If people study the various ways of creating a government, then I think it just about always comes out that there are no "good" ways, just some that are "less worse" than others, and that it either relies on the goodwill of a small number of powerful people (possibly even just one) or anarchy.
Human beings, en masse (not any one of us of course!), are inherently lazy, selfish, self-protective and family protective. People have "circles of importance" (self then family then neighbours/village then country then planet, with overlays for race, religion and friendships) and that is just a generalisation of course, but if it comes down to a choice between, say, improving education for your kids or spending the money feeding the starving in Ethiopia (or preventing AIDs in sub-Saharan Africa), then I fully believe that the majority of parents would vote for the majority of the money to be spent on local education.
This is pretty much wired into us, which is a major reason wars occur (for food/land/wealth/defence/benefit for those who are near to us).
This means that if you have a true democratic (mob/majority rule) government, then minorities (gay, non-Christian, black, female) are likely to get a worse deal. And when you have a country that is divided into several groups already (Sh'ite and Kurd to name but two) with heavy concentrations geographically, then you'll get an effective theocracy based on the largest population group (like the Christian US Government with their "In God We Trust" on the coins and "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and Bush pushing for a no-gay-marriage constitutional amendment.)
Democracy, as in pure Democracy, does not work. But then neither does any other form of putting some *humans* in charge. Even if a balance is struck between all the competing special interest groups, then remember "Compromise is where no one wins, everyone loses" (glib and trite but quite often true). One "benevolent dictator" with the good of her/his people is pretty darn good, but they are rarely followed by another good person, whether they are related or not. We have thousands of years of British Monarchs to prove that!
Iraq has no valid census (so who is going to stop ballot box stuffing?), has very little government infrastructure (so who is collecting taxes? Repairing roads? Doing Health inspections on restaurants and shops? Paying for teachers, sanitation workers, librarians etc.?)
If the US can't run a fair election in their own country, do you think they can really run one in a country where many people hate the Americans, have seen their schools, shops and hospitals (not to mention libraries and museums) looted because the Americans came in and destroyed the government and policeforce that was keeping the country together? Where religious divides and expected bias in whatever government elected is presumed?
ET: don't mistake the "ideal of democracy" with the reality of implementation. We have at best a representative democracy in both the US and the UK, where we elect someone else to make our decisions for us, and if there are 100 different decisions to be made a year, we try to elect someone that will either agree with us on at least 51 of them, or on most of the top 30, or who will investigate further and make the right decisions for us as a country that we might not as individuals. E.g. investing in foreign aid, medical research, farm subsidies, renewable energy etc.
Bread, circuses and tax cuts (and defecit spending) are good ways of buying votes, but they are not the best way of getting a good government. Both the US and the UK have a cult of personality, where it seems to be more important how charismatic a person is, than whether they would be a good politician. In Iraq it will be whoever the religious leaders decide would be good people to run the country. Because without the agreement of the religious leaders, no election will work, and with their agreement, no election will be "free and fair". But then, that's not that much different from the US where, without the support of "religious" leaders (Christian, Jewish, Black (Jesse Jackson), Mammon (oil and tobacco and defence), NASCAR etc.) you can't win the nomination and you can't be President.
People (in general) follow leaders, that's why they are called "leaders". People who read Making Light are probably more free-thinking than most. But the majority of people want to trust a few good people (Oprah, Jay Leno, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ralph Nader, Billy Graham, Howard Stern, Captain Crunch, whoever) and use them as filters and guides towards who to trust to run the country. That is the power and the danger of mass media. Combine that desire for someone to provide leadership, with a religious fervour (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, whatever) where it is God's will you vote for Mr.Ed, (and you'll burn in eternal damnation if you vote for the pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-farm subsidy, pro-"Sex and the City" _liberal_ spawn of Satan) then democracy seems an awful long way away.
Sorry about the rant, just didn't want to get back to fixing this C program that I need to get finished today.
Sorry, in the above comment, my <cite> tags seemed to have slipped off (mea culpa), Keith's quote should go down to "when the British stumbled onto his hiding place."
Keith said:
"...and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people."
I assume he's refering to Saddam Husein who was a Dictator, not a Terrorist (But there I go splitting hairs! These days everyone we don't like with a mustache is a terrorist). Also we didn't capture Sadam so much as take him away when the British stumbled onto his hiding place.
a) Mustaches are optional!
b) Thanks for the pro-British comment, but I think it was actually the Kurds who found him and held him until the US Army 3rd Armoured Propaganda Brigade could arrive and plug in cameras ...
Sydney Herald article
... it took them awhile to retrieve the cameras from the hospital where Jessica Lynch was being "held prisoner" by unarmed medical staff
BBC News article
Though the US propaganda would have you believe that it was entirely down to US Intelligence forces (and maybe it was!)
Another BBC News article
Adriana, "the impact of homework on academic achievement is relatively limited", it's official!
The report also says
"Homework is bad for your family, [...] it causes arguments and upsets.
A study of the impact of homework in different countries says that the pressure of homework causes friction between children and parents.
This pressure is worst in families where parents are most keen for their children to succeed at school.
And the survey claims that homework causes "anxiety" and "emotional exhaustion".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3472467.stm
Sky Captain and the yadda yaddas, some early comments and previews are at CHUD.com ... I'd post a more direct link, but the work internet connection is being crappy today and I can't get through to find a precise URL. There are two articles on this wonderful looking film, I just hope it is at least half as good as it looks!
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2004 | 5 |
| 2003 | 1 |
Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by The Magician:
Show all comments by The Magician.