The Democratic Republic
This is a developing exercise - the subject is more complicated than we might
realize and the exercise is to examine and develop thought relative to it.
realize and the exercise is to examine and develop thought relative to it.
References:
Ernest Gellner, Culture, Identity and Politics
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism
John Dunn, A History of Democracy
Pierre Manent, A World Beyond Politics
Jorge Dominguez and Anthony Jones
(editors), The Construction of Democracy
Charles Tilly, Democracy
Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom
(For Starters)
Ernest Gellner, Culture, Identity and Politics
Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism
John Dunn, A History of Democracy
Pierre Manent, A World Beyond Politics
Jorge Dominguez and Anthony Jones
(editors), The Construction of Democracy
Charles Tilly, Democracy
Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom
(For Starters)
Assumptions and Concerns
Our (Western but particularly American) view of "democracy" is
simplistic. We don't understand it well and we don't appreciate
what we have. Nor do we understand the difficulties others have
of achieving it.
A democratic republic is - must be - far more than a voting process,
and even the voting process is developing strange symptoms.
(Rule of Law, respect for property, Free Enterprise, along with
rights, RESPONSIBILITIES and MUTUAL RESPECT come to mind.
Democracy is fragile and to survive must be nurtured.
There is a vast difference between theoretical governing via the
democratic process and achieving a viable democratic republic.
Some of the theory is also simplistic.
The democratic process entails the participation of people, and
people are not always easy to control; specifically, they see things
in light of their own self interest - differently.
Ignorance is not a good foundation for democratic process, and
the worse the ignorance the weaker the foundation.
Our (Western but particularly American) view of "democracy" is
simplistic. We don't understand it well and we don't appreciate
what we have. Nor do we understand the difficulties others have
of achieving it.
A democratic republic is - must be - far more than a voting process,
and even the voting process is developing strange symptoms.
(Rule of Law, respect for property, Free Enterprise, along with
rights, RESPONSIBILITIES and MUTUAL RESPECT come to mind.
Democracy is fragile and to survive must be nurtured.
There is a vast difference between theoretical governing via the
democratic process and achieving a viable democratic republic.
Some of the theory is also simplistic.
The democratic process entails the participation of people, and
people are not always easy to control; specifically, they see things
in light of their own self interest - differently.
Ignorance is not a good foundation for democratic process, and
the worse the ignorance the weaker the foundation.
Karl Marx, quoted by Pierre Manent, wrote “security is the supreme
social concept of civil society; the concept of the police. The whole
society exists only in order to guarantee for each of its members the
preservation of his person, his rights and his property.”
That is as good a place as any to begin, for without security - order - a
society is going to have a great deal of trouble becoming democratic.
Colloquially one might say it is difficult to remember you were draining
the swamp while being forced to fight alligators.
social concept of civil society; the concept of the police. The whole
society exists only in order to guarantee for each of its members the
preservation of his person, his rights and his property.”
That is as good a place as any to begin, for without security - order - a
society is going to have a great deal of trouble becoming democratic.
Colloquially one might say it is difficult to remember you were draining
the swamp while being forced to fight alligators.
A useful concept to understand is that for participation in
government there must be a foundation that supports it and
three pillars of that foundation are education, the nation state
and modernity. Actually each impinges upon the others.
Furthermore, since "the people" are involved in the democratic
process, their self interest will be a paramount
consideration; self interest cannot be exercised without order,
which is half of what Marx was talking about; the rest is
dependent on what we now refer to as nation states.
Self interest, after all is said and done, entails economics and
economics in today's world means modernity, which entails
education, division of labor, rule of law, respect for property,
and free enterprise.
The other piece of the democratic pie is respect of the rights
of individuals including freedom of speech and association -
but also of the checks and balances of power.
Many words and concepts, easy to roll off the tongue but not
always easy to comprehend in reality - especially when they
come into conflict, as they inevitably will. And more to the
point everyone tends to view them through their own prism of
self interest, thus what they mean to one may not be quite the
same as what they mean to another, which takes us back
around again to order and rule of law - but also knowledge,
and education.
government there must be a foundation that supports it and
three pillars of that foundation are education, the nation state
and modernity. Actually each impinges upon the others.
Furthermore, since "the people" are involved in the democratic
process, their self interest will be a paramount
consideration; self interest cannot be exercised without order,
which is half of what Marx was talking about; the rest is
dependent on what we now refer to as nation states.
Self interest, after all is said and done, entails economics and
economics in today's world means modernity, which entails
education, division of labor, rule of law, respect for property,
and free enterprise.
The other piece of the democratic pie is respect of the rights
of individuals including freedom of speech and association -
but also of the checks and balances of power.
Many words and concepts, easy to roll off the tongue but not
always easy to comprehend in reality - especially when they
come into conflict, as they inevitably will. And more to the
point everyone tends to view them through their own prism of
self interest, thus what they mean to one may not be quite the
same as what they mean to another, which takes us back
around again to order and rule of law - but also knowledge,
and education.
Modernity
Modernity is synonymous today with what used to be known as
industrial society, the only one ever to be based on sustained
growth and improvement; continual improvement that keeps
everyone content - "buying off social aggression with material
enhancement." But that exposes a weakness: it does not survive
downturn well. (Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism) Or as it
was ballyhooed in a recent political campaign, it's the economy,
stupid.
“Industrialization engenders a mobile and culturally homogeneous
society," entailing the ability of people within it to move from job to
job, to learn new jobs and to understand the rules the technology
and the precise communications involved. This is generally
lacking in the essentially agrarian society that precedes it and
explains one of the major difficulties agrarian societies have in
making the jump to modernity - a jump that can be painful (Gellner,
Ibid).
For democratic government to function there is a need to
assemble a number of conditions that come only with difficulty:
existence of a "civil society" and what was once called commerce,
a network of relations that brings people (and investment) together
voluntarily - in search of their own interests (Pierre Manent, A World
Beyond Politics).
Putting these thoughts together makes clear that "democracy"
struggles without a modern basis of understanding at the several
levels of a functioning economy: investment, management and the
working level. No jobs = poverty = discontent. Management
exploitation achieves the same. The two greatest problems in an
developing democratic economy are lack of investment and
corruption - assuming there is law and order.
Letting everyone vote doesn't meet the challenge; it only raises
expectations. If the expectations are not met disillusionment
develops quickly. But how can elected officials deal with the
expectation challenge if they lack the experience - and the
investment base - to do so? And how do they get the experience?
And the investment?
The naiveté of thinking an agrarian society can be led to the polls
and everything will suddenly evolve is frightening.
Modernity is synonymous today with what used to be known as
industrial society, the only one ever to be based on sustained
growth and improvement; continual improvement that keeps
everyone content - "buying off social aggression with material
enhancement." But that exposes a weakness: it does not survive
downturn well. (Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism) Or as it
was ballyhooed in a recent political campaign, it's the economy,
stupid.
“Industrialization engenders a mobile and culturally homogeneous
society," entailing the ability of people within it to move from job to
job, to learn new jobs and to understand the rules the technology
and the precise communications involved. This is generally
lacking in the essentially agrarian society that precedes it and
explains one of the major difficulties agrarian societies have in
making the jump to modernity - a jump that can be painful (Gellner,
Ibid).
For democratic government to function there is a need to
assemble a number of conditions that come only with difficulty:
existence of a "civil society" and what was once called commerce,
a network of relations that brings people (and investment) together
voluntarily - in search of their own interests (Pierre Manent, A World
Beyond Politics).
Putting these thoughts together makes clear that "democracy"
struggles without a modern basis of understanding at the several
levels of a functioning economy: investment, management and the
working level. No jobs = poverty = discontent. Management
exploitation achieves the same. The two greatest problems in an
developing democratic economy are lack of investment and
corruption - assuming there is law and order.
Letting everyone vote doesn't meet the challenge; it only raises
expectations. If the expectations are not met disillusionment
develops quickly. But how can elected officials deal with the
expectation challenge if they lack the experience - and the
investment base - to do so? And how do they get the experience?
And the investment?
The naiveté of thinking an agrarian society can be led to the polls
and everything will suddenly evolve is frightening.
Nation States
Gellner, Nations and Nationalism:
“Nationalism – the principle of homogeneous cultural units as
the foundations of political life, and of the obligatory cultural
unity of rules and ruled.”
“Nationalism has been defined, in effect, as the striving to
make culture and polity congruent, to endow a culture with its
own political roof, and not more than one roof at that…it is in
reality the consequence of a new form of social organization,
based on deeply internalized, education-dependent high
cultures, each protected by its own state.”
All operating democracies are nation states; many non-
democracies are not because they do not meet the above
criterion. Many, and the Arabs in particular, have too many
roofs. Can they ever become true nation states? Can they
ever develop anything close to democratic principles?
Perhaps, but it is difficult to see how they can in anything like
the near future - because they don't want to. But when the oil
is gone? It depends on how much of the world's wealth they
have absorbed, but then what will they do with it? Probably
fight among themselves, destroying it all in the process.
Without nation states as describe above how can populations
achieve modernity? Real modernity, not just the trappings. If
the truth be known even Arab culture is rent - they can agree
on very little, including nation state boundaries.
But Arabs aside, history suggests that only economic
cooperation will suffice in the end. That, in an environment of
desperate self interest, is the ultimate challenge. But it will not
be met without nation states.
Gellner, Nations and Nationalism:
“Nationalism – the principle of homogeneous cultural units as
the foundations of political life, and of the obligatory cultural
unity of rules and ruled.”
“Nationalism has been defined, in effect, as the striving to
make culture and polity congruent, to endow a culture with its
own political roof, and not more than one roof at that…it is in
reality the consequence of a new form of social organization,
based on deeply internalized, education-dependent high
cultures, each protected by its own state.”
All operating democracies are nation states; many non-
democracies are not because they do not meet the above
criterion. Many, and the Arabs in particular, have too many
roofs. Can they ever become true nation states? Can they
ever develop anything close to democratic principles?
Perhaps, but it is difficult to see how they can in anything like
the near future - because they don't want to. But when the oil
is gone? It depends on how much of the world's wealth they
have absorbed, but then what will they do with it? Probably
fight among themselves, destroying it all in the process.
Without nation states as describe above how can populations
achieve modernity? Real modernity, not just the trappings. If
the truth be known even Arab culture is rent - they can agree
on very little, including nation state boundaries.
But Arabs aside, history suggests that only economic
cooperation will suffice in the end. That, in an environment of
desperate self interest, is the ultimate challenge. But it will not
be met without nation states.
Education
Education is the process by which we - however - can hope to
understand. Where it is seen to be not working is the way we are
going about it:
We are trying to pour too much "education" into people not qualified
or interested in gaining it. We must tailor education for needs and
not attempt to make all equal. All will never be equal and much of
education is wasted on those who are not motivated to gain from it,
damaging those who try to teach it and those who are so motivated.
Too many educators have become social ideologues. They don't
educate they preach. And what they preach is Utopian fantasy.
Why? Because they really don't understand mankind and they
really don't understand reality because many have never really had
to deal with it.
And so what is mankind? A complex blend of selfishness and
selflessness with no rhyme or reason as to which comes out at
any given time.
And what results? Ignorance. Does that not sound like a profound
contradiction? Perhaps it is, but if it is it is because too many
people think about themselves, pleasure and their comforts and
not much else. Do we attempt to elect thinkers who can work it out
for the betterment of all of us? It does not appear so. Instead we
are lulled into choosing those who pander to that about which we
do think: ourselves, pleasure and our comforts. We even penalize
those who would give it to us straight.
And what must we learn? Most will learn only what they wish to
learn, which is: themselves, pleasure and their comforts. A rare
few will be capable of more - and we need them to lead us.
Education must focus on those motivated few capable of
understanding, and assist them to understand what we need to do
to survive. Trying to find those motivated few is the real challenge
of education - and to check and balance their ambitions.
And what, really, must it be that is learned? What works. And what
is that? A Middle Ground that appreciates that people only work for
what is in their interest (essentially capitalism), but in the process
need assistance in getting there and staying there. What rubbish!
But is it? The challenge is and will be in the Middle Ground:
checks to over ambition but reward for the ambitious; balancing of
power among those who would pursue it; compromising between
raw capitalism and irresponsible socialism; and cooperation,
mutual respect and understanding.
It also means determining where government should be involved
and where it should not. Government need only insinuate itself
where there is a clear issue to be defined - preferably in
consonance with our constitution. Too much government, too
much bureaucracy is as dangerous as too little. We are a
federalist state for a reason and those that founded it had insight
that we seem to be losing.
So have I defined a new unachievable Utopia? I have, but it is
something to strive for - to set as a high principle. In the meantime
let's at least look for the best available, and see beyond
propaganda and hunger for power - at our expense. That means a
position that appreciates the value of capitalism but softens it with
compassion while cracking down hard on those that would take
unfair advantage - and using intelligent realism to understand the
difference.
And from whence cometh intelligent realism? Education -
knowledge.
Education is the process by which we - however - can hope to
understand. Where it is seen to be not working is the way we are
going about it:
We are trying to pour too much "education" into people not qualified
or interested in gaining it. We must tailor education for needs and
not attempt to make all equal. All will never be equal and much of
education is wasted on those who are not motivated to gain from it,
damaging those who try to teach it and those who are so motivated.
Too many educators have become social ideologues. They don't
educate they preach. And what they preach is Utopian fantasy.
Why? Because they really don't understand mankind and they
really don't understand reality because many have never really had
to deal with it.
And so what is mankind? A complex blend of selfishness and
selflessness with no rhyme or reason as to which comes out at
any given time.
And what results? Ignorance. Does that not sound like a profound
contradiction? Perhaps it is, but if it is it is because too many
people think about themselves, pleasure and their comforts and
not much else. Do we attempt to elect thinkers who can work it out
for the betterment of all of us? It does not appear so. Instead we
are lulled into choosing those who pander to that about which we
do think: ourselves, pleasure and our comforts. We even penalize
those who would give it to us straight.
And what must we learn? Most will learn only what they wish to
learn, which is: themselves, pleasure and their comforts. A rare
few will be capable of more - and we need them to lead us.
Education must focus on those motivated few capable of
understanding, and assist them to understand what we need to do
to survive. Trying to find those motivated few is the real challenge
of education - and to check and balance their ambitions.
And what, really, must it be that is learned? What works. And what
is that? A Middle Ground that appreciates that people only work for
what is in their interest (essentially capitalism), but in the process
need assistance in getting there and staying there. What rubbish!
But is it? The challenge is and will be in the Middle Ground:
checks to over ambition but reward for the ambitious; balancing of
power among those who would pursue it; compromising between
raw capitalism and irresponsible socialism; and cooperation,
mutual respect and understanding.
It also means determining where government should be involved
and where it should not. Government need only insinuate itself
where there is a clear issue to be defined - preferably in
consonance with our constitution. Too much government, too
much bureaucracy is as dangerous as too little. We are a
federalist state for a reason and those that founded it had insight
that we seem to be losing.
So have I defined a new unachievable Utopia? I have, but it is
something to strive for - to set as a high principle. In the meantime
let's at least look for the best available, and see beyond
propaganda and hunger for power - at our expense. That means a
position that appreciates the value of capitalism but softens it with
compassion while cracking down hard on those that would take
unfair advantage - and using intelligent realism to understand the
difference.
And from whence cometh intelligent realism? Education -
knowledge.
Let it never be forgotten that education is
and must be far more than classrooms and
lectures. Advice from the knowledgeable is
education; experience is education;
observation is education; reading is
education. And just like the classroom all
is not always correct or complete.
Education is a never ending quest.
and must be far more than classrooms and
lectures. Advice from the knowledgeable is
education; experience is education;
observation is education; reading is
education. And just like the classroom all
is not always correct or complete.
Education is a never ending quest.
Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction or control;
the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a
manner of one's own choosing; freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control.
Freedom (political): the absence of interference with the
sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or
aggression
Democracy: a government by the people in which the
supreme power is vested by the people and exercised directly
by them or by their elected agent under a free electoral system.
“Founded as a republic that believed in a balance between
the will of the majority and the rights of the minority – or, more
broadly, between liberty and democracy – America is
increasingly embracing a simple-minded populism that
values popularity and openness as the key measures of
legitimacy. This ideology has necessitated the destruction of
old institutions, the undermining of traditional authority, and
the triumph of organized interest groups, all in the name of
‘the people.’ The result is a deep imbalance in the American
system, more democracy but less liberty.” Fareed Zacharia (
The Future of Freedom)
“Fareed Zacharia is right that, where possible, a liberal rule of
law is initially more critical to economic growth than
democratic political participation, and that modernizing
authoritarians might be preferable in some cases to feckless
democracies.” Francis Fukuyama (America at the
Crossroads)
the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a
manner of one's own choosing; freedom from unjust or undue
governmental control.
Freedom (political): the absence of interference with the
sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or
aggression
Democracy: a government by the people in which the
supreme power is vested by the people and exercised directly
by them or by their elected agent under a free electoral system.
“Founded as a republic that believed in a balance between
the will of the majority and the rights of the minority – or, more
broadly, between liberty and democracy – America is
increasingly embracing a simple-minded populism that
values popularity and openness as the key measures of
legitimacy. This ideology has necessitated the destruction of
old institutions, the undermining of traditional authority, and
the triumph of organized interest groups, all in the name of
‘the people.’ The result is a deep imbalance in the American
system, more democracy but less liberty.” Fareed Zacharia (
The Future of Freedom)
“Fareed Zacharia is right that, where possible, a liberal rule of
law is initially more critical to economic growth than
democratic political participation, and that modernizing
authoritarians might be preferable in some cases to feckless
democracies.” Francis Fukuyama (America at the
Crossroads)
Something to Ponder
"What is initially universal is not the desire for liberal
democracy but rather the desire to live in a modern society ,
with its technology, high standards of living, health care and
access to the wider world."
Fukuyama
democracy but rather the desire to live in a modern society ,
with its technology, high standards of living, health care and
access to the wider world."
Fukuyama
"Industrial society is the only society ever to live by and rely on
sustained and perpetual growth, on an expected and
continuous improvement. Not surprisingly, it was the first
society to invent the concept and ideal of progress, of
continuous improvement. Its favored mode of social control
is universal Danegeld, buying off social aggression with
material enhancement; its greatest weakness is its inability
to survive any temporary reduction of the social bribery fund,
and to weather the loss of legitimacy which befalls it if the
cornucopia becomes temporarily jammed and the flow
falters." Ernest Gellner (Nations and Nationalism)
sustained and perpetual growth, on an expected and
continuous improvement. Not surprisingly, it was the first
society to invent the concept and ideal of progress, of
continuous improvement. Its favored mode of social control
is universal Danegeld, buying off social aggression with
material enhancement; its greatest weakness is its inability
to survive any temporary reduction of the social bribery fund,
and to weather the loss of legitimacy which befalls it if the
cornucopia becomes temporarily jammed and the flow
falters." Ernest Gellner (Nations and Nationalism)
"Ignorance has many forms and
all of them are dangerous."
Gellner
all of them are dangerous."
Gellner
Democratic Republics and The Future
One of the issues with which I continue to wrestle is the future of
democratic republics - can democracy as we know it survive?
At this point my answer to my own question is, yes it can, but in
what form? And I am not encouraged with the answer to that one,
because I don't think we will like it; the results where other
democratic republics have formed are not so promising.
The reasons for my pessimism are many of those I have
enumerated throughout these pages: ignorance, selfishness, lust
for power and basic lack of initiative. Most men - the sheeple, as
Pravda once dubbed them - would prefer to have the most (that
which is obviously available to others) for the least effort, and prefer
that things like talent and passion, that drive success should not
be a consideration. Basically that means they subscribe to at least
a modicum of egalitarianism, meaning that all people ought to
have that which is necessary to live "decently" and with dignity
(defined variably of course) and that a representative democratic
government should provide it for them. On the surface this is
difficult to argue with, but in the details it proves far easier than it
might appear. In the long run it turns out that the more egalitarian
the definition of decency and dignified, the lower its quality. I have
discussed that elsewhere, but man at the extremes is either
competitive or willing to do as little as necessary, and there are
more of the latter than the former, something that history makes
quite apparent. But to know history is to have knowledge, and
ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Besides, we are easily gulled,
and there is no end of gullers waiting to do it to us, or waverers
between the extremes who are susceptible.
So the basic question: what comes from a democratic republic?
We, the voters, elect representatives that promise us what we want,
expect, think we deserve. And what is that? Comfort, liberty,
security, freedom, choice, indulgence, tranquility, order,
entertainment? Yes, all the above, and more; we want what we
want, depending on our circumstance, and are for the most part
ignorant of how it might be possible that it be provided. That
makes it easy for those who seek power, speak glibly and are
supported by the means of communication (propaganda) and the
power of the state to promise to make it available to us if we only
elect them and leave it them to provide.
The more ignorant voters are about the means of providing, the
more easily they are gulled; the more knowledgeable and
thoughtful the more they understand the consequences. We in the
United States, blessed with bountiful resources, a balanced and
checked constitutional government, an industrious culture and a
history of independence are better positioned than most to assess
alternatives.
But there are always alternatives and they need to be carefully
weighed if we are to produce the "right" (balanced) results. Uh
huh, Middle Ground again. But Middle Ground in the United States
is different from Middle Ground elsewhere, and so are the
democratic republics that will result - elsewhere; and in the United
States too, for that matter, as the culture is altered by the dramatic
diversity of the masses of immigrants that flood into our country
every year - and seduced by the cornucopia of plenty.
In a nutshell, being able to vote for leadership is not enough,
because most voters don't know what they are voting for, partly
because they don't understand the infrastructure details of modern
society and partly because those who seek power don't tell them
the truth about either that or their own motives. Thus the future of
government in general and democratic republicanism in particular
is a very large question mark. Neither will it ever become
consistent nor stable. To say that we have a long way to go is
misleading; it is more appropriate to say that we are in for a rough
ride, whatever happens.
One of the issues with which I continue to wrestle is the future of
democratic republics - can democracy as we know it survive?
At this point my answer to my own question is, yes it can, but in
what form? And I am not encouraged with the answer to that one,
because I don't think we will like it; the results where other
democratic republics have formed are not so promising.
The reasons for my pessimism are many of those I have
enumerated throughout these pages: ignorance, selfishness, lust
for power and basic lack of initiative. Most men - the sheeple, as
Pravda once dubbed them - would prefer to have the most (that
which is obviously available to others) for the least effort, and prefer
that things like talent and passion, that drive success should not
be a consideration. Basically that means they subscribe to at least
a modicum of egalitarianism, meaning that all people ought to
have that which is necessary to live "decently" and with dignity
(defined variably of course) and that a representative democratic
government should provide it for them. On the surface this is
difficult to argue with, but in the details it proves far easier than it
might appear. In the long run it turns out that the more egalitarian
the definition of decency and dignified, the lower its quality. I have
discussed that elsewhere, but man at the extremes is either
competitive or willing to do as little as necessary, and there are
more of the latter than the former, something that history makes
quite apparent. But to know history is to have knowledge, and
ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Besides, we are easily gulled,
and there is no end of gullers waiting to do it to us, or waverers
between the extremes who are susceptible.
So the basic question: what comes from a democratic republic?
We, the voters, elect representatives that promise us what we want,
expect, think we deserve. And what is that? Comfort, liberty,
security, freedom, choice, indulgence, tranquility, order,
entertainment? Yes, all the above, and more; we want what we
want, depending on our circumstance, and are for the most part
ignorant of how it might be possible that it be provided. That
makes it easy for those who seek power, speak glibly and are
supported by the means of communication (propaganda) and the
power of the state to promise to make it available to us if we only
elect them and leave it them to provide.
The more ignorant voters are about the means of providing, the
more easily they are gulled; the more knowledgeable and
thoughtful the more they understand the consequences. We in the
United States, blessed with bountiful resources, a balanced and
checked constitutional government, an industrious culture and a
history of independence are better positioned than most to assess
alternatives.
But there are always alternatives and they need to be carefully
weighed if we are to produce the "right" (balanced) results. Uh
huh, Middle Ground again. But Middle Ground in the United States
is different from Middle Ground elsewhere, and so are the
democratic republics that will result - elsewhere; and in the United
States too, for that matter, as the culture is altered by the dramatic
diversity of the masses of immigrants that flood into our country
every year - and seduced by the cornucopia of plenty.
In a nutshell, being able to vote for leadership is not enough,
because most voters don't know what they are voting for, partly
because they don't understand the infrastructure details of modern
society and partly because those who seek power don't tell them
the truth about either that or their own motives. Thus the future of
government in general and democratic republicanism in particular
is a very large question mark. Neither will it ever become
consistent nor stable. To say that we have a long way to go is
misleading; it is more appropriate to say that we are in for a rough
ride, whatever happens.
Dust cover of Eric van Lustbader’s novel
French Kiss: “Power, it is a most precious
commodity, a drug that, once tasted, few can
resist.” Once power is achieved, maintaining
it becomes all important.
French Kiss: “Power, it is a most precious
commodity, a drug that, once tasted, few can
resist.” Once power is achieved, maintaining
it becomes all important.
Stratfor about Iranian election: "The
question for the rest of the world is simple:
Does it matter who wins this fight? We
would argue that the policy differences
between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani are
minimal and probably would not affect Iran's
foreign relations. This fight simply isn’t
about foreign policy."
So what is it about? Power!
question for the rest of the world is simple:
Does it matter who wins this fight? We
would argue that the policy differences
between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani are
minimal and probably would not affect Iran's
foreign relations. This fight simply isn’t
about foreign policy."
So what is it about? Power!
"Their (Islamic militants) disagreements had
nothing to do with religious matters but were
concerned with glory and power! (Jihad by
Gilles Kepel)
nothing to do with religious matters but were
concerned with glory and power! (Jihad by
Gilles Kepel)
| Despite the self-serving tales the media attempts to spin, mostly about human rights and democracy, it is, essentially all about power - individual and collective (nation states). International politics is about power; national politics is about power. It has always been. |