Greenfieldsite (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} greenfieldsite) wrote,@ 2007-08-12 21:13:00 |
|
Freedom and Democracy
When I hear those words, I think of the current President Bush and the doctrine he so often espouses in his speeches. But what do these words mean?
Freedom. Perhaps that's the freedom not to have to fight for causes you don't believe in? Recently US General Douglas Lute suggested restoring the military draft. It was only a suggestion, which General Lute is entitled to make as a professional in his field, but what I found chilling was the commentary "Bush has made it clear he doesn't think its necessary". Not "... doesn't think it's desirable" but "... doesn't think it's necessary". I see this as a clear signal that public opinion is being prepared so that when the President judges it to be necessary it can happen. Having researched the matter, my understanding is that US law permits one to be a conscientious objector, but only on grounds of objection to combat or miltary action in general, not in objection to specific wars. So if you would be prepared to defend your country, but not take what you judge to be offensive action you are (theoretically at least) forced to join up.
One might argue (though I don't necessarily agree) that a draft is legitimate if it is the policy of a democratically elected government. However, the primary argument for democracy is that it is fair. So if a draft is a legitimate result of democracy then it too must be fair. Yet, when we look back into American history, we see countless examples of the children of the rich and powerful managing to avoid it by one means or another. Will it be different if the draft is restored this time?
Democracy. A flawed system at best and abusive at worst. It may be the best we've got at the moment, but the fear that it might be applied to a secondary chamber in the UK in the form that most proponents of democracy seem to want concerns me. (To clarify my views - lest you think I am a dictator in waiting - I think it is of utmost importance that the secondary chamber should be a strong scrutinising and revising chamber. Simple popular democracy will not achieve this. I think the secondary chamber would benefit from being elected, but either indirectly via the election of an appointments commission or directly by using a complicated voting system designed to select a good balanced chamber that would result in very low turnout.)
The point I am making is that applying democracy to a system that requires other reforms (for example, reducing the influence money can have on the outcome of an election) will not necessarily result in an improvement in government. We have seen something similar in Iraq which will struggle to make it work given that its instutions were largely destroyed by the invasion. I don't argue that democracy is a reasonable long-term goal there, but it won't necessarily result in the best government for the people over the short-to-medium term. So, unlike President Bush, I do not celebrate that Iraq now has a democratic government. Instead I hope hard that it will be the best government possible for the Iraqi people at this current point in time given all that has happened.
Though I disagree with the underlying thrust of his political philosophy, I found this to be a very interesting article by Congressman Ron Paul, one of the outsiders standing for the Republican nomination for US President. Paul seems to be genuinely different to the other Republican and Democrat contenders.
On that note, I was recently wryly amused to read this blog (11 August 2007 entry) by a Daily Telegraph journalist, suggesting that the BBC might be biased towards the Democrats. My immediate reaction was "Who cares?". Is there really much difference between the positions of the major candidates of both the two parties, at least with regards to foreign policy (which is what most people outside the United States would be interested in). For example, how right wing do you judge this?
When I hear those words, I think of the current President Bush and the doctrine he so often espouses in his speeches. But what do these words mean?
Freedom. Perhaps that's the freedom not to have to fight for causes you don't believe in? Recently US General Douglas Lute suggested restoring the military draft. It was only a suggestion, which General Lute is entitled to make as a professional in his field, but what I found chilling was the commentary "Bush has made it clear he doesn't think its necessary". Not "... doesn't think it's desirable" but "... doesn't think it's necessary". I see this as a clear signal that public opinion is being prepared so that when the President judges it to be necessary it can happen. Having researched the matter, my understanding is that US law permits one to be a conscientious objector, but only on grounds of objection to combat or miltary action in general, not in objection to specific wars. So if you would be prepared to defend your country, but not take what you judge to be offensive action you are (theoretically at least) forced to join up.
One might argue (though I don't necessarily agree) that a draft is legitimate if it is the policy of a democratically elected government. However, the primary argument for democracy is that it is fair. So if a draft is a legitimate result of democracy then it too must be fair. Yet, when we look back into American history, we see countless examples of the children of the rich and powerful managing to avoid it by one means or another. Will it be different if the draft is restored this time?
Democracy. A flawed system at best and abusive at worst. It may be the best we've got at the moment, but the fear that it might be applied to a secondary chamber in the UK in the form that most proponents of democracy seem to want concerns me. (To clarify my views - lest you think I am a dictator in waiting - I think it is of utmost importance that the secondary chamber should be a strong scrutinising and revising chamber. Simple popular democracy will not achieve this. I think the secondary chamber would benefit from being elected, but either indirectly via the election of an appointments commission or directly by using a complicated voting system designed to select a good balanced chamber that would result in very low turnout.)
The point I am making is that applying democracy to a system that requires other reforms (for example, reducing the influence money can have on the outcome of an election) will not necessarily result in an improvement in government. We have seen something similar in Iraq which will struggle to make it work given that its instutions were largely destroyed by the invasion. I don't argue that democracy is a reasonable long-term goal there, but it won't necessarily result in the best government for the people over the short-to-medium term. So, unlike President Bush, I do not celebrate that Iraq now has a democratic government. Instead I hope hard that it will be the best government possible for the Iraqi people at this current point in time given all that has happened.
Though I disagree with the underlying thrust of his political philosophy, I found this to be a very interesting article by Congressman Ron Paul, one of the outsiders standing for the Republican nomination for US President. Paul seems to be genuinely different to the other Republican and Democrat contenders.
On that note, I was recently wryly amused to read this blog (11 August 2007 entry) by a Daily Telegraph journalist, suggesting that the BBC might be biased towards the Democrats. My immediate reaction was "Who cares?". Is there really much difference between the positions of the major candidates of both the two parties, at least with regards to foreign policy (which is what most people outside the United States would be interested in). For example, how right wing do you judge this?
