At The Point of a Bayonet

[Occhidiangela]

And so it came to pass, that the Emperor sought to provide as a gift, unsought, this thing called Democracy. And there was much rejoicing, among those who still saw his new clothes.

From The Republic, by Plato:

The Republic on Project Gutenberg
EDITED to make it less of a burden

Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will inquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgment.

==
cut a bit
==
And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy? I mean, after a sort?

How?

The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth—am I not right?

Yes.

And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting were also the ruin of oligarchy?

True.

And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?

What good?

Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State—and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.

Yes; the saying is in everybody's mouth.

I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduce the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.

How so?

When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.

Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.

Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her "slaves" who hug their chains, and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honors both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?

Certainly not.
====
cut a bit
====
And these are not the only evils, I said—there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gayety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.

Quite true, he said.

==
cut a bit
==
And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.

Yes, he said, I know it too well.

Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.

Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy, the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

True.

The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

Yes, the natural order.

And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?

OK, I confess, it was Greek to me. ;)

Occhi

[Assur]

And this rant by a slaveowning pederast proves what?

[Rhydderch Hael]

And this rant by a slaveowning pederast proves what?

I thought he was a pederastic slaveowner... :mellow:

[Munkay]

OK, I confess, it was Greek to me. ;)

Probably due in part to it being a bad translation :P

I'll wait for you to clarify a bit the connection you intended to make between the passage and GWB. Although there are a number of ways to take it, the most direct is the classic "Democracy leads to Tyranny... GWB is a Tyrant! Down with GWB!". Somehow I doubt that was your intent :whistling:

Not to mention the type of tyranny implied in the text is closer to tyranny of the "mob rule" than an actual tyrant.

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

I thought he was a pederastic slaveowner... :mellow:

Or, a slavering pedagogue. When in Greece, do as the...

One should rightly ask, "What are the threats to democracy?" Which I think the early founders of the US were aware. I'm reminded of namely De Tocqueville's observation on Democracy in America.

Book 1, Chapter 15 - UNLIMITED POWER OF THE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Another perspective,

Fr. Seamus Mulholland -- The Contribution of Plato to Political Philosophy and the Search for the Common Good in Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx

[Occhidiangela]

I'll wait for you to clarify a bit the connection you intended to make between the passage and GWB. Although there are a number of ways to take it, the most direct is the classic "Democracy leads to Tyranny... GWB is a Tyrant! Down with GWB!". Somehow I doubt that was your intent :whistling:

Nope. The intent was to build on the funny from Vladimir Putin from a few days ago, words to the effect of:

"You know, Jorgi, I am not so sure we in Russia really want so much democracy, given the example of what you have given those people in Iraq. You were giving them democracy, right?

Not to mention the type of tyranny implied in the text is closer to tyranny of the "mob rule" than an actual tyrant.
Munk

Tyranny of the mob is what leads to such wonderful things as pogroms, the LA after Rodney King, and stoning unfaithful women. Hey, if 97 of us agree to stone her, and two disagree, and one abstains, then we will stone her, since it is the rule of the people.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

And this rant by a slaveowning pederast proves what?

It wasn't meant to prove anything, it was meant to poke fun at the virtue in exporting democracy to others as a gift. Consider the metaphor of sex as a gift, with the catch that the offerer has AIDS. In some ways, "democracy" as a gift being a poisoned pill.

Democracy has to grow from within.

Or

With the pederast angle you raised, perhaps Plato's hidden meaning was that Democrats aspire to be slaveowning pederasts. The 1860's era slave owever tended to be a Democrat in the US. Following that thought, since pederasty is not uncommon in the Arab and Muslim world, depending on place, maybe Democracy isn't such a bad gift for them after all.

Heck, we in America seem to be intent on screwing it up, why not everyone else?

Occhi

[Assur]

Democracy has to grow from within.

Occhi

My first posting was unduly harsh, as extenuating circumstances I can only plead that I posted at am 7.00 local time.

On the other point I agree with you, a viable democracy can only exist if it is accepted by the population as legitimate. As regards Iraq, and democracy, at the moment I see no solution that will have a benificial outcome. The "best" thing would be perhaps be a Shi'ite dictator who restored order and got the infrastructure working. Then in a few generations they could start developing a democracy which functions in accordance with the cultural and religious norms. 2050 could turn out to be interesting<_<

[Ashock]

And this rant by a slaveowning pederast proves what?

Pretty much all or at least most Greek males at the time were more homo than hetero. It was encouraged.

As far as slaveowning, slavery at the time was considered par for the course.


What's your point?

My first posting was unduly harsh, as extenuating circumstances I can only plead that I posted at am 7.00 local time.

On the other point I agree with you, a viable democracy can only exist if it is accepted by the population as legitimate. As regards Iraq, and democracy, at the moment I see no solution that will have a benificial outcome. The "best" thing would be perhaps be a Shi'ite dictator who restored order and got the infrastructure working. Then in a few generations they could start developing a democracy which functions in accordance with the cultural and religious norms. 2050 could turn out to be interesting<_<

First off, no dictator will ever willingly switch to a democracy and give up his power. Second, a democracy in a Muslim country (unless they are in Europe... maybe) is not possible at all, without very heavy influence from outside forces. Were it feasable to have a secular Muslim sect in power - maybe, but that is not possible, as Islam and secularity do not generally mix and definately not to a point where there would be nearly enough people of that nature.



I almost liked your "slaveowning pederast" argument better. At least it was amusing.


-A

[Occhidiangela]

The "best" thing would be perhaps be a Shi'ite dictator who restored order and got the infrastructure working. Then in a few generations they could start developing a democracy which functions in accordance with the cultural and religious norms. 2050 could turn out to be interesting<_<

I have to disagree, Assur.

The last thing needed is a Shiite dictator in Iraq, as that adds Iraq to Iran in the Shi'ite revolution within Islam, and against the modern world. At least some Sunni are able to handle modernity, though the Wahabi and some others are singularly reactionary as Sunni. Shi'ite heads in Southern Lebanon killed Marines in Beirut, and did it explicitly due to their attempts to spread that brand of Islam into Non Shia areas.

About 10 % of all Muslims are Shia, most of the rest are of Sunni flavors. Picking the Shia as the good guys, since most Baathists were Sunni in Iraq, was one of many really stupid strategic moves the US made in the summer of 2003. Sadr came home from Iran, openly, and started stirring up trouble about as soon as he got back.

The Shia are not the good guys, nor are they our friends. They are on their own side, and have their own agenda.

The current emboldening of Iran is exactly what I predicted as a probable bad outcomeof our going to Iraq,. The growth of Shia influence plays directly into the hands of the Shia in Iran, whose Islamic Revolution is the real strategic issue in the Mid East, and has been since 1979.

Occhi

[Assur]

The Shia are not the good guys, nor are they our friends. They are on their own side, and have their own agenda.

The current emboldening of Iran is exactly what I predicted as a probable bad outcomeof our going to Iraq,. The growth of Shia influence plays directly into the hands of the Shia in Iran, whose Islamic Revolution is the real strategic issue in the Mid East, and has been since 1979.

Occhi

There are no good options in Iraq. There are two realistic possibilies: either a Shia/Kurd alliance takes over and the Sunnis get it in the neck. That will strenghten Iran but would provide an exit strategy for the US. The other possibility is that Iraq splits up into a number of feuding entities a la Lebanon 20 years ago. That wouldn't be so positive for Iran, they have enough minorities of their own, but it also wouldn't profit the US.

Of course it might also happen that everything turns out fine in the long run, i.e. peace and democracy, if US troops stay the course but I wouldn't bet on it. Personally I think that during the presidential elections in 2008 the candidates will fall over themselves to promise a quick American withdrawal.

BTW it's interesting that while everybody is watching Lebanon and Iraq Islamic militias are successfully taking over Somalia and turning it into an emirate.

[Occhidiangela]

There are no good options in Iraq. There are two realistic possibilies: either a Shia/Kurd alliance takes over and the Sunnis get it in the neck. That will strenghten Iran but would provide an exit strategy for the US. The other possibility is that Iraq splits up into a number of feuding entities a la Lebanon 20 years ago. That wouldn't be so positive for Iran, they have enough minorities of their own, but it also wouldn't profit the US.

Of course it might also happen that everything turns out fine in the long run, i.e. peace and democracy, if US troops stay the course but I wouldn't bet on it. Personally I think that during the presidential elections in 2008 the candidates will fall over themselves to promise a quick American withdrawal.

BTW it's interesting that while everybody is watching Lebanon and Iraq Islamic militias are successfully taking over Somalia and turning it into an emirate.

Yep. And a new operating base for Al Qaeda, now that Afghanistan is a bit rough for comfort.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Yep. And a new operating base for Al Qaeda, now that Afghanistan is a bit rough for comfort.

Occhi

New? I believe the stories that al Qaeda sent in groups to organize and kill the NATO forces in Somalia.

Pro-al Qaeda Islamists, the same week, dislodged CIA-funded warlords who held sway for 15 years and took over Mogadishu, capital of a failed nation-state devoid even of rudimentary government since 1992. U.S. Special Forces and covert agents had been assisting anti-al Qaeda warlords from a U.S. base in Djibouti at the tip of the Horn of Africa. It was the second victory for Islamist anarchists in Somalia. Even Osama Bin Laden himself has been quoted as saying that America's failed 1993 mission in Somalia was an important example of how al Qaeda could defeat the United States. In an Oct. 21, 2001, statement broadcast by the Arabic-language Al Jazeera network and shown on CNN, bin Laden said three weeks before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "Our brothers with Somali mujahideen and God's power fought the Americans. God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tail in failure, defeat and ruin." President Clinton, badly shaken by "Blackhawk Down" in 1993, ordered total withdrawal.
There was no question in bin Laden's mind (circulated in a fatwa) of the effect street battles in the Somali capital had on his global war of terrorism. Speaking about America, his fatwa said, "But your most disgraceful performance was in Somalia where -- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the U.S.A. and its post-Cold War leadership of the New World Order -- you moved tens of thousands of an international force, including 28,000 American soldiers, into Somalia. (U.S. force consisted of 19 aircraft, 12 vehicles and 160 men; 18 were killed, two U.S. gunships were shot down, three damaged.) However, when tens of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a cover for withdrawal. ... The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the 'heart' of every Muslim and a remedy to the 'chests' of believing nations to see you defeated [in Mogadishu and Beirut]."
Radical Islam is in the ascendancy all over Muslim Africa. It's a safe assumption bin Laden sees the recent street battles in Mogadishu and the victory of Islamist forces as far more important than the death of Zarqawi who had embarrassed him with the video decapitations of hostages. Zarqawi now continues to serve as a powerful martyr symbol and recruitment poster a la Che Guevara. Reconnecting al Qaeda dots... Washington Times

[kandrathe]

...
First off, no dictator will ever willingly switch to a democracy and give up his power. ...

Wait, didn't MacArthur do it with Japan?

[Occhidiangela]

after vigorous propaganda about the power of the U.S.A. and its post-Cold War leadership of the New World Order -- you moved tens of thousands of an international force, including 28,000 American soldiers, into Somalia. (U.S. force consisted of 19 aircraft, 12 vehicles and 160 men; 18 were killed, two U.S. gunships were shot down, three damaged.)

The Washington Times is being disingenuous. Pres Bush the Elder deployed about 22,000 Marines, add a few thousand soldiers and sailors, to bring some order to the anarchy in Smoalia. New World Order is a reference to his rhetoric.

President Clinton, when he took over, was all for "on the cheap" military options. He significantly reduced the troops count to about a third of that, (also his folks vetoed CENTCOM's call for a tank unit) but kept the same basic mission requirements. "Do more with less." The UN force at the time of the raid was led by a Turkish General. Bir.

For the skirmish in Mogadishu, the numbers are about right, but that wasn't Osama's point. His point was bigger picture "a whole passel of you came in, but after getting your nose bloodied, you left." Regardless of the internal American details, the assessment is correct, and the image is what played around the world. It was spun in the Third World as an example of how fragile US Political Will was.

Where you sit determines what you see.

Occhi

after vigorous propaganda about the power of the U.S.A. and its post-Cold War leadership of the New World Order -- you moved tens of thousands of an international force, including 28,000 American soldiers, into Somalia. (U.S. force consisted of 19 aircraft, 12 vehicles and 160 men; 18 were killed, two U.S. gunships were shot down, three damaged.)

The Washington Times is being disingenuous. Pres Bush the Elder deployed about 22,000 Marines, add a few thousand soldiers and sailors, to bring some order to the anarchy in Smoalia. New World Order is a reference to his rhetoric.

President Clinton, when he took over, was all for "on the cheap" military options. He significantly reduced the troops count to about a third of that, (also his folks vetoed CENTCOM's call for a tank unit) but kept the same basic mission requirements. "Do more with less." The UN force at the time of the raid was led by a Turkish General. Bir.

For the skirmish in Mogadishu, the numbers are about right, but that wasn't Osama's point. His point was bigger picture "a whole passel of you came in, but after getting your nose bloodied, you left." Regardless of the internal American details, the assessment is correct, and the image is what played around the world. It was spun in the Third World as an example of how fragile US Political Will was.

Where you sit determines what you see.

Occhi

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

The Washington Times is being disingenuous...

Or at least Osama bin Laden was, as I believe the Op-Ed's author was quoting bin Laden's fatwa in that particular instance.

Wait, didn't MacArthur do it with Japan?

He might have been Supreme Commander (SCAP) at the time, but he still had a boss to answer to. Not quite an apples to apples comparison, I'd say.

[Occhidiangela]

Or at least Osama bin Laden was, as I believe the Op-Ed's author was quoting bin Laden's fatwa in that particular instance.

Osama had the numbers about right.

OT: My, what great big teeth you have, Nico. Hope all is well in your land of lurkerdom.

Occhi

[Bun-Bun]

Pretty First off, no dictator will ever willingly switch to a democracy and give up his power. Second, a democracy in a Muslim country (unless they are in Europe... maybe) is not possible at all, without very heavy influence from outside forces. Were it feasable to have a secular Muslim sect in power - maybe, but that is not possible, as Islam and secularity do not generally mix and definately not to a point where there would be nearly enough people of that nature.
-A

I believe that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk provides a strong counterexample to this statement. It can be pointed out that he was still an authoritarian when he died, but the direction he set resulted in a secular state populated by Muslims.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I believe that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk provides a strong counterexample to this statement. It can be pointed out that he was still an authoritarian when he died, but the direction he set resulted in a secular state populated by Muslims.

There are often leaders of wisdom who transcend the cultural prejudices of their followers. These leaders can often bring their country to a point where there seems to be a hope of progress. But the underlying culture remains mostly the same even under these leaders, the population just acts a little bit better for a while (usually until some reactionary assassinates that leader) because they have a better example in front of them. When that example no longer exists, the vast majority of the population slides back into their ignorance, superstition, prejudice and fattening foods. The progress toward any type of enlightenment is slow. Which is why democracy, freedom, religious tolerance, respect for other's beliefs and opinions, etc., all take about five centuries to achieve (say Magna Carta to glorious revolution).

To change the form of government, first you must change the population. The English used to say it took three generations to make a gentleman. And all that involved was getting used to be waited on hand and foot without ever noticing those doing the waiting. I doubt that a population as a whole would change that fast. So while it may be necessary to try to 'export' democracy, I think anyone who expects it to be easy, or fast (i.e., within our lifetime) is a fool. As to the advisability of exporting democracy, that is something that I'm not fully convinced of. First, in an ignorant population, democracy can very much be a failure because opinions are counted rather than weighted. The useless prejudice of the majority trumps the valid opinions of the educated. Only if there is a certain basic level of education will this not be as much of a problem. And in a greatly polarized population, democracy can very rapidly become the tyranny of the majority. Where education is lacking and the concept of fair play is unknown, democracy is chancy. Rather than trying to export democracy, it may be better to export Eaton and its renown athletic fields and let democracy evolve from that;).

--Pete

[Griselda]

I've noticed these strange "double posts within a post" happening a lot recently. Could somebody who's had this happen to them elaborate on what might be going on?