>Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how
even in the most >chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can
be held.
*** No doubt elections CAN be held even amidst chaotic
conditions. Unfortunately what begs the question is : FOR WHAT
PURPOSE?
If a large segment of the Iraqis are excluded, for whatever
reason, what would the legitimacy of the elected body be?
Oh sure, it is a good spin for the Bush administration. An escape
mechanism for responsibility of what the Bush Admin. has gotten Iraq
into. But it does not fool those who are willing or able to look at
the issues objectively.
>The elections achieved something else: They undermined the
insurgency. El >Salvador wasn't transformed overnight. But with
each succeeding election into >the early 90's, the rebels on the
left and the death squads on the right grew >weaker, and finally
peace was achieved, and the entire hemisphere felt the
>effects.
*** The Salvadoran analogy would be applicable ONLY if the
REASONS for Iraqi insurgency vs. Salvadoran insurgency were similar.
Unfortunately they are poles apart. It is an attempt to make apples
look like oranges here.
>--- It is easier to defeat an insurgency and restore order with elections >than without.
*** I would like to believe that. But the Indian examples tell a
different tale.
>A democratically elected leader, on the other hand, can do
what Duarte did. He >can negotiate with rebels, invite them into
the political process and co-opt >any legitimate grievances. He can
rally people on all sides of the political >spectrum, who are
united by their attachment to the democratic idea. In Iraq, >he can
exploit the insurgents' greatest weakness: they have no positive
agenda.
*** Would you like to go tell the people of Kashmir or the people
of Assam, or Nagaland, or the myriad other insurgencies of NE India?
That would elicit a good laughter.
But maybe I am taking Brooks too literally. Maybe NOT ALL
democracies function the same way, or function at all. Perhaps Indian
democracy is one of the latter types?
>It's simply astounding that in the United States, the home of the greatest >and most effective democratic revolution, so many people have come to regard >democracy as a luxury-brand vehicle, suited only for the culturally upscale, >when it's really a sturdy truck, effective in conditions both rough and >smooth.
*** Usually I find Brooks to be a thoughtful columnist, not
always prone to partisan dogma. But it is obvious, Brooks has not yet
noticed that regardless of whether you own a luxury SUV or a pick-up
truck, if you do not know3 how to drive it, or if you knew, but choose
NOT to drive it, it does not take you anywhere.
In that Brooks' metaphors are amounting to little more than
naive playing around with cliches.
At 6:35 AM -0700 9/28/04, Dilip/Dil Deka wrote:
The following article is thought-provoking not only for Afghanistan and Iraq, but also for the insurgency problem in North Eastern India. Is democratic election keeping the insurgents in NE India contained? Or is it the army? Can peace be really restored through elections and democracy?
Dilip Deka
==============================================================
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Insurgency Buster
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 28, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Columnist Page: David Brooks
Forum: Discuss This Column
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
AlertsFreedom and Human Rights
Iraq
Afghanistan
onditions were horrible when Salvadorans went to the polls on March 28, 1982. The country was in the midst of a civil war that would take 75,000 lives. An insurgent army controlled about a third of the nation's territory. Just before election day, the insurgents stepped up their terror campaign. They attacked the National Palace, staged highway assaults that cut the nation in two and blew up schools that were to be polling places.
Yet voters came out in the hundreds of thousands. In some towns, they had to duck beneath sniper fire to get to the polls. In San Salvador, a bomb went off near a line of people waiting outside a polling station. The people scattered, then the line reformed. "This nation may be falling apart," one voter told The Christian Science Monitor, "but by voting we may help to hold it together."
Conditions were scarcely better in 1984, when Salvadorans got to vote again. Nearly a fifth of the municipalities were not able to participate in the elections because they were under guerrilla control. The insurgents mined the roads to cut off bus service to 40 percent of the country. Twenty bombs were planted around the town of San Miguel. Once again, people voted with the sound of howitzers in the background.
Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how even in the most chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can be held.
They produced a National Assembly, and a president, JosÈ NapoleÛn Duarte. They gave the decent majority a chance to display their own courage and dignity. War, tyranny and occupation sap dignity, but voting restores it.
The elections achieved something else: They undermined the insurgency. El Salvador wasn't transformed overnight. But with each succeeding election into the early 90's, the rebels on the left and the death squads on the right grew weaker, and finally peace was achieved, and the entire hemisphere felt the effects.
I mention this case study because we are approaching election day in Afghanistan on Oct. 9. Six days later, voter registration begins in Iraq. Conditions in both places will be tense and chaotic. And in Washington, a mood of bogus tough-mindedness ha swept the political class. As William Raspberry wrote yesterday in The Washington Post, "the new consensus seems to be that bringing American-style democracy to Iraq is no longer an achievable goal." We should just settle for what John Kerry calls "stability." We should be satisfied if some strongman comes in who can restore order.
The people who make this argument pat themselves on the back for being hard-headed, but the fact is they are naÔve. They've got things exactly backward. The reason we should work for full democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just because it's noble, but because it's practical. It is easier to defeat an insurgency and restore order with elections than without.
As we saw in El Salvador and as Iraqi insurgents understand, elections suck the oxygen from a rebel army. They refute the claim that violence is the best way to change things. Moreover, they produce democratic leaders who are much better equipped to in an insurgency war.
It's hard to beat an illegitimate insurgency with an illegitimate dictatorship. Strongmen have to whip up ethnic nationalism to lure soldiers to their side. They end up inciting blood feuds and reaping the whirlwind.
A democratically elected leader, on the other hand, can do what Duarte did. He can negotiate with rebels, invite them into the political process and co-opt any legitimate grievances. He can rally people on all sides of the political spectrum, who are united by their attachment to the democratic idea. In Iraq, he can exploit the insurgents' greatest weakness: they have no positive agenda.
Of course the situation in El Salvador is not easily comparable to the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, over the past 30-odd years, democracy has spread at the rate of one and a half nations per year. It has spread among violence-racked nations and to 18 that are desperately poor. And it has spread not only because it inspires, but also because it works.
It's simply astounding that in the United States, the home of the greatest and most effective democratic revolution, so many people have come to regard democracy as a luxury-brand vehicle, suited only for the culturally upscale, when it's really a sturdy truck, effective in conditions both rough and smooth.
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
