Apart from the most important individual values, optimal orgasms and a
gentle death, the most important social values are freedom and safety.
In many instances, safety is a prerequisite to freedom, which is why a
strong government is usually needed.
People often equate strong government with a lot of government
interference with their personal freedom. But the equation is illogical.
Whether a strong government interferes with the personal freedom of the
people over which it rules depends on whether the strong government wants to
interfere with the personal freedom of the people. As a matter of fact,
if a strong government is guided by an ideology of not interfering with
the personal freedom of the people, it can do just that: not interfere.
A government can come into existence via different routes. One of the
possible routes is to be elected, more or less directly, by the people.
This is what we call a democracy. Whether this government later
interferes with the personal freedom of the people or not has very little to
do with the fact that it was established in a democratic way.
As a matter of fact, a democratic route of establishing a government
often has lead, and leads, to governments that interfere to a high degree
with the personal freedom of the people. Hitler was democratically
elected. Saddam Hussein came to power in a democratic succession. The
Iranian government is democratically elected. All of these governments have
not been, and are not, dedicated to preserve or grant personal freedom.
The US is a democracy, but it also is the world’s most advanced police
state. Whether a country is a police state or not has nothing to do
with the question of how a government came into power, whether
democratically or by any other way. To characterize a country as a police state
just means that the police have wide-ranging power over the lives of the
country’s citizens. And this is certainly the case in the US.
It doesn’t really matter where the power of the police originates from.
Whether it stems from power vested into the police by summary decree,
or from a huge body of written legislation and regulations, as in the
case of the US.
It’s a very common misconception anywhere in the world to equate
“democracy” with “freedom”. Democracy just means that a large number of
largely incompetent voters are allowed to decide who should lead a
government.
In the Philippines, largely incompetent voters often elect movie stars
as president, senators, mayors, and even city councilors. Stupid
Filipinos just vote for their favorite actors, and want to know nothing about
the potential leader’s political ideas.
In Indonesia, former dictator Suharto always enjoyed much backing from
the female part of the population. Why? Because he was perceived as
being good-looking.
In Islamic countries, when the people are called for to elect leaders
in a democratic process, they vote for those candidates recommended by
the prayer leaders in the mosques, because people are misguided into
believing that it will give them credit with god.
Any in many poor and ethnically or religiously diverse countries,
people just vote for candidates who promise to make life harder for the
“others”.
Skilled fascists have always had, and still have, a comparatively easy
time to win elections, whether in Europe (Italy) or Southeast Asia
(Thailand), as there is a fascist history of knowing the tricks. Preach
hatred and hand out cheap gifts to a country’s poor.
So, I can state blatantly that often enough, democracy leads to bad
government and a lot of interference into the personal freedom of the
people. If democracy leads to good government that allows people a high
degree of personal freedom, it’s not because the government was
democratically elected but because incidentally, those who where elected were
enlightened, benevolent people.
But I think that personal freedom is too high a value to entrust it to
a game of chance, or to a popularity contest, or, for that matter, to
democracy.
So, what are the alternatives.
One would be a powerful freedom-centered constitution, which, however,
should not be subject to a democratic contest. As a matter of fact, the
best constitutions have often been imposed by victors after a country
lost a major war. And this attitude does date back to Napoleonic times.
But let’s face it. The best constitution is only as good as a Supreme
Court can guard it and a government wants it guarded. At the end of the
day, the freedom of the people does depend on those in power. If they
are strong, the government itself may infringe liberties, and if they
are weak, they can’t provide the safety to stop neighborhood rule by
mafia types, talibans, feudal landlords or other repressive
micro-organizations.
Plato, who felt contempt for governments established by a vote of
unqualified people, recommended that benevolent philosopher kings hold
power.
OK, I admit that the concept of monarchies is outdated. But the essence
is that government should be by an institution that is enlightened and
benevolent. I say: an institution, for three reasons: 1. there is a
larger potential of abuse of power if the government is provided by
individuals, 2. there should be continuity beyond the lifetime of a single
person, and 3. decision-making should withstand collective scrutiny.
So, what are the options?
No, not a dedeified Catholic Church. Much rather a non-Communist
Leninist Party.
Actually, I couldn’t think of a better alternative to the second
option.
What is needed is a party that can provide strong government by
professional politicians, an educational infrastructure, and some degree of
democracy. And, most importantly: a party that is strongly guided by an
enlightened ideology.
A Leninist party is a working, history-tested structural model.
But how about Communism?
Communism as it was implemented in the Soviet Union and her vassal
states doesn’t work. The economies of countries are too complex to press
them into 5-year plans of a central government. In China, the Leninist
party has realized that Communism isn’t adequate before they would have
lost power.
But the Leninist structure survives and functions well.
The Chinese are a bit slow, though, with updating their ideology, and
in absence of a viable alternative system, they still teach Marxism.
I see this less as an anachronism than your standard TV commentator,
especially on the BBC. Marxism contains many progressive elements, apart
from simplistic ideas on how a collectivization of the means of
production should affect the character of people.
And therefore, Marxism still is a foundation on which a Leninist party
could operate with a new ideology: one that recognizes the personal
freedom of a country’s citizens, in a climate of personal safety, as the
most important social values.
Whether such a party comes to power in a democratic election or by
other means is less relevant than that it guards the freedom of the people.
