Why not South Africa, is it because their version of democracy is not to your liking...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by storch: *
Where did he or anyone other than you refer to South Africa? If South Africa's history is so upsetting to you, let 'em have it and start a couple of threads about it.
[/QUOTE]
Till 37 years ago the United States was a part apartheid state, and you call that an "evolving democracy". Similarly South Africa was an apatheid state until the 1990's - so was that an "evolving democracy" as well.
Apartheid laws in the American South deprived tens of millions of blacks almost all their democratic rights. That was not democracy, or "evolving democracy" it was a white mans rule and subjugation of blacks - a complete negation of the fundementals of democracy.
The pressure against South Africa and other south African states was taken up by the West. There was civil protest in Great Britain in the early '60's against Rhosesia and the US civil boycott in the '80's against South Africa. Mr. Mandela achieved the position of head of government, an unbelievable occurance given his status as a political prisoner. Let us applaud any moves made in a positive direction by any state any time. The achievement of "right" is an uphill battle and like Sisyphus, it is constant.
Ah.....i struck a nerve. Good. Now please all of you from myvoice to Sem, show me which part was revisionist after the subjugation of the african american? Democracy simply means everybody gets to vote, but in the land of the free (where people were not so free) that wasnt true till 1965.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
The pressure against South Africa and other south African states was taken up by the West. There was civil protest in Great Britain in the early '60's against Rhosesia and the US civil boycott in the '80's against South Africa. Mr. Mandela achieved the position of head of government, an unbelievable occurance given his status as a political prisoner. Let us applaud any moves made in a positive direction by any state any time. The achievement of "right" is an uphill battle and like Sisyphus, it is constant.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but was white-ruled apartheid South Africa a full functioning democracy? No. Just like the white-ruled apartheid American south. Hence the United States was not as a whole a fully functioning democracy until 37 years ago. A Democracy means for all its people, not some of its people. If you have "democracy" for one race of people in a state, and completly deny other races any democracy, you are not a fully functioning democracy.
That does that mean that in the last 37 years the United States has not greatly made up for 175 years of not being a fully functioning democracy. We must applaud the splendid efforts of people like President Johnson who aggressively pushed through the ground breaking civil rights reforms that set the stage for the United States to very rapidly become a full participatory democracy.
Problem is, Malik and CM, that you have to do more than quote the Reverend Jackson to establish the proposition that blacks in America were deprived of the right to vote until the 1960s. To be sure, the Voting Rights Acts and Civil Rights Acts of the early 60’s accomplished a lot to make the black vote in the Jim Crow south more meaningful. But the basic franchise was extended to blacks long, long ago. Similarly, your broad brush approach suggesting that the US, as a country, adopted apartheid policies that were similar to South Africa needs a lot more factual support than just making plain bald assertions. Segregation and the “separate but equal” doctrine were principally creations of the South. There is also a North, West and East that encompasses America.
You seem to forget that the Civil War was NOT a race riot with blacks fighting on one side and whites fighting on the other. That war was a white on white confrontation where brothers, cousins and other relatives found themselves fighting against and killing each other. While the primary motivation may not have been to free the black slaves, that was the byproduct as the prevailing side ripped apart the slavery institution, For over 100 years, the vestiges of that institution were also defeated by a preponderantly white judiciary, white federal government, white national guard and white political majority working effectively together with black leaders and activists. Neither was the civil rights movement of the 60s a white against black race riot. All you need to do is look at pictures of the great Civil Rights marches and demonstrations to understand that a white/black coalition pounded the segregationist South into submission.
While you may choose to believe differently to feed your anti-American bias, the plain truth of the matter is that having a “fully functioning democracy” is the only thing that led to the significant civil rights, gender related rights, etc. that are now fully etched into the American landscape. It has functioned pretty darn well since its inception in 1776 to move us from where we were to where we are. As OhioGuy has suggested, a “fully functioning democracy” is also an “evolving” one. I’m sure that 100 years from now, whatever form our democracy takes, there will be different constituent parts than we see today.
Malik,
"Yes Ohioguy nicley justified how an apartheid state is just an "evolving democracy", like South Africa?"
The unfortunate part about Democracy is that it moves at the pace of it's society. Alas, we would all like wisdom faster. The world could use a dose of speedy wisdom. If you have ever seen a large sailing vessel knocked over by a large wave, it seems an eternity before it rights itself. but if you are patient the boat will right and continue to sail.
Like this boat, the institutions of democracy must be intact. The sails and winches must work, the bilge pumps must function. Countries with dishonest elections, corrupt regimes, judges that are inept, under threat, or on someones payroll can highjack the democracy. A willing electorate, and a few elections do not make a democracy. As I said before, the people of the country must submit to the democracy, and must sacrifice to it. Without sacrifice, the system is bound to fail.
Now how from that you can project that I have somehow justified aprtheid in South Africa has really escaped me. My point to all this is that CM in particular expects instantaneous success and human rights simply because a democracy exists. He belittles the process of democracy and ignores the work that must be done daily in a democracy.
For example, the ELIMINATION of segregation is a success. The ELIMINATION of salvery is a success. The existence of these sins is proof that we are human. The ability of society to advance and eliminate injustice is a testiment to the trials, hardships and success of a free people. The expectation of instant success is a flaw of impetuous youth that has been part of youthful enthusiasm for centuries. But in many ways the youth in any society have been the first to recognize and advocate for freedoms and justice that their elders have been blind to for too long.... So rather than denegrate democracy that can be a weapon against the wrongs of society, let us embrace it and advance the process.....
OG: Tha'ts a very good point about evolution via democracy.
I forget the author but the quote went something like this:
" A fit populace does not necessarily make a fit democracy. A democracy in turn makes a fit populace" I am thinking Oliver wendel holmes or T. Roosevelt
Ohioguy, that was a dang near beautiful piece you have written above. to the point, simply understood and touching most, if not all the bases.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
*Now how from that you can project that I have somehow justified aprtheid in South Africa has really escaped me. *
[/QUOTE]
Actually read very carefully what I said - *"Yes Ohioguy nicley justified how an apartheid state is just an "evolving democracy", like South Africa?" *.
No what I said was not that you justified apartheid in South Africa, but that you justified that apartheid was a form of "evolving democracy". But if you still don't understand my point, I will ask you in simpler terms.
Do you think that an aparthied state is an "evolving democracy"? Yes or No? If so, was apartheid South Africa an "evolving democracy" uptill the 1990's when apartheid came to an end? Yes or No?
Malik,
Perhaps it has escaped you that societal problems do not lend themselves to a simple "yes or no". Your attempts mimic Johnny Chochran fail to amuse.
But to respond to your line of reasoning: I believe that certain societal problems can be "cured" by democracy, but it will only occur over a significant period of time, and it will occur because of the internal work done by the members of a free democracy. The Civil War was an example of this.
Apartheid ended because of extreme external pressure, not because of what would be defined as an internal democratic change. But rather than narrow the discussion to South Africa, my interest is in the mechanisms and institutions which support a thriving democracy. These institutions and universal beliefs are as critical as the easy "label" of democracy. In the US, as well as many other true democracies there is a declaration of the purpose of the democracy. A bill of rights, with statements of universal freedoms must be at the core of a democracy. The mechanisms which teach these values and systems which balance the implementation of democracy are as essential as a vote. Can a democracy really exist without full freedoms of it's people? I think not. That would include freedoms for minority races as well as freedom to practice religions without fear of persecution.
To get back to your question, a democracy is not a democracy unless the foundation of the democracy is sound. I would not have considered South Africa a healthy democracy as the core beliefs and foundations did not promote liberty and freedom.
There are a great number of people who espouse "limited" democracy. A democracy that does not fully reflect freedom of religion is a democracy that is bound to fail for the same reasons that the failure to recognize racial freedom doomed South Aftrica. To repirse my sailboat analogy, a sailboat with no keel and no ballast looks the same from the waterline up. But the keel provides the ability to track a course, and the ballast will keep the boat upright and stable in rough seas. Many "emerging democracies" are doomed to failure because there is a shallow appearance of democracy but they have skimped on the essential construction of the democracy.
Thus the premise of this thread sort of offends me. The presumption that a democracy starts when civil rights are complete ignores the work that went into the formation of the democratic state. Without the foresight and wisdom of the Founding Fathers to clearly state, "all men are created equal", later reforms could not take place. By the time you actually see democratic change take place, years of work has taken place to put the foundation of democracy into place. What's more, democracy will continually be challenged. It is an everbending, and everchanging dynamic process. And, it is slow, and may not satisfy those who imagine instantaneous societal change.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
I would not have considered South Africa a healthy democracy as the core beliefs and foundations did not promote liberty and freedom.
[/QUOTE]
You are getting close to answering my question. Although trying to call apartheid South Africa any sort of democracy is stretching it, but I guess it's the only way you can try to call an apartheid system a "democracy". If you say apartheid South Africa was not a "healthy democracy", then surely the same applies to the apatheid Amercan south as well? Thus making the United States not fully democratic, and only becoming a true democracy 37 years ago.
Remember democracy and its principles are for all peoples regardless of race - all mankind is created equal. If you restrict this democracy to only one race of people, and deny it completly to other races, you negate the very idea of democracy.
No Malik, democracy is not about "all". It is predicated on the times and collective will of the majority. In South Africa, the timing was not the issue but it was the majority that was subjugated. If it was all it would be true communism./utopia. Which is both inherently inhuman and unrealistic.
There is no parallel between the US and SA.
Malik,
Apply whatever definition to whatever time frame makes you happy. The real point is that it did not take a change of government to improve civil rights in the US. Freedom of Speech, elected officials, and media coverage combined to change not only official policies, but everyday attitudes and social mores.
Politics is not everything. Societies may change in lots of ways, and usually the last proof is when a law is changed. Somehow I choose to believe that the Civil War in the US was much more of a changing point. Please show me another country that fractures and goes to war within it's borders to provide freedom for an oppressed minority. Slavery had been a worldwide phenomenon for thousands of years. During that time there were thousands of slave revolts, but seldom do you see countrymen going to battle over the rights and privileges of differently colored persons.
Once again you find amusement at the "failures" of the US in some regard. I think you grossly underestimate how deeply the respect for the democratic process is ingrained in Americans. And not simply the right to vote, but in daily life. Why is the US not always the first and the loudest and the most pure of all counties in all regards? Who cares. Most Americans take comfort that evenually wrongs will be righted and justice will triumph. Now give me a list of countries who still do not allow women to vote. There is still a lot of equality which has yet to take place.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Malik,
Apply whatever definition to whatever time frame makes you happy. The real point is that it did not take a change of government to improve civil rights in the US.
[/QUOTE]
No it took 43 governments (36 Presidencies), and 175 years to bring full democracy and civil rights to the United States. Being a democracy does not mean that a white majority can deprive a black minority wholly of those same democratic rights. If you do not provide democracy for all your citizens regardless of race you are not a full democracy at all, but a white man's dictatorship (in the US South that is).
Is democracy not about voting, elected legislatures, governments and the courts? How many African-Americans were allowed to vote freely in the US South till the 1960's? How many of them were elected to the legislatures of these states and served in the governments? How many black judges were there in the south?
Malik,
You are preaching to the converted. But the Democratic institutions were part of solving a world wide and societal problem. You choose to define democracy based on one issue, your self defined requirement. Please look at the other facets of democracy such as freedom of religion, and count the number of places in the world where there is huge religious oppression.
Your anti-US rants could not be more obvious. You seize on flaws that are 50 years in the past, but refuse to understand that the process of democracy is nearly 250 years old in the US. You newbies think you invented this democracy stuff......
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
OG: Tha'ts a very good point about evolution via democracy.
I forget the author but the quote went something like this:
" A fit populace does not necessarily make a fit democracy. A democracy in turn makes a fit populace" I am thinking Oliver wendel holmes or T. Roosevelt
[/QUOTE]
Quotes are more than just some words strung together as sentence(s). Only those who should, should Use them wisely.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Malik,
You are preaching to the converted. But the Democratic institutions were part of solving a world wide and societal problem. You choose to define democracy based on one issue, your self defined requirement. Please look at the other facets of democracy such as freedom of religion, and count the number of places in the world where there is huge religious oppression.
Your anti-US rants could not be more obvious. You seize on flaws that are 50 years in the past, but refuse to understand that the process of democracy is nearly 250 years old in the US. You newbies think you invented this democracy stuff......
[/QUOTE]
So then democracy becomes re-defined?!
Freedom of religion, speech and press don't utter words which can lead to misinterpretations.
Wrong. The definitions of freedom of religion, speech and press are constantly being redefined in a democracy, trying to find the right balance. There is a constant backlog of court cases, pending bills and laws regarding the practice of these freedoms in a democracy.
Losing your cool a little aren’t you? It took the United States 175 years, 43 governments, and 36 Presidencies later to actually become a full functioning democracy, applicable to all its people. You have failed to provide any facts to the contrary, and the comparison with apartheid South Africa really illustrated my point. If and when you reply I would like to see some facts from you as to how African-Americans in the south shared in the “evolving” American democracy in the period ptil 1964? As I asked previously How many African-Americans were allowed to vote freely in the US South till the 1960’s? How many of them were elected to the legislatures of these states and served in the governments? How many black judges were there in the south?