Published 7.09.2013
Politics
defined
Politics is the process by which groups make decisions.
Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics
is observed in all human (and many non-human) group interactions, including corporate,
academic, family, clubs, the workplace and religious institutions.
Discussion
Democracy, as a concept, and it has been shown to be little
more, was conceived upon the novel idea that people in a group could make decisions
that would benefit the entire, or mostly, of the group thus bringing prosperity
when compared to the natural opposite situation. Here the voting members of the
polis would poses some form of intrinsic equality.[1]
The notion of any form of ‘equality’ has been the subject of debate and many
serious failed demonstrations in the years since democracy was condemned by
Plato. Indeed, there is no such thing as equality.[2]
Why, then, do we persist in this quest for the unattainable?
The answer, simply, is that this quest offers potential powers to those who can
persuade those with lesser belligerent attributes to follow them like sheep.
Thus, vast power bases can be established where the strong leaders live in
splendor while the masses suffer from shortages.[3]
Even in the USSR, where the will of the proletariat was deemed supreme, the
leaders lived the high life and there was so much wealth it took 74 years to
squander it all and stuff a large fraction of that into Swiss banks.[4]
Today, Vladimir Putin is reported to be worth $40 bln dollars—a few shekels
short of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet but way behind Carlos Slim Helú.[5]
Failure, even when backed up with unlimited cash and military
firepower seems to lead to a string of failures such as the United States has caused
in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and now focusing on Syria. This is not to
mention Viet Nam, Cambodia, Philippines, Taiwan, Dominican Republic, with the possible
single exception of Japan.
Let us look at the mess in Egypt, an outcome of ‘democracy’
where some side won and attempted to subvert the new constitution to their
advantage—a not uncommon theme in politics where voting is a major factor in
the game. The Egyptian Constitution[6]
is a convoluted mish-mash of power sharing measures enabled by rubber language
and tossed between the elected leader, the military and religious authorities that
derive extra powers from “… defining the “principles of Shariah”
in the terms of Muslim Sunni jurisprudence,” whatever that could mean. Ignoring
the legal snarls here we can listen to those in the streets and learn that they,
at least, thought and think that Morsi was trying to take over the government
and force Shariah upon the masses. We
have splendid examples of this in Iran for instance. When we look at the lack
of succession of leaders with examples like Nehru, Sadat, Mubarak, now Morsi and
their counterparts in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Libya over the many decades it
should be clear that, on average, when someone comes to power in the Middle
East they seem to stay in power until they die or are ousted.
Extending this to places like the US under the FDR regime,
we can see that simply making promises to the masses, who are not encouraged to
understand politics, government actions or much else, leads to an
ever-increasing collection of power leading, always, to corruption and social
unrest. All that is necessary is to
print money and spread it around and make more promises to the Ignoranti who
vote blindly for their alms.
Taxation
on the Knife’s Edge: The Lower Half Will Always Vote for Higher Taxes[7]
Your vote has no value or worth unless you are lucky to
belong to a party where your party is in close competition [in numerical votes
discounting fraud and ballot box stuffing, of course]. There, being on the edge forces the opposing
parties to pander for your vote in the anticipation you will switch and give
one side the majority. This is exclusively factual when two large parties of, say;
%49 each compete for votes from a small party of only %2. Here, the smallest fraction
of the electorate can exercise enormous power as they can become king makers.
If you belong to a very large party with a significant majority you might as
well not vote as the party elders will make all decisions. They do not need you
and you actually become expendable. You are, collectively, a rubber stamp.
Conclusion
Now, the idea of forcing a regime change seems to relate to
the cases where some minority of citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, are
being, in their own view, or the view of the leftist media, marginalized and
need ‘justice’ or something similar. Syria is a case where some civil war
started and sophisticated weapons appeared nearly everywhere to battle the
existing government. It is difficult to find where this started in Syria itself
and may have originated in Al-Qaeda camp. The flimsy case of the use of
chemical weapons, certainly not proven according to the UN and Russia, gives
the US the excuse to remedy injustice and prevent war crimes by the fruitful
use of military might or the threat thereof.
But, any time there is social unrest leading to revolts,
marches and some terrorism or military action the process now must be
determined as to who the players are. If they are leftists in rebellion then
the left will wander by with slogans and such to support their interests and
the same holds for the opposition in each case for the right. Once the
political vectors are clearly aligned there is a temptation for the super
powers to assassinate or summarily remove or undermine certain leaders if they
refuse to cooperate as was the case with Diem, Hussein, Marcos, Quadaffy, Fujimori,
Garcia, Salazar, Pinochet, Kai-Shek, Somoza, now al-Assad and others. This forces two avenues of supply
and resupply of money and weapons from different sides, mostly the USSR and US [from
the past], but now also France, the UK and others. The leftist media can be
relied upon to support the left or far left in any encounters.
Thus, we have powers, prejudice, religious groups, leftist
and right political groups, unions, the military and more to consider how the
ballot box yields some choices that conform to any reasonable concept of
democracy. Forget it.
[1] Democracy
and Its Critics by Robert A. Dahl, Yale University Press, 1991, 1st
ed, 1st printing, p 84 ff.
[2] The Futile Attempt of Forcing Equality
among the Masses.
“Cognitive equality is an oxymoron. There is no way
you can give standardized tests and ensure that everybody gets the average test
grade with nobody getting a higher or a lower test result. The much maligned
Bell Curve , sometimes accused of actually causing the ‘problem’ of cognitive
mal-distribution in the US, actually states the blunt facts about our societies
and the distribution of mental skills. This salient fact that half the people
who take the standardized test will score below the median is the rallying
point for ‘change’ in ‘education.’ That
is not fair. Society must be equalized. Thus propaganda must replace education.
The Bell Curve correctly predicts who will pass high school, college and who
will excel in the work place—and who will not—on a group basis. This fact commits millions to menial jobs
but is casus belli for the political left.”
[3]
USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Rome, the UK, Spain, Portugal and Holland.
[4]
Brezhnev family.
[6] The
constitution ends Egypt's all-powerful presidency, institutes a stronger
parliament, and contains provisions against torture or detention without trial.
But it also give Egypt's generals much of the power and privilege they had
during the Hosni Mubarak era.[9] Human Rights Watch noted that it provides for
basic protections against arbitrary detention and torture and for some economic
rights but fails to end military trials of civilians or to protect freedom of
expression and religion.[10] The organization also stated that the Chapter II
draft, entitled Rights and Freedoms, provides for strong protection against
arbitrary detention in article 35 and torture and inhumane treatment in article
36, and for freedom of movement in article 42, privacy of communication in
article 38, freedom of assembly in article 50, and of association in article
51, but defers to objections from the country's military leadership and has
removed the clear prohibition of trials of civilians before military
courts.[10]
Article 2, makes “the principles of Islamic law the
main source of legislation,[11]” a statement defining the relationship between
Islam and Egyptian law, essentially unchanged from Egypt's old
constitution.[12] At the urging of Islamists, another article was added to the
constitution strengthening the relationship, defining the “principles of
Shariah” in the terms of Muslim Sunni jurisprudence[9] i.e. "evidence,
rules, jurisprudence and sources" accepted by Sunni Islam.[13] Liberals
fear "Islamic punishments for things like theft, adultery, and blasphemy
are not far behind".[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Egypt
[7]
Taxation on the Knife’s Edge: The Lower
Half Will Always Vote for Higher Taxes.
