Skip to main content

Democracy is not always the answer

When I hear pompous politicians like Obama, Cameron and their predecessors state that it's their duty to encourage nations to adopt democracy (by bombing them into having it), I feel a serious gromble needs to be expressed. It was Churchill who said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” and then there's Thomas Jefferson who said “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

'Great' democracies like the UK, the USA and the world's largest, India, believe their system of government and periodic accountability at elections, work - because they exist. Ergo they work. But democracy means something rather more basic. Democracy is a voting system whereby minorities accept the decision of the majority about who governs them. Minorities in working democracies therefore do not feel sufficiently passionate about their differences with their new government to revolt. They roll over and accept that this time they didn't win. Maybe next time they'll campaign harder and persuade more people about their point of view.

But what happens where minorities feel oppressed. Where they feel they, or their family's lives are somehow compromised or maybe in peril. Perhaps they feel their god has been threatened - clearly a big deal for many of extreme faith. Democracy therefore cannot work, at least not effectively and calmly, where minorities do not accept the democratic process, or at least the results of the process (fair or otherwise) which returns 'the wrong government'.

So why do some democracies work, and others simply can't?

Simple. In the USA they killed the Indians and other minorities who wouldn't accept the rule of the majority. In India they killed or expelled the muslims. In the UK they suppressed all opposition to the sovereigns parliament. In Germany they murdered millions deemed to be a threat to the values of the majority. In Australia they killed Aborigines.... etc.

The only reason democracies survived was because all potential dissent to the process was ruthlessly exterminated.

So why on earth do we believe that implementing democratic processes in tribal war zones like Libya (32 tribes), Iraq (Kurds v Sunnis v Shiite) and Afghanistan (Mujahadin + Taliban + drug warlords + umpteen tribes like Pashtuns) can possibly result in scenarios where minorities accept the decision of their mortal enemies about the laws they are going to have to abide by for the next 5 years or so.

So what's the alternative? How do you get minorities to accept the will of the majority? Force and fear. Force and fear. It's the only language enraged people understand. And when it's their god that's threatened, even force and fear are barely sufficient to prevent daggers from being drawn to protect honour and salvation. So what sort of leadership works in that scenario? It would be great to believe a Gandhi could be flown in? Sadly not. Angelic Gandhi presided over vast ethnic cleansing of tens of millions of people at the appalling partition into two democracies. A Christ? Sadly he wouldn't (didn't) last long. Too nice. Too weak. Unfortunately its tough leaders like Gadaffi and Sadam who keep the peace. They knew how to prevent anarchy (until we bombed them both and killed countless of their citizens in order to impose far less effective ways of quelling violence between their hate-filled tribes).

Mark my words. Democracy will NOT work in Iraq. It will NOT work in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan or any other country where national borders encircle minorities who will never accede to the will of their mortal enemies. Let nature take its course and only step in if you KNOW that genocide is about to be committed (Rwanda, Cambodia, Liberia, Bosnia). Then hold elections if you must or simply give the crown to the nearest general, and quickly go home. It's going to get ugly again.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!).

My gromble is abou…

Introducing Product Relationship Management - it's what customers want.

Most businesses these days have Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems which store and process vasts amounts of information about us. They use this information to generate communications, amongst other things, which target us to buy their products and services. CRM is all about how a business relates to its customers: Past (keeping them loyal through aftersales and service), Present (helping them buy through bricks and clicks channels) and Future (prospecting).

Most businesses will at some stage have declared themselves 'customer-centric'. They will probably have drawn diagrams on whiteboards that look something like these:



But there's a problem with this whole approach of keeping the customer at the centre of your world and the focal point for everything you do.Is it what the customer wants? Of course companies who ignore their customers eventually go out of business. And those who treat their customers well, tend to thrive. But is it really in the best interests …

The Titus Trust Deceives British Parents to Brainwash their Kids

I have a son who went to a well known preparatory school (7-13) in Surrey. He came home one day clutching a leaflet for fun activity holidays that the school promoted every summer. The Titus Trust operate several camps around the UK where they organise fun outdoor activities for youngsters. Something caught my eye in the leaflet hidden in a paragraph in one of the sections describing the holidays. They used the word Christian. It was the only place in the whole leaflet that the word was used. My suspicions raised, I hunted around the leaflet for more clues and found the imprint which said something like 'A Titus Trust Charity' (the name of the camps was on the title of the leaflet). I dug deeper and found some disturbing evidence of who was behind these 'fun' camps. This is what I wrote at the time to the headmaster:
Dear Headmaster

XXXX came home the other day extremely excited about an outward bound camp next summer that he and his friends had been told about by a rep…