Democracy: A Pluralism of Parties or Meanings?
The word, “Democracy” in the American press, usually refers to a particular version of Democracy – a very Western one in which being able to make a choice is itself of greater moral importance than the results of that choice. It is a mix of pluralism, liberalism and capitalism. In many parts of the world, the value of Democracy is well understood, but without the idea of pluralism as a panacea.
Such countries include those where a) the establishment has an interest in keeping pluralism out of the system and/or b) the underlying social philosophy is more practical (e.g. Confucian) than moral (e.g. Judeo-Christian).
This article recently translated at Watching America comes from Cuba where a) certainly applies.
It compares Cuba’s democracy favorably with that of the United States, by taking the position that Democracy has to be measured by the results it produces, and noting that in the U.S., a President can be elected while losing the popular vote, and remain in office without the support of a huge majority of his people, while having a negative effect on the fabric of the country.
Read more here: Democracy is Not a Multiparty System. It is Serving the People, from Ahora, Cuba, translated from Spanish
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Democracy: A Pluralism of Parties or Meanings?”
An utterly despicable set of rationalizations by a mouthpiece for the most repressive and deplorable dictatorships in this hemisphere.
It’s also BS from start to finish. Not only are the “results” that this dictatorship has delivered to the Cuban people sickening, but it also betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what “democracy” really means. Indeed, the entire idea that religio-philosophical views are meaningful here is just a stupid sidestep. There are plenty of successful and thriving democracies in societies that are not based on Judaism or Christianity. It’s ridiculously ill-informed to think otherwise.
If the Cuban people honestly support the murdering Castro regime, let them show that support by free and open ballots under a system of protected free speech and press–and since none of that exists in Cuba today, such rationalizations by a toady to a tyrant mean nothing.
I love all those “Democratic” socialist to totalitarian nations.
It also makes me think of the definitive to radical left here at home (“Democracy Now!”) who apply the word “democracy” to mean something so very different (leaning toward socialism and totalitarian mechanisms for achieving or enforcing it).
I welcome these stories, not for the veracity of the content, but for the insight it provides into what other people are thinkis.
There are incessant calls for the US to do a better PR job, to sell our message, Well, in order to to that, we have to know the mindet of those to whom we want to sell the message.
Dean,
Just to be clear, I don’t disagree with you at all: as per my blurb, cuba is a case of a), (establishment has interest in keeping pluralism out of the system) rather than b) (this is to do with underlying social philosophies) !
I not sure anyone would like to be caught defending “Cuban democracy”… if that isn’t even an oxymoron!
And of course, there is the obvious observation that only the countries that are not Democratic like to put the word “Democratic” in their official names.
What’s funny is that the extremists will engage in the same “capitalist-imperialist” nonsense and accuse Bush of being a worse dictator than Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, or Putin, etc., accusations made freely from “dictator” Bush’s “tyrannical regime,” where several people are currently getting ready to compete to replace him without being banned, beaten, or made to disappear.
Also, it’s worth mention in passing that sadly, here in the USA government (including the federal government) is all too often viewed primarily as a service agency rather than a government, that is, as a provider of entitlements and a “caretaker.”
Of course Bush isn’t a worse dictator than Castro, Chavez or Putin. But he has expanded executive power, shown disrespect for the role of Congress, and treated the federal bureaucracy as a branch of the RNC-which is antidemocratic. He has at times shown a cavalier disregard for international law and for the Constitution.
He’s sided with big industrial interests like tobacco and oil at just about every opportunity. I think its only fair to compare him to past American presidents, not to the dictators you have named.
The last reply of the day (I’m off through the snow here in STL) goes to K:
1. We’ve heard the opposite frequently from the extreme Left. (Are you surprised, really?)
2.:
I am not going to follow in Schlesinger’s New Deal dinosaurish partisan-political-slanted cheap shot accusation of an “imperial presidency” (when in fact, in the past, an unelected co-President Clinton was imperious). He has been antagonistic toward the Congress, sometimes childishly or ridiculously so (saying “no” just to say “no”; refusing just to refuse, to cooperate) but the Congress has behaved badly toward him, too.
Be careful about the things you criticize because Hillary Clinton is already-proven more vicious than Nixon, and more secrecy-obscessed than Cheney, as well as more power-hungry.
The generally-argument-free criticism of Dubya begins with frequent ineptitude, not merely at press conferences (valid, but a bit personal and less important; it’s just painful to hear him speak), but with the Iraqi adventure, (ineptitude, crime, and some cronyism or corruption) for which his presidency will be almost exclusively remembered; otherwise, in the future I suspect he’ll be generally forgotten, a footnote President or little more.
“Imperial Presidency” = not a Democrat and exercising power rather than being a puppet of a Democratic Congress. See also “dictator,” “tyrant,” “fascist,” and “Nazi,” and related words and terms.
DLS- If Hillary gets elected and behaves like W, I will criticize her as well. As of now, she’s a candidate whose campaign is suffering some setbacks- so I’m not so sure that she’s as all-powerful as you seem to think. As far as I can tell, those on both sides of the Senate who have worked with her have praised her work ethic and her ability to reach a consensus with the opposition party. Is it just possible you are judging her years as First Lady as though she had not learned anything? That just seems a bit unfair.
The topic is whether Bush is a tyrant. I would not go so far as to compare him to Kim Il Jung or the others because he would have had to do something drastic like arresting reporters (he did threaten to) or cancel the 2008 election. But he has made a mockery of the Justice Dept, and has amassed an unprecedented amount of executive power which he then proceeded to hide behind when investigations started. Not even Clinton did that to that extreme.