There are only two systems of government, one where the
leaders care about the people, and one where they do not.
'Isms' are secondary to "Is".
Cuba is lambasted as a "communist dictatorship" a "tyranny"
where the people have no "human rights".
Yet, when a hurricane threatens, a quarter of a million
people are moved from the projected path by that
'evil' government.
America is hailed as a "democracy" as the "upholder of human
rights", but when a hurricane threatens, very little is done
and nearly two thousand people die.
With billions of dollars of greenbacks to spend, America
can't be bothered to move people from New Orleans. Can't
be bothered to build houses for them, stuffing them in
trailers which have unacceptable levels of formaldehyde
is apparently the best that can be done.
A poor nation, with embargoes on almost everything, Cuba
can send thousands of buses, move a quarter of a million
people over a hundred miles to reside in decent shelters,
until they can be returned and assisted in rebuilding
where there is damage.
So "isms" mean nothing, deal with what "is".
Where would you like to be in case of disaster?
In a country that does nothing or in one which does
everything it can to preserve life?
Democracy is an acquired taste. It requires that the vast
majority be educated and intelligent and interested in the
issues, not just those which effect them today, but those
which have future significance.
In societies where the majority is not highly intelligent nor
well educated, no system is more unjust than democracy.
Democracy, as we know it, began thousands of years ago with
a rather exclusive selection of voters. Over the centuries,
nations which adopted democracy did so in increments.
Democracy grew from aristocrats, to male citizens who owned
property of a certain value.
It took the United States about one hundred and ninety years
to go from white property owning male to black property-less
female.
But that is how democracy works. Ever increasing circles.
In nations which have no history of democracy to suddenly
dump such a system full blown results in a tyranny of
enormous proportion.
Political pressure, corruption, violence, often deters people
from voting, or forces them to vote for a particular
candidate.
In a putrescent system there are elections, and the ruling
party wins. This legitimizes tyranny by suggesting the
people agreed to it.
Robert Mugabe was elected. Now, he can not be unelected.
To dare to support the Opposition may result in death.
The Cayman Islands is a colony of Great Britain, and demands
to remain so. It has seen the dangers of independence and
democracy in it's Caribbean neighbors, and appreciates that
small countries which do not have strong federal strictures
result in kakiscracies in a few years.
What is being seen in Iraq today is mirrored in other nations
around the world, some, like Afghanistan, where the "tribal"
loyalties are obvious, others, like Jamaica, were such tribal
behaviour is hidden behind a veneer save at election time.
In small nations, direct democracy, sans political parties
would serve well. There would be no "us" and "them" there
would not be a ratbag of party hacks who have to "get"
something, but persons elected on the basis of merit who
would have to form allegiances with others like themselves
for the efficient running of the nation.
This is, of course, shunned, because major powers, like
America, can not control such a government of the people,
for the people and by the people. Everyone would need to be
bribed, not just a handful.
It is always easy to gain control over a weaker people by
getting them to elect their own oppressor. This oppressor
does not, at first, appreciate he is in the position of
Judas Goat. He thinks he is the leader. He thinks he is
in charge. But he is only the Judas Goat, leading the sheep
to slaughter.
?
