| This chapter examines the
extent to which democracy is corrupted before going into suggesting
any alternative in the chapters to come. The chapter begins with:
|
An ancient Tongan saying goes, "a fish starts
to rot at the head." The same is happening with democracy. The
rot that started at the core is now fast spreading like a cancer
to affect all aspects of life under the contemporary
democracies.
Theoretically, democracy means a lot more
than just elections or consultation. The Oxford English
Dictionary defines it as: "Government by the people; that form
of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people
as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the
small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them."
‘Lord’ Hailsham, in his book ‘The Dilemma of Democracy’, says
that the only proper use of the term is in respect of ‘popular
sovereignty and nothing else...Sovereignty can reside in an
individual, a selected number of citizens or the whole adult
population. Only the last named can be properly called a
democracy’.2
Sovereignty means supreme power. Popular
sovereignty, which is the essence of democracy, exists when the
people as a whole have the final say on everything, and are the
ultimate reference point for legislation and the constitution.
In practice, democratic states, commonly known as republics,
have elected parliaments that pass laws by majority.
This is, however, the illusion of democracy.
The reality is far different. This reality, aptly summarized by
Noam Chomsky, is that "popular involvement" in state affairs and
"in the formation of public policy is considered a serious
threat. It is not a step towards democracy; rather it
constitutes a ‘crisis of democracy’ that must be overcome."3
The reality, however, is that the idea of sovereign citizens in
a democratic state, expressing their sovereign will by electing
representatives has miserably failed in leading democracies,
such as the UK and US. The drawbacks of counting heads for
handing over unlimited power to a few representatives have come
to fore.
To understand the concept of handing over
unlimited power to a few representatives one needs to understand
the concept of state and government. People living under
democracies have a deep and well-founded suspicion in
contemporary democracies that the state is inimical to their
interests. There is also a general feeling that the state exists
to perform some essential and useful functions for its citizens.
Those who can see behind the ever-increasing façade of democracy
and representative governments have concluded that the modern
state does not "represent" its citizens in any meaningful sense.
It rather robs them by the use of its monopoly of force in the
territory under its jurisdiction.
Modern states develop and protect specific privileged and
parasite classes, and provide them with a relatively secure
method for the confiscation of the property of
others............ |
and moves on to prove that under the
modern democracies the people are not the government. Representatives
under a democratic set up are not the true agents or accountable
because a true representative is always subject to that individual’s
orders, can be dismissed at any time, and cannot act contrary to the
interests or wishes of his principal. In reality, the people are no
more than a "crowd," as Thomas Sowell called them in his February 23,
2003 column in the Washington Times. The Washington Post
also proudly applauds Blair and Aznar, who "watched the protests that
filled their capitals last weekend, acknowledged the message, then
called Mr. Bush to say they would not back down before Saddam Hussein.
Theirs is a stand on principle…"
The author moves on:
|
Many people believe that the judiciary is a
protector of their rights and an effective check on government
power. To Black the seeming independence of the judiciary while
paradoxical, is blithely self-evident. The judiciary is part and
parcel of the government apparatus. It is appointed by the
judiciary and legislative branches. Of course, ". . . the final
power of the State . . . must stop where the law stops it." The
question, however, is: "Who shall set the limit, and who should
enforce the stopping, against the mightiest power? Why, the
State itself, of course, through its judges and its laws. Who
controls the temperate? Who teaches the wise?"14
It means that the State has set itself up as a judge in its own
cause, thus violating a basic juridical principle for aiming at
just decisions. Although, almost all political theorists since
the time of Black brusquely deny the possibility of any
alternative, but the alternative is there as discussed in
chapter 8. |
The author discuss the gaps between the theory and reality of
democracy in detail. He argues that theoretically, the people are the
source of the law in a democracy and the law in turn ensures
fundamental rights of individual members, but the reality is totally
against it.
The chapter then discusses the recently galvanized debates that
present democracy as a challenge to Islam. The author presents facts
that exposes the weaknesses of democracy to the contrary. In his view
the fig leaf of freedom and human rights can no more hide the
tyrannical turn that democracy has taken in the 21st century.
The chapter then discusses how elites have been the pioneers and
protectors of the so-called democracy since day one in the United
States, the self-appointed champion of democracy. The process started
right from the time when the founders drafted the US Constitution and
plotted to get it ratified to what Richard Nixon and his advisors did
in the 1972 presidential campaign and what Bush II is doing in 21st
century. After presenting all the historical facts the chapter gives
further details about the corporate institutions which control an
overwhelming proportion of America’s resources and the way democracy
and representation is effectively hijacked.
The chapter then gives specific examples under sub headlines to
highlight the state of rotten democracy. Towards the end of the
chapter, the author goes further deep and proves it from the words of
mostly American analysts that democracy is dead. It is only that these
people do not see the alternative.
| A growing
number of political analysts now openly say that the leading
promoters of democracy are not practicing what they preach. Like
many others, John Gerassi of a Canadian research organization
recently declared: "It is now time to say and act upon the fact
that the United States, as a state, is Fascist."54
....... .........a growing
number of independent analysts and elected representatives are
classifying the government in Washington as nothing less than a
police state55
or a governance mechanism that is giving "birth to an American
tyranny."56
.........A leading American analyst believes:
"This reversion to primitive authoritarianism would have shocked
the authors of the Constitution."60
In other words, democracy in the US has reached a stage where
judging the government "by its own supposed criteria is
disloyalty and treason. Obey, or be damned!"61.................
The basic theme of Jean-Francois Ravel’s
famous book in early 90’s was the ways in which dictatorships
conceal real information from the people.62
Here, what American analysts conclude about the US government in
2003 are "indications that the US government embellished
intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and
concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and
around the world."63
Sheldon Wolin of the Nation went on proving the US
government an "inverted totalitarianism," whereby "the current
system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration
towards unlimited power and aggressive expansionism. Their
methods and actions seem upside down. For example, before the
Nazis took power in Weimar Germany, totalitarian gangs dominated
the "streets" and confined whatever there was of democracy to
the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets
where democracy is most alive — while the real danger lies with
an increasingly unbridled government."64
........Experts argue that democracy has four essential
features: free elections, freedom of expression, rule of law and
general citizenship (i.e., apartheid is not democracy). There
are, however, four recent events and the associated tactics,
which prove that even the US, the champion of democracy, does
not fulfil this criterion......
|
For any comment or suggestion about the book
CONTACT
Write
to the author
|
