Before you dismiss that apparently cynical question, imagine yourself back at school in a classroom in the first year of your education--so you are officially illiterate, ignorant. You are asked to vote for your chief. Most probably you will vote for the one who appeals to you with the most benefits. Regardless of the downside to that, your previously unchallenged mind won't distinguish what's really to your benefit. How do you assess,weigh, judge alternatives? Most importantly, against what?
One can argue that democracy is called a process. That's why it takes time to age and mature. Right? Unfortunately this is not the case for most developing countries.
Samuel.P.Huntington, the first to mention the term "clash of civilizations," argued that democracy can't be applied in the Middle East. But why? That question is answered through the striking observation, ( I believe made by the notorious {Editor: left original word but thought it might be "noted} philosopher MURAD WAHBA), that there are two eras of change that happened in EUROPE which are "Enlightenment" and "Renaissance," missed by the developing countries to this date. The first principle of enlightenment is to advocate reason as the primary basis of authority. Consequently, breaking free from the chains of dogma, the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization. That's where the problem lies.
The common person in undeveloped countries doesn't have a mindset that can argue with his common beliefs. He can't accept reason as the "only possible humanitarian basis for authority. Thus any democracy will only surface the "DOGMATIC ELITE"and not the "ENLIGHTENED" ones. An ill fate awaits those who use democracy in an unenlightened society. In the end, you have to replace dogma with reason, to provide the basis for the competent, liberal, constructive RENAISSANCE.
Being from a third world country I hope instead of forcing democracy in the third world,the same effort is put to help change the education system that promotes dogmatism instead of reason advocation.Understand the fact that no change will happen if education is not addressed.
I hope you write more about how global understanding is a multi-layered challenge. A house, some food, healthy children are something everyone wants. And yet we also talk more about trade and war, which can keep people from having what they need.
by
Margaret Bassett (21 articles, 1358 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 814 comments)
on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 2:02:33 PM
Education is the most global challenge in my opinion
Thanks for your kind words,The only civil way of redistributing wealth among people is via education,its the hope for a better life for every sons father and mother,with education paradigms could be introduced in primitive societies even mental taboos about ones personal relationship with god and how to perceive him could be also changed,reflecting on a more caring,understanding,encouraging family.
by
george goubran (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments)
on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 4:10:43 PM
Illiteracy Does Not = Ignorance Nor is Democracy a Cure
The title of your article, George, caught my attention - and I read only a few, at most, of the articles that Rob includes in his email newsletters, and usually take a fair amount of time to compose comments. The title, "Democracy solution for all?!" is a question that is not often asked or addressed, and so I hoped for a serious presentation of whether or not this form of government truly is a "solution for all".
First though I will take issue with your apparent equating of education/literacy with intelligence and wisdom with respect to life enhancing choices. Simply because someone may have had little or no formal schooling or is even unable to read does not necessarily mean that this person is ignorant of what is necessary to survive and prosper in hir own society - "what's really to [hir] benefit" nor does it mean that such a person is stupid - lacking the ability to "assess, weigh, judge alternatives". It is not necessary that one be able to read and write and be educated in Western/"civilized" ways in order to "assess, weigh, judge alternatives" in regard to one's own environment for one's benefit, in a time scale that is reasonable for it. (In a primitive society, planning for tomorrow may be as far as the common tribesman can reasonably go, but the chief and elders likely consider further.) This will all come as a result of the "school of hard-knocks" - personal experience, but also from paying close attention to one's wise elders. You relate these skills to a person making a choice of voting for a chief, but did not African tribesmen do this historically in regards to their leaders in pre-colonial days? Or was the position of tribal chief purely one of heredity?Of course different tribes had/have different customs - some may have tribesmen do the choosing of chiefs and deciding on important issues and others not, or at least by a group of elders, so I will welcome information regarding in which tribes members were/are not encouraged to "assess, weigh, judge alternatives" in their daily affairs, plus also in tribal affairs including choosing of tribal chief. By writing this way, I fear that you have accepted the mistake made by missionaries, colonialists and slave-holders of the past and the myth carried on by their ilk in so-called "civilized" societies today - that just because the aboriginal peoples which they encountered were not literate, they also must be lacking both morality and wisdom.
From what I have so far read by George Ayittey (native of Ghana, author and Professor of Economics at American University Washington DC), the country of Botswana is as prosperous and free from government corruption and inspired violence as it is because the leaders at the time of the colonial withdrawal returned to the institutional roots of the people rather than abandon them for totally foreign societal ordering methods. He terms Botswana a "jewel" in comparison to most of the rest of subSaharan Africa, though not without problems. (The 3 year old interview transcript with Ayittey by Bill Moyers on PBS is a very good read and recommended. I'm looking forward to reading Ayittey's latest book, Africa Unchained: The Blueprint for Africa's Future, which I recently ordered.) In addition, thewritings of Scott A. Beaulier (Asst Professor of Economics at Mercer University, Macon Georgia), also provide much of the history of the area and point out the reduction in very strong growth - though still greater in comparison to all the rest of Africa and even many industrialized countries - since the move to increased government begun in 1975. I was curious to see if this is still the case in Botswana, 3 years after Ayittey's interview and 4 after Beaulier's research, even though I've not read any horror stories at BBCNewsOnline (my chief news source) about that country. And yes, that does still seem to be the case according to that same website's Country Profile - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1068674.stm
When you write, "The common person in undeveloped countries doesn't have a mindset that can argue with his common beliefs", there is something that you either forget or of which you are not aware. The "common person" in the US and Canada also "doesn't have a mindset that can argue with his common beliefs."
You go on to write that, "He can't accept reason as the "only possible humanitarian basis for authority." If this is true, then that is great, since the false notion that authority (power) can be legitimized by basing it on reason has led to the democratic chaos that is seen in all "Western" countries (though the US and most other countries are republics with representative and not direct, strict, democracy, and in addition they have some form of constitution or other limiting of democratic process). Instead, the ultimate conclusion of the full application of reason to human reality is that the only proper authority is that of a person over hirself.
I (and husband Paul Wakfer) view democracy - rule by the majority and therefore submission of the minority of which the individual is the smallest - as a stage of societal order mechanisms, one that those in many areas of the world have never reached and most in other parts of the world are unwilling to look beyond. In both cases however, the populations of the various areas are ruled by and subject to the legalized use of force of the governments - the major difference being that the force is currently used with more blatant harm (violence) in some third world countries without democracy than in the more industrialized ones that have it.
The interesting position of the post-colonial African countries (1950-60s) was that the leaders had the opportunity to view the industrialized world for the best and worst of the societal ordering methods and compare them with the historical practices of the various tribes in their own areas. It appears that only the leaders at that time of Botswana did so and made moves for the true betterment of everyone - "Botswana’s political leaders pursued policies that secured property rights and limited the government’s role in the economy. As a result, the citizens prospered." (Beaulier SA and Subrick JR, "Limited Government and Economic Growth in Botswana", 2005 and Journal of Private Enterprise, Fall 2007)
I do not think it is not too late for those in opposition to current despots in power in much of Africa to take the road that Botswana started down, and to even surpass its state of prosperity by not succumbing to the inducements of larger government. The continent of Africa is rich in natural resources, including many people who are eager to prosper by their own efforts whether or not they are officially literate. I hope, George, that you are one of the literate of the "third world" who will encourage this path by those around you, in whichever country you live, and even investigate the paradigm shifting idea of a minimally restricted society of individuals interacting to mutual benefit, each for the purpose of maximizing hir lifetime happiness, the goal of each individual whether or not s/he consciously recognizes it.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (14 articles, 3 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 101 comments)
on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 7:30:15 PM
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (14 articles, 3 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 101 comments)
on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 7:46:50 PM
IN the presence of an unenlightened dogmatic society
this is a long letter ,full with ads.,please post it as an article for it is,and place link ,thats an advice just all.
maybe you didnt read carefully,i said also that democracy is often called an aging process but i argued nevertheless if you dont substitute dogma in education by reason,you are making the big mistake of biasing the common person towards the dogmatic elite who could be worthless as chiefs but seem invincible for dogmats.Thats what i said,and thats my context.
now for democracy relying on reason and leading to chaos,there are known ways to preserve minority,like the very republican system of the u.s. who gives a good chance to minorities,which forces the candidate to address minorities as important as majorities,in terms of race and number,elctoral weight.
Also the liberal view uses democracy as a rule with the preservation of minority rights.
At the end you have to have a balance between Despotism and Anarchy thats where democracy lies,but there were always rules to prevent the mob from taking down the states essential elements of survival,like in turkey the matter of secularism,and how it preserves the country from falling into the hands of Dogmats.
I have no objection about the value of personal experience as a source of wisdom alone in absence of literacy,however its not a match,and it is easily subdued,education in itself is MILLIONS of expertise handed over to you in a paper.the tribes you mentioned,often are led by just one person,one who is percieved to know best if not more,do you challenge the idea that educating a tribe,wont produce versatility of opinion and thought ?!,that education wont take the holiness of the leader away and make his opinion based on reason only what counts?!.
Its not wisdom(which i believe you mean as experience and not wisdom) as much as its REASON,they are not the same,you can be wise in terms of experience(and its very important i dont say its not)however if you dont base matters on reason your so called "wisdom"might lead you to the worst.
reason is important not only for leader but for followers to distinguish that a man of faith is different from a manager of a tribe.
now let me be practical.... how do you regard HAMMAS as being selected by the people to lead(democracy rules),and as you know HAMMAS version of dialogue with ISRAEL is that we can have peace temporarily but according to religion we have to take the land back and no peace coexistence unless all land is redeemed.
now for me I know that palestine is occupied,and its their right,however in my opinion nowadays their exists two nations in that land and they have to coexist and accept NOWADAYS solutions of one republic one government,its not easy but thats only way.!
isnt that the effect of DOGMA and not REASON?!
understand what i say please...if you throw in democracy for an"UNENLIGHTENED"society and not educated( cause their is a difference,anyone can be educated but who was educated REASON?!)you simply letting the dogmats rise in power,maybe i should rephrase my theory and say provided that society was already dogmatic.(maybe not all tribes are dogmatic which is a flaw in my module)
Dogmats are not managers,they know about god(or that is what is percieved cause god didnt say who knows him better)but they dont know much about leadership and management.
i hope next time we talk,its about the same points i written.
by
george goubran (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 10:44:02 AM
by the way TURKEY too is an eample of dogma,the majority there still wants dogma to enter into politics cause simply their mindset is using dogma as basis for judgement and not REASON.
about canadians cant argue with their own beliefs.
would a CANADIAN choose a man of the cloth as president instead of a reputable civillian in management?
and how many candaians would do that?
how many "god fearing"canadians would do that?
if canadians live in palestine would they choose "HAMMAS"?
do canadians want the state to be in the hands of the church?
I have a belief,i am a christian,do i choose based on the religion of the candidate or do i simply trash his religion and choose his mind his reason?and why do i do that?,,,,,cause i am ENLIGHTENED
by
george goubran (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments)
on Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 10:58:39 AM
