Global Crockpot: Manipulative Democracies

Among his many speeches, President Bush has elucidated the absence of democracy as the harbinger of terrorist activities in the Muslim world. He called himself the one man that will help change this scenario and deliver us from the threat of Al Qaeda. For a while, Washington’s rhetoric led us to believe that our democracy would stop terrorism and guarantee liberty from fear.

The truth, unfortunately, is that democracy alone does not guarantee freedom or liberty. A strong and enforced constitution needs to be a part of it that ensures human rights regardless of all kinds and religions.  If not then democracy has often been a key factor in some of the worst human rights abuses the world has seen. After all, it was a democratic (slave owners) rule that allowed the slave trade to flourish. It was a democratic legislature that passed into law the theft of land from Native American tribes and presided over their subsequent genocide. It was a democracy that elected Adolph Hitler and the sordid truth was that the only freedom 7 million Jews received from democracy was freedom from the burden of living. Democracy on its own, without any human rights basis is simply the majority deciding how the minority should live (or if the minority should live at all). It was President 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".

 A democratic decision made by a majority is not always the most ethical or just. If a majority becomes a mob rule then almost anything goes and all ideas of justice and ethics are easily forgotten. Unaccountable democratic rule also gives way to some strange laws and regulations that may seem absurd to the common man;  

In Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset.

In Idaho, it is illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.

In Washington, it is illegal to ride an ugly horse.

In Kansas, no one may catch fish with his bare hands.

In Oxford, Ohio, it is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face.

 In Topeka, Kansas, servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups.

In the fine state of Nebraska, it is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.

In Carmel, New York, a man cannot be seen in public while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match. 

And the list of these fine democratically challenged laws continues. Now coming back to the discussion at hand; In "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty", authors Peter and Rochelle Schweizer quotes a Bush cousin as saying,

"George sees this as a religious war. He doesn’t have a politically correct view of this war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we as the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know".

In the face of the monstrous debacle that the Iraq war has become, we are reminded time and again of the gift of democracy that our government will give to the “free” people of Iraq. The logic is that even though we have failed in all of the war’s other objectives, the advent of Iraqi democracy would redeem President Bush and, ironically by a democratic guilt of association, all of us. And that process of bringing democracy on Iraqi soil, ladies and gentlemen, has also gone down the drain. In Iraq the majority are Shias (61%) who, along with the Kurds (17%), were brutally oppressed by Saddam Hussein and his minority Sunnis (22%). Thanks to Saddam and his Sunni cronies, according the Shias, the only good Sunni is a dead Sunni. The Kurds have always wanted to declare an independent homeland in Northern Iraq. After decades of brutal oppression by Saddam, they were and still are desperate for a state of their own. Who can deny them such aspirations? There is just one problem however. The center of their ancestral homeland just so happens to be the most oil rich region of Iraq. The Turks (who have never really liked the Kurds) have said that they will invade Iraq if the Kurds declare their own state. Now Iraq with an internal turmoil of this capacity looks upon the US army as the invading force rather than their savior from Saddam and his oppression. The result is only death for those involved.

Knowing what we know, how will a democratic rule improve the lot of Iraqis? Given a truly free and unconstrained democracy (in our dreams), the first thing that will happen is that the majority will vote to slaughter the minority. The oppressed Shias will do everything they can to prevent the Sunnis taking power and the Kurds taking oil. We do know in our hearts that maybe the only way these three distinct groups can be made to live with each other, is through brutal oppression, not democracy. Thankfully, Washington lacks the will to be as oppressive as Saddam Hussein and the idea of a civil war and resulting break up of Iraq similarly unthinkable, as it will disrupt the supply of Iraqi oil. My guess is that having now realized that Iraqi democracy is unfeasible, Washington has privately accepted that Saddam really was better for Iraq (well, better for oil exports at least).

Not content with the fiasco of `democratizing` 25 million Iraqis, I read somewhere that President Bush intends to democratize the `broader Middle East`. From Morocco to Pakistan, President Bush plans on forcing his `gift` on about 615 million Muslims. The last time one man managed to force his will on anywhere near as many people, his name was Genghis Khan.

Millions died. 

With the House giving an ultimatum to the President and with him calling it a theatrical joke on the Democrats part-the situation is as grim as it was when the war on Iraq started. Now the war has come to our shores. This may not be your typical gun to grenade situation but the one in which the world has to see who gets to veto whom? 

Saira Wasif, Politics correspondent;

Saira’s column, Global Crock pot, published every Thursday to Gather Essentials: Politics is contemplation on World Affairs.

Northern Virginia based writer-Saira Wasif has been into politics since her college years. Being brought up in a politically tense environment of South-Asia; opinionated commentaries came natural to her. She has written various global awareness articles for a number of online magazines and had been active in her home town with local organizations and newspapers.

 You can find all of Saira Wasif’s columns at Global Crock pot, global correspondent, and politics. 

Keep up with Saira Wasif’s other postings and gather activity by joining her gather network – just click here http://sairawasif.gather.com/ and select the orange “Connect” button on the left hand side of the page.

You will find Saira Wasif’s and other Politics correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com