Dear Eva:
Let me weigh in with a few comments.
-Original Message-
From: Durant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 6, 1998 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Question: Was there ever a Yugoslavia?
I think that Jay and I are not so sure
that democracy *can* work on a planet with 5 * 10**9 people
whose needs need to be supplied, when every increment of
quantity generally entails an exponential "delta" of complexification
of coordinating mechanisms.
I just cannot see how a dictatorship would lessen the complexity
of solutions.
Thomas:
Eva, I totally agree with you, the complexity of the solutions would still
be that same and instead of having a fairly independant and neutral
bureaucracy to carry out solutions, we would instead end up with a
bureaucracy that had no alternative except to move towards the will of the
dictator. Eventually, probably quicker, we would lose the effectiveness of
a neutral burearcracy which is one of the strongest features of a democratic
governance.
If authoritarian regimes were unstable before,
why should they work better in the future?
Thomas:
They wouldn't.
I am totally bewildered and frightened about so many people
taking this idea as a serious alternative.
Thomas:
As I noted several posts ago, to me the failure of the democratic model is
that the leaders are politicians who have as primary goal - the retention of
power. If we are to assume the a leader elected democratically should
express in 90% of the cases the will of the people and in 10% of the cases
put forward for consideration by the people suggestions for change and
solving problems, then a democratically elected leader should provide the
best leadership.
Instead, the democratic leaders, Clinton, Blair, Chretien, Kohl continually
promise to pursue policies that reflect the will of the people while in
actuality they are involved in putting policies in place that will gain them
enough resources to be elected again. In most cases, these are policies
that favour those with money who can contribute to their war chests and sway
the population at the time of election.
I think we need a higher class of leaders with more clearly defined roles,
with greater limitations on their powers and my suggestion is that leaders
should be trained in consenus building, conflict resolution, judgement
criteria and morality. And probably other things I can't think of at the
moment. When such potential leaders have finished this extensive training,
then they should seek election for a particular philosophy that they feel
would work best for the country.
This would allow us to improve the quality of leadership. We wouldn't think
of sending a general into battle who has not had a long and difficult
apprenticeship within the military organization and expect competent
military decisions. One only has to look at the leaders, kings and military
commanders of the feudal ages to recognize that birth or patronage do not
produce the qualities of leadership. Yet, in politics, in Canada for
example, we had Brian Mulroney who was elected Prime Minister without ever
holding a public office before - in Trudeau's case it was only for several
years.
What about all the
"individuality" and stuff like that you like to brand about when the
idea of (democratic) socialism is mentioned?
Thomas:
Again, I agree with you Eva, that some of the arguments that have been made
are disengenuous (= having secret motives, not sincere) in regards to other
positions that these individuals have taken.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
Eva
