Tweet
WE LACK DEMOCRACY LONG AGO
Hayots Ashkharh Daily Newspaper
Aug 17 2007
Armenia
We continue our conversation about democracy that we started in our
yesterday's issue.
There is no real democracy in the world. Long ago... The fact that
western societies call themselves democratic doesn't mean that they
are really democratic. Before Sarkozy's victory "Euronews" TV channel,
through an at all times-experienced expert, straightforwardly named
French political system an "electoral monarchy".
Is the situation different in other western countries? Should we take
this word in brackets? Should we be happy or sad about it?
The first thing in case of "democracy" that leads us into delude is its
abstract and formal definition. For example that "in democracy power
belongs to the people", or a more complicated definition - " people
hand power over to their representatives and control their activity".
If we take a glance at the life and activity of the so-called
developed countries we will definitely see that no one hands
anything over to anyone. They themselves take the power by means of
political technologies and manipulation of governable consciousness,
by developed and quite legal and legitimate corruption (which is given
not personally but in the form of charity). And no one controls anyone;
at best you can hear complaints.
And besides that how can someone hand over the power when this
someone doesn't know what is power, someone who is busy in super -
exhaustion only. And finally how can one supervise something having
no idea about how it functions.
In the history democracy has always been born, developed and has
vanished as a concrete organism, as a concrete system of social
relations, that solves a certain historical task. And it evaporates
either after solving that issue or as a consequence of the loss of
modernization.
The first democracy (and truth to tell the last) and by the way the
most developed has been established in Roman Empire. If we try to
compare the democratic efforts of the present days' western societies
with Roman Empire we will feel regret for the lost and irretrievable
model.
Can you imagine electing two presidents instead of one, with equal
power and rights? No separation of commissions, even in territorial
sense. When the volume of power gives an opportunity to have direct
interference in the activity of any official.
This is how the consuls, the possessors of the supreme power were
elected in the Republic. They were elected only for one year but
it would never damage the legal succession of power. In critical
situations one dictator used to be appointed instead of two consuls.
After solving the problem he would return his power to its "previous
place".
Let's return to the present days. The analyses of the success and
the failure of democracy in different countries displays that to
establish properly functioning democracy these countries need to
fulfill certain conditions.
First: the country must reach a certain level of well-being, democracy
can't be rooted in a poor country.
Second: if we speak about the "centuries of changes " - then we should
say that modernization shouldn't affect people's quantity.
Otherwise democracy leads to the denial of modernization and throws
the society backward.
And finally: the society should grow for democracy and learn to
benefit from it, for example - to distinguish liberty from anarchy.
Unfortunately this doesn't happen nowadays.
The statements, often heard, about "the absolute value of democracy"
are light-minded and groundless, and true democracy, as any tool
of governing the society has serious limitations in terms of its
exercise. That is why democracy needs serious and not commercial
approach. Otherwise good will can lead the country to chaos, which
will definitely discredit both the true values and the "implanters
of democracy".
Like in medical service, in serious politics as well Hippocrat's law
is indispensable, to advance democracy, which runs "Look sharp!
Not to damage."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Hayots Ashkharh Daily Newspaper
Aug 17 2007
Armenia
We continue our conversation about democracy that we started in our
yesterday's issue.
There is no real democracy in the world. Long ago... The fact that
western societies call themselves democratic doesn't mean that they
are really democratic. Before Sarkozy's victory "Euronews" TV channel,
through an at all times-experienced expert, straightforwardly named
French political system an "electoral monarchy".
Is the situation different in other western countries? Should we take
this word in brackets? Should we be happy or sad about it?
The first thing in case of "democracy" that leads us into delude is its
abstract and formal definition. For example that "in democracy power
belongs to the people", or a more complicated definition - " people
hand power over to their representatives and control their activity".
If we take a glance at the life and activity of the so-called
developed countries we will definitely see that no one hands
anything over to anyone. They themselves take the power by means of
political technologies and manipulation of governable consciousness,
by developed and quite legal and legitimate corruption (which is given
not personally but in the form of charity). And no one controls anyone;
at best you can hear complaints.
And besides that how can someone hand over the power when this
someone doesn't know what is power, someone who is busy in super -
exhaustion only. And finally how can one supervise something having
no idea about how it functions.
In the history democracy has always been born, developed and has
vanished as a concrete organism, as a concrete system of social
relations, that solves a certain historical task. And it evaporates
either after solving that issue or as a consequence of the loss of
modernization.
The first democracy (and truth to tell the last) and by the way the
most developed has been established in Roman Empire. If we try to
compare the democratic efforts of the present days' western societies
with Roman Empire we will feel regret for the lost and irretrievable
model.
Can you imagine electing two presidents instead of one, with equal
power and rights? No separation of commissions, even in territorial
sense. When the volume of power gives an opportunity to have direct
interference in the activity of any official.
This is how the consuls, the possessors of the supreme power were
elected in the Republic. They were elected only for one year but
it would never damage the legal succession of power. In critical
situations one dictator used to be appointed instead of two consuls.
After solving the problem he would return his power to its "previous
place".
Let's return to the present days. The analyses of the success and
the failure of democracy in different countries displays that to
establish properly functioning democracy these countries need to
fulfill certain conditions.
First: the country must reach a certain level of well-being, democracy
can't be rooted in a poor country.
Second: if we speak about the "centuries of changes " - then we should
say that modernization shouldn't affect people's quantity.
Otherwise democracy leads to the denial of modernization and throws
the society backward.
And finally: the society should grow for democracy and learn to
benefit from it, for example - to distinguish liberty from anarchy.
Unfortunately this doesn't happen nowadays.
The statements, often heard, about "the absolute value of democracy"
are light-minded and groundless, and true democracy, as any tool
of governing the society has serious limitations in terms of its
exercise. That is why democracy needs serious and not commercial
approach. Otherwise good will can lead the country to chaos, which
will definitely discredit both the true values and the "implanters
of democracy".
Like in medical service, in serious politics as well Hippocrat's law
is indispensable, to advance democracy, which runs "Look sharp!
Not to damage."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress