Commentary 2 - Democracy

To set the tone in a passage about democracy and human rights, Sernau opens with a trip he took to Myanmar (Burma). This corporate police state features a destitute lower class plagued by currency confusion, economic restrictions, religious tracking, government-controlled houses, apartments, markets, and communication lines, and vague laws that only exist so semi-legitimate arrests can be made if someone crosses the government. He then follows with a voyage into South Africa, and a visit to the prison that held Nelson Mandela and so many other inmates. This was a byproduct of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the entire nation's move towards forgiveness and healing. South Africans were rallying around past injustices and the leader that had emerged from them, and are a proud nation. He then launches into a debate with himself about which term is more appropriate: nation, state, or nation-state. The root of the argument comes from nationalism, or the theory that the nation one lives in is at the top of the world as far as worth, rightness, and glory. He argues that nationalism is more common nowadays than patriotism, which is a love for one's country despite flaws. Patriotism is often seen as the healthier of the two; as nationalism is blamed for many a war. But as Sernau points out, nationalism prompts an almost primal urge to defend one's nation. Stalin was unable to find many supporters for the unpopular international socialism in Soviet Russia, due to destitution, brutality, and misery, but the reason Russians fought the Germanic invasion was because they were defending the Motherland, their home, their land, not the ideals one man held. This innate sense of responsibility and pride in one's nation, culture, and ideals puts a wrench in the idea of transnational union. How can people that so fiercely desire to remain culturally unique subscribe to new laws and policies enacted by a higher power? I believe that if it leads to better living standards and economic prosperity, people will be resigned to putting aside their differences to better themselves and their fellow countrymen.

I believe a sense of nationalism is fueling the actions of a great number of officials in out government. We go around the world, interjecting our ideals and way of life into countries that we see as impoverished and oppressed, but in reality, may not necessarily want change. We favor chaos and change over the stability these people have known their whole life. Sure, sometimes it's in the interests of the United States to intervene in order to secure a strategic resource or key area of land, but most of the time we see “atrocities” that must be stopped, when really, we just throw out all stability and order these people had in favor of a period of absolute anarchy. This ends up costing the lives of those in the unlucky country, but also American lives and American resources that could be better used elsewhere. Not to mention the fact that we're throwing a system in place that we don't practice ourselves and that statistics say is doomed to failure: democracy, true or not, has failed a majority of the time in nations with a per capita income of under $9,000. The irony is the fact that we as a nation force this way of government on countries with immoral, but often stable dictatorships when we aren't a democracy in the strictest sense of the word, but a fundamental republic.

The passage provided in the handout highlighted many issues plaguing American government today. Many citizens are turned off by the cutthroat style, the “blood sport”, if you will. This is driven by the two-party system and the human spirit's nature and desire to “win”, thus they try to champion their beliefs and see to it that they “win” in a system where there is no true victor, no matter the cost. That begs the question, why are political parties a part of politics? The Constitution makes no reference of them, and in fact, in Federalist 10, Madison warns about the dangers of political factions, although he predicted they would form. “Liberty is to faction as air is to fire.” As long as there is public freedom, factions will form. People with similar beliefs will gather together to benefit themselves and ensure their dissenters fail, while the majority of people left in between hurt because of it. The country is full of partisan bickering and political stalemates in a time when the people who have given their consent to be governed need governance the most.

Sernau closes with a warning about the dangers of democracy. He quotes Zakaria and says “If the task of the twentieth century is to make the world safe for democracy, then the task of the twenty-first century is to make democracy safe for the world.” Institutions must be built to support democracy, and “a free press that strives for objectivity” is an institution difficult to maintain everywhere. In reality, is true democracy impossible to maintain after a certain point? Take America. Can you imagine the chaos if America tried a conversion to true democracy? With 300 million people all chiming in their ideas on every issue from where to focus troops in the Middle East to what should be served for lunch in the cafeteria, it would just not be practical. We currently have the freedoms of a democracy and the structure of a republic, and some may argue even that is too much. Some say a more authoritarian approach on the social front is necessary, with restrictions on what can be owned or purchased, and others favor a more authoritarian approach on the economic front. With an increasingly chaotic public (just put your eyes on the Mexican border and Tuscon) and an increasingly out of touch “ruling class”, what's the answer for America?

One “fact” that Sernau has decided on is that whatever the case, whatever the ideology, dictatorships are always detrimental to a country. He cited the ultraconservative right in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, and the ultraliberal left in the Soviet's socialist machine. He also cautions that our ideal picture of true democracy may not turn out like we think; a so-called “liberal democracy that respects human rights and individual liberties. Hitler was elected in a democratic election; as was Milosevic, while the Pope and Dalai Lama were not.

An example of a democratic decimation was in the 1997 Liberian elections: Charles Taylor ran and was elected after a menacing campaign slogan, and he used his power to lead insurrectionists in neighboring countries like Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast. Democracy is obviously not perfect, but seeing as our own leaders mislead and distort the truth, praising our great democracy from all corners of the Earth, is it really desirable? The U.S. has had a long reign at the top and has been the envy of much of the modern world with our constitutional republic, so why force this style on fledgling nations? In doing so, we not only deceive them, but deceive ourselves in the process.