Any time Western interests get involved in the “conflicts” of another country, freedom for that country’s citizens becomes or remains an illusive concept. Any freedoms that existed prior to the conflict will also be lost and a new name applied to that country’s “reformed” government—the choice term of the moment being democracy.
Everywhere we turn this term is being shoved upon us. Its use has become more fashionable than owning an iPhone. Thanks to all the marketing that takes place around the perception of democracy, it has become a craze as misunderstood and misguided as company-sponsored diversity workshops. Radio hosts, news reporters and the average Joe around the country erroneously use it interchangeably with equality. What we are witnessing is true success in marketing.
Before plunging ahead, we should pause to get a brief idea of some of the various forms of government. You will note that I have bolded the two most relevant forms to this commentary. The relativity arises based on how often we have seen and heard of one in the past few decades and how little we’ve heard but often seen of the other.
For the People, By the People. . . .
Aristocracy: a governing body composed of those considered to be the best or most able people in the state.
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Dictatorship: a country, government or form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
Oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
Plutocracy: a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
Socialist: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Totalitarian: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
While each of these systems comes with its own set of pros and cons, it behooves us to look deeper into any term and the meaning behind said term when it’s flung around so carelessly and so frequently as to have the automatic appearance of applying to everyone’s way of life, no matter the traditional, cultural or value system. Can any system be the ultimate one-size-fits-all, despite knowing that different groups of people live different ways and have different wants and needs?
We don’t have to go far to notice the differences among people. In this country, differences begin the minute we walk out our doors, since so many of us no longer live in communities, communes, villages or tribes. We live in subdivisions, where many of us are subdivided in that we don’t even know our next-door neighbors and usually lock ourselves away from them every evening. Among subdivided peoples, it is not unusual for those living next to each other to harbor distrust and dislike, to not know the family members that make up the other household, to never utter a hello or goodbye in passing, to have nothing in common.
It is expected in subdivisions that this will be the case. These differences, some might say, are not necessarily bad because they can help expand our knowledge and acceptance of other people, if we push past them. These differences, though, appear to have the opposite effect, in that they prevent support systems from forming that may strengthen and grow the familial unit and, by and by, create a community. But that’s another commentary for another day.
If we were to travel outside of our neighborhoods, our subdivisions that are subdivided, the differences become more apparent with each mile traveled. Yet Western interests push the idea that a democratic system should and can be a viable vehicle for all. The same one-size-fits-all approach we’ve been introduced to as it regards medicine and vaccines. Again, another commentary for another day.
The fact of the matter is that while a democracy might work for some, Western interests only speak of democracy in theory—in practice, the actions of this small group speak of a vastly different system of government. One where the majority of elected and selected representatives have some familial, business, military, societal, obligatory or other close connections to each other not to the people—a clique, have you, as is stated of most oligarchies.
On the surface, democracy just seems so, well, democratic—basically, government for the people, by the people. Such a kumbayah-sounding term, democracy has come to mean so much more in a society that through its constitution claimed to be a republic. Worthy of note, is that blacks have not benefited under any forms of government established by Western interests.
Democracy has become the prescription for countries whose leaders are assassinated or forced into exile through organized coups. Had the country had a democratic society, Western interests claim, the people would not have revolted. Because the people revolted, it is the duty of democratic societies to assist them in overthrowing their current dictator so that another, more Western-friendly democratic leader, might be installed.
In our “free and equal” country, democracy is the word of the day. Our illusive dance with it allows us to sleep uninterrupted by missiles, bombings, mass hunger, uninhabitable dwellings, contaminated water, unavailability of water and destroyed infrastructure. It’s easy to believe we live democratically when we sit in front of our 52-inch flat-screen televisions and view the carnage and devastation occurring in countries that most of us will never visit and, tellingly, that most of us cannot locate on a map.
Democracy, for those people, will only come on the heels of bombings, mass destruction of current infrastructure and the pulverizing of innocent citizens into submission by Western interests. Of course, we’ll never see that side of democracy taking place on our screens, because democratic principles implicitly require that the graphic nature of conquest—unless it’s through our fictional, mind-numbing movies and video games—be kept from our vulnerable eyes and fragile minds.
Once other countries are destroyed in ways that this country has never had to be destroyed—according to modern methods, that is—Western interests then volunteer the funds needed to rebuild said country into a democratic society complete with one-sided laws; questionable Western lifestyle practices; pilfering, destruction and abuse of resources; disrupted and destroyed family units; literacy illiteracy implementation; invasion of privacy; stealing and raping of the children; censorship under the guise of caring about the fragility of the mind; and all that comes with living under the Western definition of democracy.
The one aspect that usually differs from democracy in Western countries versus that of other countries is that the people are quite often openly exploited. Seldom is the system of exploitation hidden to the painstaking degree there that it is in the Western world. Although, as Dylan said, “Times they are a changin’.”
In the Western world, we’re told that we should strive for democracy under the linchpin of diplomacy in all our affairs. This, however, does not apply to the Western “good ol’ boy and girl” clique, only to its citizens. Its citizens who are supposed to live under the presumption that all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Its citizens who are supposed to believe, unquestioningly, that elections are not bought, that they have a voice, a say in the process. Its citizens who would be nothing less than paranoid to think that they’re not living out the concept of government for the people, by the people.
That is supposedly the true definition of democracy, in theory. In action, it has yet to be accomplished or implemented in America or any other country where Western interests have said they will assist war- and poverty-ravaged citizens, which not surprisingly include only those jurisdictions in which these interests have an interest. What’s also not surprising is that these countries usually were not war- or poverty-ravaged until Western interests took an interest. But that doesn’t spare these countries their day with destiny, their day with democracy—the Western way. Of course, the thinking people among us already know what these people will come to know who call for Western assistance: what you don’t practice at home, you certainly cannot and will not practice abroad.
Leave a Reply