-matter/#comment-23. click the link and scroll up to see the comments I'm replying to.
El_Heffe:
@ cadmus #17
I think you are using the word democracy some what loosely. There is nothing inherent in democracy that would require respect for others. Democracy is all the people participating directly in a legislative process where the majority rules absolutely, full stop. Democracy is not composed of a constitution or laws, and when the middle easterners you mention say that “it means we get to do what we want” they are closer to the real (practical) meaning of democracy than you are, especially if they are part of the majority.
Perhaps the word you are looking for and the concept that you are trying to introduce is actually that of a republic. The concept of republic (especially the american flavor of it) carries with it a connotation of rule of law and respect for minority rights under the law (I’m, of course, talking about political minorities here, not racial minorities).
@ Quelle #19
right on … see also genesis chapter 47:13-20
13: And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
14: And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.
15: And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
16: And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
17: And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.
18: When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:
19: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
20: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s.
Keep in mind that Joseph was relatively benevolent… he gave the people back enough land and seed for them to then support them selves… and *only* took 20% off the top. The feds are taking more than that now and licking their chops for the
rest.
Also the money in egypt “failed” more or less on accident… but we have people that almost seem to be driving us off a cliff on purpose. The example of pharoh indeed.
Heads up!Jun 3, 2009 - 11:10 am,
oops this turend into an exchange
here is the rest
Cadmus:
El_Heffe
You are correct about majority rule. But, in a democratic system the majority still accepts and respects the right of the minority to have a different view, and its right to continue to promote its view and vie for gaining the majority. Whether they succeed or not depends on how many people they can convince, with words and examples, not force.
A Republic is a system that allows democracy to work on a larger scale, where all the people cannot gather in the Arena and vote on every issue. So people elect representatives who will then gather and vote on their behalf.
In a democratic/republican system, the majority does not oppress the minority and prevent it from ever speaking again. It does not deny the minority’s right to monitor the majority’s rule and point out where it has gone wrong and try to capitalize on that to win support.
This is not something you can simply put on paper and expect people to abide by. This kind of respect for differences must be inducted into people’s thoughts and culture before it can become a constitution. If not, the winners will become rulers for life and the democratic experience will end on the first run.
We have seen this so often in the Middle East, presidents get elected and then declare themselves presidents for life. Or, they conduct sham elections that in effect deny anyone from truly competing for office. Egypt is a prime example.
That is because they believe that democracy gave them the right to “do what they want”, and they have no obligation to respect and accept others.
The reason Lebanon succeeded where others failed, is due to the fact that the people have lived all their history in a mixed society, where differences are all around them. Having people with different views was natural and expected. It is these differences that gave birth to democratic principles in Phoenicia thousands of years ago, which then moved to Greece, Rome and the rest of the world.
The war does not deny that fact, but rather re-enforces this point. In spite of all the conflicts of the past 35 years, all the foreign interventions and fanatic movements, the Lebanese people continue to live in mixed communities and, on a personal basis, respect each other’s opinions. They continue to insist on a unified pluralistic country.
Even Hizbullah, which originally aimed at an Islamic state in Lebanon, has found it necessary to moderate its speech to remain accepted among its own Shiite constituency. It is not out the kindness of their hearts that they proclaim their respect for other Lebanese communities and their willingness to share power with them. And, it is not due to the opposing force that prevented them from doing it. They have the weapons and have had the cover to this for a long time.
This is purely due to the fact that the Shiites would not go along with their original objectives. The only reasons Hizbullah remains a viable force in Lebanon are, the ongoing conflict with Israel and the fact that the Shiites see that the world is not willing to provide the Lebanese Army with the necessary weapons to defend them, and the social support network it built during the war years when Government services mostly disappeared. Beyond that, Hizbullah’s support is limited to a very small minority.
Next Sunday, Lebanese go to the polls to elect the next Parliament. There are many Shiites running against Hizbullah and its right to bare its arms. They have not been killed or denied that right. Try that in any other country in the Middle East.
It is that kind of cultural acceptance and respect of the “different” others that allows democracy to exist. Without such acceptance and respect, the majority elected in the first elections will become the new dictatorship.
Two years ago a lone brave sole decided he wanted to run for President in Egypt against Mubarak. He has been in jail ever since. Washington and the international community protested briefly and then forgot about it. No one else dared run, and the elections were simply a “Yes” or “No” for Mubarak. Other countries are just as bad, or even worse.
That is the kind of culture Obama will be addressing.
Cadmus
Jun 3, 2009 - 12:18 pm
25. El_Heffe:
Cadmus
“But, in a democratic system the majority still accepts and respects the right of the minority to have a different view, and its right to continue to promote its view and vie for gaining the majority. Whether they succeed or not depends on how many people they can convince, with words and examples, not force.”
I respectfully disagree, though i must admit that this is really just a matter of terminology. I know what you mean when you say “democracy”, but you are using the wrong word to convey your meaning. You are describing a republic but calling it a democracy.
By definition a “pure democracy” is essentially a temporary tyranny of the majority. This state is always captured by some other form of govennment, and often winds up as a dictatorship.
“But a pure democracy is not practical” you say… I agree… not only is it impractical, it is also undesirable and has rarely existed. Pure democracy only has a chance with relatively small groups of people and in relatively non-technical societies were issues are simple enough that literaly every one can understand all the details. less pure forms of democracy however have come about at various times and all of them have the traits of a pure democracy in proportion to their “purity”.
“A Republic is a system that allows democracy to work on a larger scale, where all the people cannot gather in the Arena and vote on every issue. So people elect representatives who will then gather and vote on their behalf.
In a democratic/republican system, the majority does not oppress the minority and prevent it from ever speaking again. It does not deny the minority’s right to monitor the majority’s rule and point out where it has gone wrong and try to capitalize on that to win support.”
You have got the scent of it here but you have missed the most significant part … you havent explained *why* the majority doesn’t oppress the minority under a republic… and that is a significant feature of a republic that is distinctly absent from a democracy (democracy nearly always devolves into a minority opressing the majority).
In a democracy the people directly excersize their political power (which is rightly their own as individuals). In a republic the people delegate their political power to their representative. In doing this they participate in an implicit collective agreement that others (or the representatives of others) will acknowledge their representative as legitimately weilding politcal power on behalf of them as the constituents. in exchange they agree to recognize the legitimacy of the representatives selected by other groups of constituents.
This is the foundational “unwritten law” if you will, that must be respected in order for any republic to exist (its really more like a question of legitimacy). If others refuse acknowledge that the representative weilds the power of his constituents then the system breaks down.
Because every one wants their representatave to be acknowledged, and be able to function on their behalf, they agree to allow the representatives of others to function on the behalf of their respective constituents. And thus all parties to this system implicity agree to respect the outcomes of the interactions between the representatives.
From this is born the concept of minority rights. Because if a constiteuncy were to just disavow their representative and “take back” their individual political power every time a decision didnt go their way then the whole system would lose legitimacy and break down… therefore it is in the interest of the majority to respect the rights of the minority (and not become abusive) in order to maintain the integrity of the whole system and thus prevent the situtaion from devolving into a democracy, which is at best cumbersome or at worst the path to some form of tyranny (in which case even the majority becomes oppressed - since all forms of tyranny basically amount to a minority with undue power using that power to stay in power).
See how this works? … See the fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy? words mave meaning, words do indeed matter wether they are on paper or not.
I respectfully defer to your understanding of the Lebanese situation. I do not have significant experience with the peoples of any other nation than the United States, and likewise no experience to speak of with middle easterners. I just know the difference between a republic and a democracy.
best regards.
Jun 3, 2009 - 4:42 pm
26. El_Heffe:
PS. alot of this is in the declaration of independence … “disolve the political bands” etc. The colonists took back their political power thus claiming legitimacy for their political actions and delegitimising (for them any way) the political order in which they had previously been participating… and they did this because they were an oppressed minority.
This is how governments (and forms of government) die… loss of legitimacy. This is why “pure republics” can’t oppress their minorities.
However because in a democracy there is no one to take back your political power from (you are already weilding it direclty) majorities in a “pure democracy” dont have to worry about this, and can therefore oppress the minority all the day long… untill some one co-opts the democracy that is.
PPS. Monarchs and dictators don’t have legitimacy in todays world, the american experiment has seen to that. Monarchs are now almost universally figure heads, and dictators stay in power only by force.
Jun 3, 2009 - 4:57 pm
27. El_Heffe:
… or by realpolitik.
