The United States system of Democracy was adapted from the English system of
Government. Instead of King, we elect a President. The Bi-Cameral House
Structure was adapted from Parliament: The House of Commons-House of
Representatives/ House of Lords-The Senate.
I don't think so ...! Not even close.
In the 1700s, the Parliamentary system in England was anything but a Democracy. The House of Lords held utter and undisputed veto over any action of the House of Commons. And the King could do what ever he wanted. Even Cromwell, he of Regicide fame, recognized that the only way to change the decision of the King was to kill him. (Not to mention the fact that the House of Lords was hereditary, not elected.)
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was a Unicameral government in the United States. The bicameral structure in the United States came about because of the battle between the Small States and the Large States. One house was mandated by population (The New Jersey plan) and the other by simple existence (the Virginia plan). This was called "The Great Compromise," July 16, 1787.
The Articles of Confederation provided that:
"Article V. For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year."
Note that these delegates were not even elected, but were appointed!
Furthermore, while members of the House were elected in the original Constitution, members of the Senate were appointed and not elected until the passage of the 17th Amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913, 126 years later!!! (It was only proposed in 1912.)
In a society where there is a religious social structure that enforces such
differences in access and freedom of movement between men and women it seems
quite a leap to embrace the concept that "every citizen has his say" as you
have expressed.
So you have no problems with genital mutilation of women because it is "culturally acceptable" by those who do it?
You have no problems with killing women for adultery while men can have as many women, in or out of "marriage" as they desire, because it is acceptable in the religious and social structure?
It may be a leap for them to adjust to a new norm, but why do you condone and accept it?
Does that acceptance apply to the practice of slavery as well? (That practice is still alive and well in both Africa and SE Asia, especially Thailand.)
" And many people in many parts of the world dislike democracy because itundermines many of their existing structures of power-- say, dictators,
militarists, religious fanatics and fascists."
That may be the way you and I view their way of power, but that may not be
how how other people in many parts of the world may see it.
No, I think you will find that is EXACTLY the way those who oppose Democracy view it.
They KNOW Democracy is a threat to their way of life. Just ask King Saud. Just ask the "reporters" on Al Jazera.
The entire reason that HAMAS opposes the elections in Palestine is because they know they have absolutely no possibility of winning. And that if there is any kind of representative government, their brutal and thuggish ways will be outlawed.
The "insurgents" in Iraq are composed of all those who will loose power in an election ... be they locals or foreigners, religious or secular. If Iraq is secular or religious is of no concern to them. Their power flows from the barrels of their guns. They have no qualms about killing Iraqis, and have killed far more of their fellow countrymen than they have Americans, by at least one full order of magnitude, and by many accounts two!
They may see our government and the way it conducts itself as imposing our
way of power.
Lastly, I never said that I thought Iraq was better under the rule of
Saddam Hussein. One must remember who it was that empowered Saddam Hussein
in the first place; the US government under Pres. George H.W. Bush to use
Iraq against the Iranian government.
I am certain many Iraqis recall that and perhaps do not trust anyone from
our government to do right by them this time either.
You have no problems with the fact that the religious social structure of the South in 1860 clearly accepted slavery as the way of life?
If we were having this discussion in the 1950s in Alabama or Mississippi, you would have no problems with Blacks being kept in the back of the bus because it was the "culturally accepted" thing to do?
The end of slavery was clearly an action by "our government" to impose "our way of power" on those who did not agree with that position. The disagreed with the position of "our government" so much that they seceded from the Union and formed their own country.
"Civil Rights" is one of the biggest efforts of "our government" to impose "our way of power" on those who do not agree with it. Do you honestly believe that without the intervention of the Federal Government, the Civil Rights Movement would have survived? Even today, "Civil Rights" are anything but "socially accepted" in most of this country ... Just ask Jessie Jackson or the NAACP.
Yes, George H.W. Bush resorted to the age old diplomatic ploy -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Maybe that is why the Diplomats of the UN and Old Europe are so upset that America is no longer following the Donald Trump way -- cutting deals -- and opting instead to support principles.
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
