May 27, 2011
The Mistake of Global Democratization
Frank Salvato
We are hearing a great deal about a budding “Democracy movement” spreading throughout the Middle East. Many are calling it an “Arab Spring.” The belief is that after centuries of totalitarian oppression, the Arab street is suddenly pining for more freedom; rebelling against the elitist ruling class of kings, emirs, despots and tyrants. This is most likely true for a great number of those filling the streets of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain and myriad other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim nations. But there is a less than honorable component amongst the rebellion that simply waits for the “right” to a democratic vote. Contrary to how the idea of a move to Democracy presents, in the volatile Middle East there are elements in play that could make it a move in the wrong direction.
Each and every day we hear the misnomer that the United States of America is a Democracy. We hear it from the average man on the street, the mainstream media and even from those we have elected to office. But the fact of the matter is this: we are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. A thorough and convincing exhibit of the facts surrounding this reality is presented in Notes on Democracy: And the Republic for Which It Stands. The fact that this issue is even in need of address is a scathing commentary on the constitutional illiteracy of the American electorate and serves as a sobering reminder that, often times, what sounds good – what “feels good” – isn’t always as it presents.
The distinction – between the benefits of a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic – is incredibly important, and while some describe our nation as a Democracy in an error of ignorance, others – some with schemes of political opportunism – do so with a nefarious purpose and bad intentions.
James Madison, recognized as the Father of the US Constitution, said this about factions and Democracy in Federalist No. 10:
“Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people...From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Why is this important in the context of what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment? Simple; it is important because “factious tempers,” and “local prejudices of sinister design” are prevalent throughout not only the ruling classes of the Arab-Muslim world, but exist – and on a tremendously popular level – throughout the Middle East, Arab culture and around the world in Islamic populations.
In Lebanon, Democracy and the democratic election process brought legitimacy to the terrorist group Hezbollah, a group, created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard after the Islamist Revolution of 1979, responsible for the greatest number of American and Western deaths until al Qaeda exploded onto the scene, no pun intended. Through a scheme of “providing” for enough people in Southern Lebanon to win elections, Hezbollah was transformed from a ruthless Shiite-Islamist terror organization (a moniker still bestowed upon it by the US State Department and freedom-loving governments around the world) into an officially elected entity in the Lebanese Parliament, its influence expanding year after year.
In the Palestinian-held Israeli territories, the Palestinian Authority, born of the Palestinian Liberation Organization – recognized at its genesis as a terrorist organization before the United Nations bestowed legitimacy on it, has seen an accord between the Fatah faction of the West Bank and the Hamas faction of Gaza; Hamas, a Sunni-Islamist group, recognized as a terrorist organization by the US and other non-Arab nations around the world. Hamas, like Hezbollah, but after an armed coup against Fatah in Gaza, held “democratic elections” establishing itself – although questionably so – as the democratically elected government of Gaza. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas achieved legitimacy – albeit ever so suspect – through the process of Democracy.
Another example of Democracy not serving freedom – or liberty – are the elections held in the former Soviet state of Russia. During the Soviet Era, Soviet Premiers had to at least subject themselves to the scrutiny of the elitist class Communist Party members who made up the Soviet politburo. Today we see a former KGB colonel, in Vladimir Putin, not only usurping the intent of the Russian constitution by installing a puppet president to “insert” a term into the mix before he runs, yet again, for the Russian presidency, but we see a system so corrupt that it has re-installed the same mindset of global power acquisition as seen before the fall of the Soviet Union. In fact, it is argued in many circles that not only is the Cold War not over, but the West is now playing defense.
But perhaps the most alarming sign that democracy does not serve the purpose of freedom and/or liberty comes in the report that a faction of the Egyptian “awakening” has announced the formation of a “Nazi party with a contemporary frame of reference.”
Let me state that again...Egyptians benefiting from the “Arab Spring” want to form a Nazi Party in that country.
“A group of Egyptians have announced their intent to establish a Nazi party with ‘a contemporary frame of reference,’ an independent Egyptian news website said on Wednesday.
“Al-Badeel, a leftist news portal, quoted founding member Emad Abdel Sattar as saying the party would bring together prominent figures from the Egyptian society. The party’s founding deputy is a former military official.
“Abdel Sattar told Al-Badeel that members are increasing at an unexpected rate, and several people came to ask about the nature of the party and its plans.
“The party has a one-year plan to develop Egypt, unlike the ‘marginalized liberal parties, which are like dead bodies,’ he said.
“The founders want to avoid media attention until they are fully ready, the source said.”
With God as my witness, I never thought I would see the day when we would need to address the possibility of having to combat Nazism on the world stage once again.
If, in fact, this newly formed Egyptian Nazi Party organizes in the style of Hamas or Hezbollah – or the American Progressive Movement, for that matter (it is a fact that American organized labor had boots on the ground in Egypt in the beginning days of this so-called “Arab Spring”) – what is to keep them from using the democratic process to bring to power a 21st Century Nazi Party, complete with a 21st Century “Final Solution” for Israel and the Jews?
We are a Constitutional Republic because our Founders and Framers understood the absolute danger of a pure Democracy. We use a democratic election process to determine the awarding of Electoral College votes by each state, but we do so to empower a constitutionally Republican form of government; a government of laws and not men; a government where the minority’s rights are protected just as viciously as the majority’s, or so it is supposed to be.
A stunningly frank examination can be viewed here. Succinctly, we in the West – and especially in the United States – should be promoting a move toward liberty in the Middle East, not a move toward Democracy.
Democracy leads to Democratic Socialism, which leads to Socialism, which history proves always fails, leading to totalitarian and despotic rule. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of world history understands this. Alas, we do not, today, place any importance on history in our schools. Perhaps that’s because Progressives are too busy rewriting history. Perhaps that’s why we are looking at a resurrection of the Nazi Party in Egypt.
On May 24, 2011, the military government of Egypt announced it was permanently opening its border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.
If the world screams, “Never again,” again will the leaders of the free world hear us? Or are they to busy burying their heads in the sand to care?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative.
"Democracy leads to Democratic Socialism, which leads to Socialism..."
Exactly right; no other than Karl Marx said so. Marxist governments encourage a lazy so-called proletariat class to relax in the barn (envision Animal Farm) while the others work in the fields; with this they can set up a perverted form of democracy. Through excessive taxation Marxists concentrate the people's property in a collective or communal pot, and are thereby in a position to steal property from the laboring middle class (from each according to his abilities) and give to the lazy (to each according to his needs) in return for votes. The lazy have unlimited needs, so the laboring may be taxed without limit. The Marxists manage this economic class struggle between the working and lazy, and through vote-purchasing (votes purchased with stolen property), establish a self-perpetuating perversion of democracy which keeps them in power.
Subversion of a democracy occurs when enough of a population goes over to the proletariat class--with outstretched hands--voting for the Party which will rob the laboring middle class on their behalf. Eventually under Marxism the middle class is worn down--exhausted and demoralized by what amounts to slave labor. When the middle class finally succumbs there will be a dramatic fall off in production of food and other goods and services--anarchy ensues--and who comes to the rescue but the Marxists themselves. Envision a cruise ship where more and more passengers run over to the left side looking for free stuff from government--of course the free stuff is the fruit of other men's labor - the laboring men still slogging it out on the right side. Eventually there will not be enough laborers and entrepreneurs on the right side of the ship to prevent it from capsizing. Voila: Marxist Social Justice ends in poverty and a dictatorship of the proletariat--code for dictatorship of the Marxist ruling class. Karl Marx referred to victory of the Marxist ruling class (in alliance with the lazy so-called proletariat class) over the laboring middle class as winning the battle of democracy.
"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend---The proletariat [lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled under-achievers] will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property] from the bourgeoisie [laboring, tax-paying middle class and entrepreneurs], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [Marxist Government]---Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property---You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible---And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois [middle class] individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at---We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the [non] working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy." Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Karl Marx understood that a democracy can be perverted into a modern form of feudal ruling class and serfdom. Marx must have also understood that it would be much more difficult to subvert a Constitutional Republic--where there might be limits on government collectivization--limits on taxation.
http://bcmoney-mobiletv.com/view/1083/the-american-form-of-government/
posted by: Liberty Clinger
Friday, May 27, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Liberty Clinger, you are partially correct in your cruise ship analysis.
Here is the rest of the analogy, borne out by the historical facts.
An excess of lazy people is alleviated by planned famines. Thus, balance is kept between providers and providees.
Marxism is only a theory. In real life, Marxists don't tolerate lazy people. They shoot them or starve them. That's why Marxist states are always totalitarian states.
Marxists don't aim for the total destruction of the bourgeois class. They only aim for the total destruction of the OTHER folks in the bourgeois class. Leaving just themselves in charge of everything of course.
Marxism isn't a revolution of the working class. It's a revolution of the ruling class. Marxism is nothing more than a revival of ancient medieval feudalism accomplished through the willing peasants.
posted by: Jonathan
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 06:39 AM
