Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Democracy Takes it on the Chin

Filed under: Zimbabwe

mugabe.gif

The past month or so has been a really rough one for democracy.

The month started out with an "election" in Russia in which there were no debates and no opposition candidates. A proud KGB spy guaranteed that his hand-picked successor would "win" by indicting his own former prime minister on fraud charges and striking him from the ballot, and when his successor takes over he'll remain in the government as prime minister himself -- meaning that, in fact, there won't be any transition at all.

And it ends with an "election" in Zimbabwe where the regime, though more civilized than Russia's in that it allowed an actual opposition candidate on the ballot and allowed it to become known that it had lost control of the parliament, refused to release results of the presidential poll and launched a crackdown that included rounding up foreign journalists and seizing the records of the opposition party.

Russia as Zimbabwe with permafrost. Zimbabwe as Russia with elephants.

But it's not the action of the barbaric dictators that troubles democracy. She's been staring such cretins in the face for centuries, and they only make her giggle. Time and again, she's raised her sword and struck them down.

Martin Luther King used to say that it wasn't the forces of evil, like the KKK, that most troubled him, it was the forces of good. His leading kvetch was about the people he called "white moderates," those who undermined the reform movement not by attacking blacks but by calling for peace and order and thus playing into the hands of the racists. They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, refusing to give King a hard target much like the Viet Cong in South Asia.

No, the troubling thing about these elections is the role the people themselves are playing. Surprisingly, the window for change appears to be wide open in Zimbabwe, yet the opposition party itself only claims to have taken a paltry 50.3% of the vote. In Africa, that's well within the margin of error, and means that in fact Mugabe still has a significant core of support within the nation he has brutally raped for many years now, bringing it to its knees. One is reminded of the woman who, for inexplicable reasons, chooses to stay with the husband who savagely beats her every night, even until he kills her, or kidnap victims who become sympathetic to their captors.

And Russia is even worse. Russians, of course, could hardly express any support for legitimate opposition candidates with their votes, since every single one of them had been excluded from the ballot before election day. But Russians, despite their horrific recent history of Soviet mass murder unrivaled in world history, didn't raise a single word of protest as that barbaric neo-Soviet process was carried out, but instead responded like sheep to the commands of a proud KGB spy that they anoint his hand-picked flunky with total power. You may point out if you like that Russians admire and respect Putin, so it's logical they would follow his advice, but they did exactly the same thing eight years ago when Boris Yeltsin told them to anoint Putin, and they hated Yeltsin like the plague.

And what does it say about the people of Russia that they admire and respect a KGB spy who is supporting rogue regimes in places like Iran, Venezuela and Syria, provoking a new cold war with the West rather than address the nation's demographic crisis? There was a time when it was possible to imagine that Russians were suffering not because of their own misconduct but because of the abusive actions of a few misguided leaders. That time is past. The people of Russia are collaborators.

What we see in these events is democracy's vulnerability: the very people it lives for. Dictators throughout the ages have used the argument that people can't be trusted to leverage their power, and certainly such contempt for their own people is what motivates Vladimir Putin and Robert Mugabe. But the forces of autocracy always forget three things.

First, they forget about America, which bestrides the world like a colossus specifically because it has fully embraced the principles of democracy, demonstrating clearly that the world's "huddled masses" can be capable of greatness when given a real chance. And they forget about all of democracy's other brilliant success stories, from Japan to Israel. Pajamas Media recently reported how people are abandoning Islam in protest of its radicalization. Democracy works! Quite often, given a chance, it kicks ass!

Then, they forget about history. Every single time it has arisen, without exception, dictatorship has destroyed itself. Russian dictatorship has destroyed itself twice in the past century alone. Africa is a boiling cauldron of self-destruction. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And finally, they forget about natural rights. Because, in the end, democracy isn't about doing what's most efficient, it's about doing what's right. How dare anyone suggest that he "knows better" how to live another person's life than they do themselves? If a country is going to be destroyed anyway, why not let its people themselves be the ones to do it?

Above all, though, one can't escape the conclusion that the failures in Zimbabwe and Russia are not entirely the fault of the people there, but ours as well. Have we really been aggressive enough in pointing out the failings of these regimes to the people who live under them, showing them that there is an alternative, and making clear the consequences they will suffer by embracing barbarism?

We haven't, just as we weren't aggressive enough in dealing with tyrants like Hitler and Stalin in the past. And until we do, we shouldn't be surprised that the bed we've badly made is uncomfortable to sleep in. We shouldn't blame democracy, we should blame ourselves.

Many of us don't even take the trouble to do something simple, like reading a blog. Many of those who do don't take the trouble to add a comment condemning these atrocities when they occur. Others comment, but don't go beyond that to take any tangible action like donating money or joining a protest march or voting for a candidate pledged to change the status quo.

We're failing right along with the people of Zimbabwe but, unlike them, we don't have to face the immediate consequences. More's the pity.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


tommo says:

It's hard for US to scold other nations since Baghdad Bush stole two elections in this country and has people tortured in secret concentration camps.

And don't forget, Baghdad Bush and Putin are soul mates.


David M says:

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/04/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.


La Russophobe says:

TOMMO:

It's ludicrous for you to suggest that Bush "stole" 2004 when he got a majority of the popular vote, something Bill Clinton never did. It just destroys your credibility.

Moreover, Bush went to Iraq with the full approval of the legislature. It's perfectly fine to say it was a mistake, but it's absurd to say it was undemocratic.

You'll get no argument from me, however, that Bush has been part of the problem on Russia, although his recent actions on missile defense and NATO admissions is heartening. But to suggest that Bush is comparable to Putin or Mugabe is pure gibberish, and makes it seem you actually want people in those countries to continue suffering. That's a pretty cruel attitude to have, what did they ever do to you?


Henry D'Angelo says:

In my opinion, the fundamental problem is a mistrust by the citizens of these countries to have any respect/trust of centralized government. All they have seen for their entire lives are laws that apply to the weak and poor and not to rich and strong. They don't see central government even having the potential to a help the common man, so as a result, they don't really give a shit who the leader is "meet the new boss...same as the old boss" is certainly the prevailing philosophy. Not sure about Zimbabwe, but for Russia, I wouldn't call it a dictatorship; instead I would use thugocracy. Rule by the strong, laws that benefit the strong, police that serve the strong.


Martino says:

Firstly, it is obvious that this writer is an American who has lived all his life in America and thinks the whole world revolves and must revolve around America.

AUTHOR RESPONDS: Actually, the author is a SHE who has spent many years living in Russia. She suspects that the author of this comment has never spent one single day living there. If he's a black man from Nigeria, he wouldn't last long on the Moscow Metro if he dared to go. Sir, you're an amazingly prejudiced idiot. Next time, ask who I am before you jump to stupid conclusions.

Secondly, America didn't invent democracy, it adopted it.
Thirdly, the writer needs to update his history knowledge to understand that America brutally displaced "primitive" indigenous peoples to enforce it authority. America was once authocratic long before the writer's ancestors were born. And was once a racist nation. It took time to eradicate all the above-mentioned ills.
Fourthly, Russia is not Zimbabwe and there is no basis of comparison. Zimbabwe was a British colony that Britain controlled until a few years ago when Mugabe seized 95% of the land area of Zimbabwe from a few "Whites" and gave it to the people of Zimbabwe. And so Britain, in solidarity with White Zimbabweans because they are whites like them imposed and arm-twisted the EU to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe. Who is barbaric? Those sanctions sentenced Zimbabweans to death through hyper-inflation. I love Mugabe for the land issue. If you were in his shoes you would have done the same thing. Remember how Americans chased the British Empire? HISTORY...my friend
Russia on the other hand was never a colony but an ancient country. Like most countries in Europe, it was a monarchy. The Soviet Union collapsed because it bit more than it can chew and not because socialism was criminal. When Russia collapsed, it was the "Superior advie" of Harvard-trained economic experts that was the catalyst to their economic woes. If they moved to market economy at their own pace, it would have been a different story today. The same WEST accusing Russia today helped destroy it in the 90s. Putin's government brought order and sanity and restored Russia's economic fortunes. They also deliberately blocked American controlling interests in the Russian economy and that is why the negative rhetoric regarding Putin. In Saudi Arabia, people are not free, but because the WEST benefit from that economy to the tune of about 40%, they sweet talk about Saudi Arabia.
Most developing nation know that America is not concerned about their interests and so they feel the Americans like to rant.
There were worse regimes than Saddam's, but the interest of America is the control of the Oil so as to control world oil prices and bring them to $7 per barrel which would make many nations that rely on oil export poor and prompt them to borrow from the world Bank which in turn benefits America.
If the Russians like Putin then that their coffe to drink. You are not a Russian and would not understand what happened to them in the 90s when the economy collapsed. Maybe if you understand what it means not to HAVE then your perspective might change.
"Look beneath the surface before you judge if the sea is safe to dive in".
Adopt a Russian and Zimbabwean perspective and you will know why they do what they do.

Martino, Lagos, Nigeria


T-Ray says:

Anyone who would stand on this messy street corner called American politics and point at the garbage on the other side of the street is just being obtuse or dishonest. Why bother? Are you going to do more for the political strife in a foreign country than you would at home? Is it just easier to do nothing if you only talk about others? Waste of time!


Jauhara says:

Adolescents should not presume to diagnose other people's mental states. As the author has already attested, she has lived in Russia and experienced it fully. I would imagine, though she hasn't yet said it, that she remembers a time when dissidents were rounded up and diagnosed with all sorts of mental illnesses for having views outside the allowable political mainstream. Those times are being revived, and I am sure that some of the journalists who used to be alive, but now no longer are, would be the first to tell you...in the beginning it's the psychiatric hospital, and if turning you into a medicated zombie doesn't work, death is always a more permanent solution to one's "political psychoses".


Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/740