Still only two cheers for democracy
As international broadcasters begin a season of films about the strengths and weaknesses of democracy - Why Democracy? - the BBC's Paul Reynolds looks at what it means today.

The end of the Cold War saw the rapid spread of democracy
The triumph of democracy in the 20th Century was so great that it is curious that doubts have gathered around it today.
...
One factor is that not everyone believes in the benevolent intentions of democratic countries.

Iraq has led to the phenomenon that the most active exponent of democracy, the US, has attracted the greatest criticism. This has made it easier for al-Qaeda to gain recruits...

Even the Bush administration has given up its hopes of a rapid transformation of Iraq into a democratic beacon in the Middle East. President Bush argued that the Middle East was really no different from anywhere else, that its people wanted the same things and that, once upon a time, other parts of the world had also been written off as hopeless.

And yet it has not worked out like that - so far, at least. Iraq has shown that you cannot simply impose outside values on a society.

The definition of modern liberal democracy is now being examined, questioned even, more closely than before.
....
Democracy has had its weaknesses exposed.

_________________

Gus: Modern 'democracies" are too often in the hands and at the mercy of spruikers and con men/women — even some con men with a conscience and con men/women of little intellect, but of clever skills. The job to manage a democracy is difficult and complex because it involves balancing an array of points of views, of considering the lives of many, in which most — or "utopian-ly" all — would benefit equally.

Most con-men/women do not want all to benefit — just themselves and their buddies while collecting most of loot, and throwing a few crumbs to the others — enough to keep revolution at bay.

The world's nations operate in a sea of complex uncertainty, of emergence and shifts of opinions distilled from a traditional base — all to various degree of importance, desire and evolution. The world's nations operate with various degree of culture and resources, beliefs and greed. Many operate in various non-democratic status, including kingdoms — such as Australia and UK— some work some don't... We often dream as to the meaning of "democracy"... that strange system of governance in which the majority of people can be wrong but still rule, while the minority can often loose its voice and its "human rights..." — or in which a Governor General representing a King or Queen can dismiss an elected government.

The job of "managing" a true democracy should be left to the people themselves, but for whatever reason we have delegated this complex role to "politicians" — upper layer of governance controllers of bureaucracy —, whom we trust to do things properly on our behalf for a period of time during which we do not pay as much attention as to what needs to be agreed — except by participating via cumbersome various party structures in which our ideas and desires can be thwarted. In fact, every issue should be debated by all of us, via referendums, rather than by leaving the decisions to politicians who will play the game of their nominated elected length of time in majority rather than that of the people at the time of the decision...

In this present delegated process, the power of opinionated knowledge is important at election time. The political spruikers we delegate to manage our democratic political affairs, are very astute as to manipulate our desires, our fears and our knowledge while picking our pockets...

Often, they turn the honour of representing our aspirations into control for a few, themselves and their friends, even to control for themselves alone. John Howard is a case in point. When faced with the concept of having to support Bush going to war in Iraq — a most important decision indeed (wrong in my view, and that of most Australians, for many reasons, including John Howard's, George Bush's and Tony Blair's lying about the reason, the intent, the purpose and the expected result) — instead of referring this to parliament at least, or to the people as it should have been, he took this horrendous decision on his own whim and fancy — his own belief, his own desire to Brown-nose to a mad-delirious-deluded president. John Howard sold it to us — as well as buttered with the illusion of WMDs — as maintaining an important friendship.

As a democratic lot, I believe we knew better... BUT WE DID NOT HAVE A VOICE. Under the rules of our elected democracy, we had NO choice, but to follow a stupid and dangerous decision made by Howard...

Whatever improvements have been or not been made by removing Saddam from that country, the price has been horrendous, the lie too enormous, the decision too UNDEMOCRATIC. Maintaining a friendship with the US is important if we wish to do so but participating into its pandora-ic genocide of Iraq is beyond the call. Especially when the true reason beyond this affair was OIL.

John Howard's manipulation of information on many other important subject has led to the confusion amongst voters whose fears were being pricked, unnecessarily. Children overboard was another such case in point. The horror of the deed became stronger than the truth of not having happened in reality, because he "let us believe" it did happen. Con-trick of the utmost disgusting ilk. That's John Howard in full flight.

Often, in democracy, the basic is forgotten or hidden from view: life's "purpose" beyond survival alone. What makes humans different from other animal species, is our propensity to change and adapt rapidly and to create various new stacks of purposes — as what I call Stylistic interpretations of life. They can be as varied as the number of individuals, and we should only be limited as not to harm anyone...

So, we invent new purposes to dispel the angst of being — life on earth having no other real purpose for individuals than to be there and gone in a blink. It is an ephemerality that we find hard to accept once we climb out of the animalistic survival mode into a comfort zone. Thus we have invented god, gods and various systems on which we can pin our hopes and frustrations — and rules. More often than not, the system of "elected democracy" works, not brilliantly, but it seems to offer a certain cohesion while maintaining a certain freedom of spirit within the group it is supposed to represent. In many ways, the underlying purpose of the present governance system is to give us the illusion of comfort while making sure we have to pay for it in a way in which we cannot rock the system...

For a few years now, (a coupe of centuries at least), "we" have tried to eliminate the privileges conferred by accident of birth. Yet the privilege class still exists and still fights to retain these privileges... be of fortune, be of nobility, be of control. With trial and error we search for the best system of governance in which we can feel safe and prosper. Some people don't... Some fall between the cracks of the imperfect system and some do abuse the weakness in the system to profit.

So now we pick leaders in agreed system of majority rather than of dynastic-based acquired power. We hope that the majority of people would be more intelligent to pick the right leader but too often, we pick those who cleverly lie the most, like Howard... Of course the lies are diguised as "changes of mind", "non-core" promises.... etc

Thus, in order to limit the damage, contrary to those who advocate a fixed terms of four years for our elected representative, I would suggest we should limit and fix the terms of government to no longer than ONE year. In this case we should be able to limit the damage done by the con-men/women and give ourselves the chance to be more democratically astute...

It is a comfort to me that the present advertising campaign by the present Howard government seems to have no effect on the choice of the people, if we're to believe the polls... Either people have woken up to the underlying lies below the clever advertising, either they just feel they have seen John howard's mug once too many times and it's time for him to go, either they think Kevin Rudd can do the job as well and it's time for change...

But, beware, John Howard will try many more tricks to enforce a change of mind, in his favour...

Paul Kelly, the respected historian and political commentator, has been quite vociferous, nearly coleric, in his defence of John Howard... and for someone of such moderate opinionated knowledge it's quite surprising... But this is where someone like John Howard excels, in convincing good people that bad deed are necessary in the national interest... Economic record of John Howard this, economic record of John Howard that, has been like a stupid song, the tune of which we cannot get out of our mind unless we change the record and listen to another song for a while. In fact, the economic position of Australia is A) not that great (the trade deficit is horrendous) and B) not due to the present government but to the emergence of China and other developing countries like India (of which we should say the social structure is highly undemocratic)...

Folks, it's time to listen to another song.

Recent exploration of Mother Theresa's true feelings showed us how we can be very fragile in faith and show an immense compassion nonetheless. To me, the weaker the faith, in politics or religion, and the greater the compassion, the greater humanity can be lauded. The less war we can create. War being often generated by competition... Using competition as an excuse for purpose won't wash for much longer... Too many cheats and too much corruption of intent will be exposed. John Howard included. That's my opinion.