1.31.08 When talking Democracy this week . . . No Payne No Gain
George W. Bush, according to his State of the Union address, wants to be remembered for spreading democracy around the world. He cited successes in both Afghanistan and Iraq. For many, his supposed legacy has been painful to watch.
Robert Dahl, democratic theorist and no friend to the president, has argued for the benefits of spreading democracy. He has argued that democracy produces desirable consequences. According to Dahl they are:
1. Avoiding tyranny
2. Essential rights
3. General freedom
4. Self - determination
5. Moral autonomy
6. Human development
7. Protecting essential personal interests
8. Political equality
In addition, modern democracies produce:
9. Peace - seeking
10. Prosperity
(See Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1998)
At least one thing can be said of this president. He has lived up to Emerson’s platitude - “Put your creed into your deed.”
Is it time for Congress to do the same? Here’s how.
Kenya and its struggling democracy could use our attention. Democracy is not just good for us, it is good for all. Kenya’s democracy is in serious trouble.
This week a resolution was introduced in the Senate, S.431, “calling for a peaceful resolution to the current electoral crisis in Kenya.” Sponsors signed on from both parties. The resolution calls for Kenya to respect “the will of the people” and to put an “end to the restrictions on the media.” It also urges the President to use his authority to bring about a political settlement before there is even more bloodshed.
The ball is now in the court of the House of Representatives. The Chairman of the House Africa Subcommittee could provide an urgency to this resolution. Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ) is that chairman. Payne has been an outspoken advocate for African assistance. His support of Senate Resolution 431 could provide the needed push to bring it to a full vote.
Democracy is still a noble ideal. President Bush wants it to be one of his legacies. Congress has, this week, recognized an opportunity to help Kenya overcome a serious challenge to its democratic government.
Looks like a tried and true maxim is at play . . . No Payne, no gain.
posted by CitizenU @ 5:34 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
But the overwhelming assumption of the Bush administration is that an outside force can create democracy among the people. Is that possible? Isn't it anti-democratic in nature? The United States, French and British democracies all came out of a groundswelling of their own citizens yearning for power and a voice. All of these Western countries has a strong value in individualism which is a key element to democracy. Trying to impose this on foreign peoples from different cultures will take far more than the Bush administration has done - if it is even possible.
So genocide in Rwanda, Darfur . . . and perhaps someday in Kenya is something we should sit back and watch?
Ill advised intervention in Iraq cannot dissuade us from acting with true compassion in those areas which need our help.
Even a Social Darwinist would agree. I think.
I hope.
no payne.. no gain???, its because we live in a western society, where gain and progress is measured by wealth and capitalism but i guess if thats the case, that is absolutely correct
I've had to think for quite a while before leaving any comment about this post, mainly because of my lack of knowledge in the area. But my gut feeling tells me that democracy can be brought to other countries, and who better to do it than America, the establisher of one of the first, real, representative democracies. As for the United States democracy being established due to its citizen's yearning, I believe that was only possible because of the distance between them and the crown. They not only had the experience of tyranny under the monarchs in England, but had the opportunity to get away from that and come up with something better in a new place.
Those are my thoughts anyways. Could just be blowing smoke.
eh, i would just like to point out that "calling for" something does not actually get anything done. it'll be nice if this passes, but...it's just words. just a lot of hot air. we need to actually DO things, not just talk about things.
The sooner George Walker Bush is out of the White House, the sooner we can return to effective, DIPLOMATIC, foreign policy
-J. Caesar
It's just like the Democrats to advocate for war when it serves their goals alone. What is the U.S. going to do if they pass the resolution? Send a small "peace keeping force" like the one sent in the early 90's to help Somalia? That worked out well didn't it?
It was Frederick the Great who said "He who defends everything defends nothing". America is already involved in a war. There's insurgents still in Iraq, Al Queda is trying to get its foot hold back in Afghanistan, and then there's Iran that we're still not sure of. The point is, our troops are spread out enough as it is, and we need to lock down the Middle East before we can even think of getting involved in Darfur and those other messes.
So my opinion is that we should just let them fight it out until it spills over so bad that big daddy America has to go over and crack some heads. So until we have to go over there, we have our own troubles to overcome.
No amount of diplomatic negotiations is going to stop the genocide in Darfur, Rowanda, and this new civil war brewing in Kenya. The only thing that's going to stop them is more blood, and when the bleeding stops, then you can begin the negotiations and history shows this. One of our founding father's, Thomas Jefferson, once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." What people don't realize is that if we do get involved in "keeping the peace" or "preventing genocide" in a region we're not going to be diplomatic about it, we're going to go in and kill more people and get our own people killed in the process to bring peace. Now we have groups of religious fanatics out there who want to kill Americans and bring down the American way of life, and then there's a civil war that really has no immediate threat on the U.S., with the exception of a bunch of loud bleeding hearts. America needs to get its priorities straight and stop playing Super Man when we're under attack. So let's kill the enemy before we even think of playing "world police".
Semper Fi and God bless America.
This post has been removed by the author.
If we go into another country and force our way of government on it then aren't we just as bad as the terrorists who want to end our lifestyle? They think that their way of life is superrior to ours and we believe that ours is better. And while maybe that is true because it has worked well for us, and we aren't suffering like the people in Rwanda and Darfur, you still have to think about how long it took us to get here. It took centuries for us to get to this point, why do we think that we can go into Iraq and est. a democracy in a couple years? I think we need to focus on the situation in Iraq before we can help another country in any serious way. If we try to help everybody can we say that we are really helping anyone?
If we go into another country and force our way of government on it then aren't we just as bad as the terrorists who want to end our lifestyle? They think that their way of life is superrior to ours and we believe that ours is better. And while maybe that is true because it has worked well for us, and we aren't suffering like the people in Rwanda and Darfur, you still have to think about how long it took us to get here. It took centuries for us to get to this point so why do we believe that we can go into Iraq and establish a democracy in a couple years? I think we need to focus on the situation in Iraq before we can help another country in any serious way. If we try to help everybody, don't we just end up helping no one? I say yes.
Post a Comment
<< Home