Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Which People Rule In "Democracy"?

   Democracy is an idea almost universally respected.  The noble idea that the will of the people is something worth defending.  But what was seemingly achieved by so many people around the world seems do have been usurped by those who were entrusted to protect the people's gains.  Despite the varying forms of democracy, all too common is corporate power's ability to be heard over the desires of the people.  Corporations fund campaigns of politicians who find themselves serving those rich interests.  The simple act of an election can be said to be democratic, but many times falls short of being truly democracy.  How can it be that "democratic" leaders feel obliged to ignore the will of the people?  How can a people determine their own destiny if they are ignored by their leaders?  How can choosing the lesser of two evils be considered democracy?  How do we find ourselves arguing on behalf of someone who has broken their camaign promises simply because of party affiliation?  How can the "democratic" leaders who ignore the will of their own people consider themselves to be in a position to try to push what they call democracy on others?  Are they so arrogant to believe that all people can be so blatantly lied to?  As these "democratic" leaders have liberated corporations so much that they are considered to have the same rights of people, they have also enslaved themselves to such a system.  They are addicted to the money they depend on for their own survival politically.  They are aware that to act against those powerful interests would mean an all out war against them by those in control of the manipulative media.  They are aware that if they play the game well that the choice for the lesser of two evils will repeat itself.  They know, although they can't and wouldn't admit it, that the people will be afraid to not choose the lesser of two evils, even if it is against their own interests.
   When these "democratic" leaders start speaking of the need for democracy in other places, they really mean a space for their corporate sponsors to begin to entrench themselves in new places.  They can easily count on the idea of democracy being supported since it is a noble one.  They can easily ignore the will of the people to the point that they are willing to use violence to supress them.  In Greece and Spain we are witnessing this right now.  The governments ignore the will of the people, beat them down in the streets, yet still find a way to keep a straight face when they claim to be democratic.  Capitalist democracy seems to be just that.  Democracy for the capitalists.  The average worker is not a capitalist, he is simply working for them while living in a "democracy" that is run by capitalists.  Workers can strike, but governments can order them back to work when it starts to affect the health of the capitalist system.  Workers are forced to accept cuts in their benefits in order to help a business become more profitable.  What other choice do they have?  They certainly aren't presented a choice at the ballot box.  They certainly don't want to be left without a job.  They are not in a position to determine their destiny.  They simply need to be happy to live in a "democracy."  Maybe one day they will decide that another way is possible.  Maybe one day they will find a way to show what a democracy really should be.
   12 hours later:  I'd like to include a link to an editorial by Joe Cardona who I don't usually agree with. He describes the effects of Miami's "political cartel" of powerbrokers who fund to a great degree the politicians for their own corporate interests.  He states  "This “cartel” has its own interests to protect — often the business of those of the corner offices of high-rises on Brickell Avenue or downtown Miami or other corporate fiefdoms — so the general welfare and public interest goes wanting."  A corporate fiefdom!  Not a bad description of what people describe as "democracy."  Obviously frustration with the situation even causes those within the establishment to be concerned.  He sees the money in politics problem, which is obvious to most, but how can the politicians be expected to do something about it when they have moved so far away from the noble idea of democracy???

Read more:

No comments:

Post a Comment