www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Tip of the hat to Mr. Bush

Dear Administrator,

The only issue I have about the West bringing "democracy" to other countries is that of imposing Western values on cultures that simply cannot accommodate them and whose adoption could lead to both cultural and social disaster for them.

"Democracy" is a loaded term.

People from Eastern Europe who have had an opportunity to live here for a while have studied the theory of democracy with our societal structure.

What we absolutely affirm is "democracy" could appear as a culture where the most important "political" aspects have to do with consumerism, product choice and the like.

Ours, they say, is a culture where only the wealthy have a crack at political leadership and where, as in the U.S., a two-party system is in place where the ideology of either isn't all that different in the overall scheme of things.

And how democratic can a society be if many of its citizens simply don't bother with political issues all that much etc.

Other societies, including Islamic societies, give much greater weight to tradition in terms of how their countries are run politically and how their societies are based.

Ideal democracy that provides opportunities for people living under the rule of law within a context of great personal freedom is simply that - an ideal or even a "habit" that is made stronger by welding it to tradition.

Other societies that have imitated the American model of democracy, in Eastern Europe, for instance, are simply finding it unworkable in their own historic, political context.

If the U.S. is serious about "giving Iraq back" to the people, a good litmus test for this is the extent to which it will avoid imposing its own way of life, seen as the "best possible anywhere" on them.

Alex

Alex,

There are some Western values that are superior to the values of other cultures and should be spread (not imposed) throughout the world. We certainly must respect the values of cultures other than our own but we must be careful not to take such respect the extreme of allowing tyranny. I think that with careful action we can spread freedom and democracy to the entire world. Each culture can determine the governmental forms that are best suited for their cultures.

Alex wrote: Ours, they say, is a culture where only the wealthy have a crack at political leadership and where, as in the U.S., a two-party system is in place where the ideology of either isn't all that different in the overall scheme of things.

People who say such things are wrong. Former President Bill Clinton and current Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge are two of many current examples. Neither was born to wealthy family. Clinton�s history is well known but few know that Ridge is from a poor family and he won a scholarship to Harvard (he is still not considered wealthy).

Alex wrote: And how democratic can a society be if many of its citizens simply don't bother with political issues all that much etc.

Quite democratic. Non-participation in voting is a statement of support and acceptance for the status quo. Elections with the highest percentages of registered voters actually voting are usually those in which two opposing positions on a controversial issue are at stake. I do agree that we should have a more informed electorate and encourage better participation but I do not see non-participation by voters as automatically undemocratic.

Alex wrote: Other societies that have imitated the American model of democracy, in Eastern Europe, for instance, are simply finding it unworkable in their own historic, political context.

I agree. Democracy can take many forms. Each society should be free to choose a form of democracy best suited to its culture. After WWII Japan choose a system almost identical to that of the United Kingdom. It is now a free society and is thriving. I am confident that Iraq can choose a system that works for them, one that is based in law (which is not foreign to the Quran) and respects freedom. I�ve not seen any evidence that the United States is attempting to impose American style democracy on Iraq. It is certainly possible that such a thing will be attempted but so far I�ve seen the coalition forces going out of their way to respect the varying cultures of the Iraqi people. Even if an American form is imposed now as a starting point there is certainly nothing preventing Iraqis from altering it to better suit their culture.

Admin

Administrator:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Alex wrote: "Ours, they say, is a culture where only the wealthy have a crack at political leadership and where, as in the U.S., a two-party system is in place where the ideology of either isn't all that different in the overall scheme of things."

In repsonse, you said: "People who say such things are wrong. Former President Bill Clinton and current Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge are two of many current examples. Neither was born to wealthy family. Clinton�s history is well known but few know that Ridge is from a poor family and he won a scholarship to Harvard (he is still not considered wealthy)."

Dare I say, citing a few Horatio Algers here and there does not change the fact that most political leaders in this country come from money and that it is money which, by and large, preserves the political status quo and prevents the viability of third, fourth, and fifth parties.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Administrator,

So you really DO have a life outside religion!

There was a time when the same would not apply to me . . .

I'm not, nor are others, saying that one has to be a millionaire to be a politician, but you certainly need a lot of money to run and if you can't raise the dollars - forget it.

I know that in our own provincial backyard it takes an awful lot of financial backing etc.

Perhaps that is O.K., but I think there are a lot of problems that go with that kind of system.

Not voting a sign of democratic values and intent?

I don't know about that. Certainly, that is what I am supposed to tell people when they call me to complain about the government, but who say they didn't vote in the last election . . .

It depends on how one views democracy. If it is simply a matter of casting votes on election day, then, fine, if you don't vote then you don't care and you must be satisfied with whomever wins.

We still might have to, even if we do vote . . .

But I think a true democratic political culture has to do with a degree of political self-awareness among people and of their ability to exercise their democratic franchise and actually have an impact on their political fate through their participation etc.

Otherwise, one is left with a kind of "scientific management" model of government where politicians are seen as indifferent civil servants who will run the government as it has always been run no matter what we do.

We had a Chinese delegation some time ago who wanted to call me up on the carpet for our democracy . . .

Their ideal of democracy was based on the level of self-awareness, accountability and public participation model that is truly an ideal.

They didn't have it in their country, but they did say that without such, there is no democracy and Canada was therefore not as democratic as it would like to believe.

Also, democracy might actually have less to do with voting, but more with accountability to the people that goes beyond election campaign time. It is relatively easy to orchestrate a strong media campaign via the TV to convince people, in a short space of time, who to vote for. And it doesn't take much to convince North Americans using these means.

So what, you may say? If our political culture is uncritical and indifferent, it is simply too easy for elites to control it. In that case, voting is just a formality by indifferent people that at least confirms the appearance that public legitimation is being given to governments.

And to say that it is the people's fault if they are like that is simply not the whole story. Democratic governments actually count on the electorate not being too critical or aware of the real issues.

One of the reasons why other peoples critique the American way of life, and don't shoot the messenger here, is that they see a contradiction between American democracy and an American society that marches lock-step to the values of consumerism and doesn't seem able to see a distinction between the two.

I agree, of course, with your premise in your first paragraph and it is an important point to make.

But knowing how much of one and when is enough of the other is the challenge!

Alex

Theophilos,

I�m not sure I agree. If you browse the histories of our representatives in Congress most did not start off wealthy. The privilege of the Kennedy�s and the Kerry�s and the Bush�s are not the norm anymore. A year or two ago Forbe�s magazine had a listing of billionaires and of the top 10 only 2 or 3 came from wealthy families.

Either way, the chances of rising from a poor background to an elected national leader are far better here in America than they are anywhere else.

I do agree the money of political organizations preserves the status quo. I disagree with your comments about alternate political parties. It seems to me that we stay with two parties because each of the parties has a pretty big tent. The Federalists, Anti-Federalists and the Whigs were all large parties at one time but were replaced by Democrats and Republicans. Our current two parties can be replaced if they are not seen as representing the majority of Americans.

--

Alex,

I do agree that it takes money. I think that�s why most of the people running for elected office are those who have made lots of money.

I didn�t say that not voting was a sign of democratic values. I said it was an endorsement of the status quo, which is the current direction of the government at whatever election one is talking about. Let�s face it. When life is going pretty well (as it is in North America) people do not really care about their government. But when the government messes up they care and decide to vote. People do have an impact on their political fate by choosing to vote or not vote (participate or not participate). One does not have to show up on election day in order to participate in democracy. Keep in mind that we are not true democracies. Here in the United States we are a representative democracy because our founding fathers thought it would be a more stable form of government.

I do agree that in recent generations America seems to have lost touch with the values that our democracy was built upon, replacing them with the values of consumerism. This concerns me. This only calls even more attention to our responsibility to evangelize everyone in America to Jesus Christ.

Admin

Dear Alex, I think that you have expressed very good points, I share most of your views.

The Administrator is also right about some traditional values of societies that must not be permitted because are offensive to human rights (the classic example, some islamic laws.)

It is true that people from humble origin have reached power in free democracies like USA or Britain, but the truth is that in modern democracies, money dominates the campaigns and only those candidates supported with large quantities of money are able to get the power. Large corporations, with their unlimited donations to the "official" parties everywhere, assure the defense of the status quo.

I won't make a defense of the past regime in its horrible crimes against human rights such as the torture houses, the persecutions (especially against the believers), the general lack of freedom. But the country was not as poor as it is now, the basic needings of the population were satisfied, in education there was an enormous progress, hospitals. Life wasn't too bad. On this issue Cuba and Mexico were much better than the rest of the Latin American countries that had democracies.

There's no doubt that there are many things that are better now than before, we have freedom to decide and think, we can criticize the government but the possibility of a new political change is limited. I have the perception that in elections we have to choose from three candidates whose possibility to change things are very small, they are all submited to the policies of the international economical organizations (WTO, IMF, WB) and we don't elect presidents but enterprise managers. This is why people abstain from voting and loose interest in the elections ("why do we vote if all are the same?").

The only issue I have about the West bringing "democracy" to other countries is that of imposing Western values on cultures that simply cannot accommodate them and whose adoption could lead to both cultural and social disaster for them.

I think it's very much a cultural crisis, there was a moment when freedom was too much. We have got freedom and human rights but we've also got sex shops, super-pop culture, liberalism in moral and sexual matters, we've been invaded by neo-protestant sects, this is certainly a disaster I agree. However I think it's not the fault of the system but the fault of the way it is implemented, there's sometimes too much freedom and people couldn't handle it.

Alex,

In the latest election in Iraq, the former President Saddam Hussein won by a landslide with a near 100% turnout.

Today, I have a hard time believing that was an excercise of democracy - in any cultural context.

Now the Iraqis are taking the soles of their shoes and slapping his image; others are kissing the image of Bush and the U.S. flag.

Did their vote really count in the last election?

We should all pray that the Iraqis DO take control of their own political future where all peoples in that country have a right to participate in one form or another.

The examples of Japan and Germany can reflect how Iraqi political self-determination is in the best interest of everyone.

The U.S. has a lot to win if this happens before the watchful and skeptical eyes of their Arab neigbors.

With freedom we can maybe have more Iraqi cooking shows on the FoodTV channel and other cultural exchanges.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

My Ukrainian cousin was, before his death, a member of the Soviet Communist party and, yes, I know all about elections with 97% landslide victories!

Voting in a dictatorial society is not really "voting" since you have no choice and you don't even have the choice of not voting.

You are forced to personally legitimate the repressive regime and status quo.

That is not democracy but the abuse of democratic principles and practices.

There are other "free" countries that have only one party too and there you don't have to necesssarily go out to vote . . .

As I believe, voting is just one aspect of democratic participation and self-awareness in political society.

My Canadian Head of State, namely, Her Majesty the Queen, is not elected - but her government is.

The fact that she is not elected means that the institution of the Crown is not political.

Our politicians in the lower House of Commons are elected and they are completely focused on . . . how to get re-elected and what actions would best serve that.

That is why the Fathers of our Confederation established the Senate of non-elected people whose guiding principle would ideally be not what is good for our reelection, but what is good for the country.

The unelected Monarch/Sovereign, being non-political, represents our history, culture and traditions via our way of life. The sovereign represents the very best of what we can all potentially become in terms of love and service to others, our community and country.

The Crown and Parliament have brought these blessings to our country!

Voting and the chicanery of democratic politics is left to the politicians.

But our stability comes not from them, since they come and go, but from the Crown and the enduring institutions that emanate from it, like Parliament.

One historian once posited that the U.S. might not have ever have had a civil war if it remained tied to the Crown with Lincoln as a Prime Minister.

The fact that the South did not vote for him would not have resulted in war (since Lincoln, as President, was also Head of State), but he could have been replaced through ongoing inside political horse-trading and what-not.

The stability of the U.S. then would not have been upset by this issue.

I also have trouble understanding when it is an exercise of democratic right to criticize the U.S. President as Head of Government and when it is bordering on treason to criticize him as Head of State.

The South had that same problem too, as I understand!

Alex

Dear Administrator,

My point about the money is that it can corrupt and it can bring about undemocratic outcomes that work against the best interests of the people.

Our politicians of late have been extremely wealthy. And good for them! We could all use the Prayer of Jabez to ask for more wealth too!

My point is that people shouldn't be surprised when such wealthy government heads have trouble developing policies that meet real social needs . . .

The status quo is truly a difficult thing to change and my point is that voting, as the only expression of democratic rights, is not the panacea for political ills.

But I have, in my own career in politics, seen real social change occur when masses of people organize around issues that irk them and trigger the political sensibility in them.

One such issue was high hydro rates as a result of privatization last summer.

Petitions were developed, and I won't tell you who developed them , and thousands were presented. The government backed down and even started to pay people part of their rates back . . .

When one government removed the name of the Queen from the police oath of allegiance, thousands signed another petition, prepared by the same secret writer who did the petition above, and, in two months more than 25,000 signatures were gathered alone.

One businessman paid a plane to fly around the Legislature for four hours one day, dragging a sign that read, "God Save The Queen!"

It is possible to twig people's interests, even though the medium is a perceived direct hit on their pocketbooks or on an important tradition.

Consumerism and other things do serve to dull people's perception of their responsibilties to society and community.

We know that the first thing the Nazis did when they invaded the various countries of Europe was to promote the reading of pornography - to get the conquered peoples to develop an inward, individual focus, however immoral, and be satisfied with that, rather than opposing them.

Alex

Dear Cantor Joseph,

What you said about the cooking shows, far from being cynical, is right on the money by way of political comment!

Alex