Chris you bring up some interesting points and I too have mused about the democracy in the USA when I lived there. Having never known anything else I must admit that as an American I can't visualize anything other then a democracy. Having never lived under an autocratic rule I can only rely on that which I read and that which people that lived under such rule have told me personally. While stationed in Germany for 6 years I was very fortunate in being able to converse with a number of Germans that where reared during the Hitler regime. Without exception they all said that Aldoph started out with all the correct intensions and did a fabulous job of jump starting the German economy and putting that country on the right path but that "something happened and he changed" and the rest is history. Because of my military background I have seen the governments of Vietnam and Cambodia in action and can honestly say that that is not what I want for myself or anyone else for that matter.
All the different governments of the world are not new so what measurement do we have to determine which government is the best for the DR? Isn't it possible that the answer to that question can possibly be found in prior history with a little research? Having said that and you are still thinking on an autocracy, 'benevolent dictatorship', or some other equal or almost equal form of government then I would suggest that you research such items as the repressive governments of:
Jorge Rafael Videla’s Argentina, Hugo Banzer’s Bolivia, Humberto Branco’s Brazil, the Sultanate of Brunei Darussalam, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, Fulgencio Batista’s Cuba, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo’s Dominican Republic, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez’s El Salvador, Alfredo Cristiani’s El Salvador, Haile Selassie’s Ethiopia, Sitiveni Rabuka’s Fiji, George Papadopoulos’ Greece, multiple military dictatorships in Guatemala, Lansana Conte's Guinea, Francois and Jean Claude Duvalier’s Haiti, Suharto’s Indonesia, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi’s Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Samuel Doe’s Liberia, Hassan II’s Morocco, Anastasio Somoza Sr.’s and Anastasio Somoza Jr.’s Nicaragua, Sani Abacha’s Nigeria, Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq’s Pakistan, Manuel Noriega’s Panama, Alfredo Stroessner‘s Paraguay, Ferdinand Marcos’ Philippines, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar’s Portugal, Joseph Stalin’s Russia, Saudi Arabia, Siad Barre’s Somalia, P.W. Botha’s South Africa, Park Chung Hee’s South Korea, Francisco Bahamonde Franco’s Spain, Chiang Kai-Shek's Taiwan (and previously China), military-ruled Turkey, Idi Amin’s Uganda, Ngo Dinh Diem’s South Vietnam, Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zaire, and Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
Speaking of Trujillo’s or Balaguer's Dominican Republic, have you sat down and talked with any of the Dominicans that were reared under these persons rule? I have and once again, without exception, the answer is the same as that given to me by the Germans concerning their former leader. We all know the mindset of the Dominican and their ability to enjoy life regardless of the diversities confronting them and the Germans were similar in their adapting to life in the 20's, 30's and 40's. The interesting thing to note is that the Dominicans and Germans that I have talked to have all said that under Hitler, Trujillo and Balaguer the majority of their people lived in a state of continual fear of their leader. Having said that then the question arises, in your quest for a better life and freedoms and what ever else you want is fear one of them? Do people living in democracies live in fear of their leader? In all the democratic countries I have visited I have never witnessed the people living in fear of their leader. Here in the DR I see nobody living in fear of Leonel.
Our lives develop by a form of trial and error, and we have developed considerable wisdom over the centuries as a species. Most of us view society as a local phenomenon, we are either American or Dominican or whatever. Yet the rise of the global village can cause us to question that assumption. Many of us now have more interactions with people outside our locality than we do with our physical neighbours. The new teleogical acceptance, resulting from the complex systems view of us as dynamic organic systems (and not passive mechanical ones), allows us to recognise that individual diversity matters to group fitness. Maximising the benefits of society requires that our politics takes into account both individual opportunities for growth and the need to adopt values that integrate the whole. We need approaches to society that do not stir up conflicts but use these alternatives to gradually reach a better social optimum. A politics for everyone must have cultural diversity, it must not discriminate on any dimension.
I will be the first to admit that as I see it almost all forms of democracy we have around the world today produce little more than elected dictators.. Once a party has power it is impossible for the electorate to replace them peaceably, until their term is up. This sort of discrete and static accountability is very far removed from the sort of ongoing control of legislature that a truly democratic system as in the ancient Greek style gave. But as I mentioned in post #45, certain items can be implemented to help insure that a more reliable, beneficial and operable system is in place.
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for..."Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1784
When democracy is believed to fail or is not vigorous enough to be defended, it can and/or will easily revert to the absolute rule of one person or family or a small omnipotent political or military body. Is this almost the state where the DR presently is? The present judicial system and Hippos reign surly help put it in that state.
So what about an autocracy for the DR. This isn't anything new to the Dominicans as this was, and to a certain extent still is, the form of government they have always had. So why haven't things changed from the status quo in the DR? Is it possible the desire of the rulers to rule may be complemented by the desire of the others to be ruled? Or, it may be complemented by their belief that it is normal that there is one or a small number of omnipotent leaders surrounded by an endless mass of obedient minions.
The question I have for those of you that think the DR should have an autocracy i.e. dictatorship, institutional dictatorship, benevolent and transitionery dictatorship or whatever name you want to apply to it is, who would you suggest hold this position as the infallible fuehrer? Can we have a consensuses on this person from this board, from the Dominican people? Before you answer that question I would suggest that you first ask the Dominican people if this is what they want. Keep in mind that for a true and proper answer to that question you would need to ask only those Dominicans that have lived under such extremes, have been knowledgeable in their readings of world history or those that have some knowledge as to how and why a government operates. One of our Dominican board members, Nal's, has experience in 2 of those fields. I don't know how old he is so I don't know if he was reared under an autocracy regime but ask him if he thinks an autocracy is what the DR needs. In an autocracy, everybody surrenders to the power of the autocrat. They must listen to and believe in what he says. They live and work together harmoniously and abide by the laws out of fear and subjection to the autocrat's power. However, we have seen that submitting to power figures out of fear is not a very desirable motivation for behavior.
If they aren't bowing to a human power figure, societies often submit to a supernatural one, what they call "God." With God as the ultimate authority, there is a common ground to which all the members of that society can submit. However, this is still not a satisfactory method for people who desire democracy because it is another form of autocracy -- it is tainted with fear, and thus does not allow for full development of personal potential. It is also not free of the possibility of factionalism -- many gods lead to many factions.
The disadvantage of traditional authority or dictatorship is that it may be inflexible. Perhaps a `benevolent despot' is flexible. Certainly everyone who thinks of themselves as making a good ruler will think that. And some will be. But what of the second or third generation of rulers? What of the son of a `good king'? The inflexible need to leave. An advantage of democracy is that people in it can eject a government without civil war. A new government can change the laws and provide more justice.
"For me there is no doubt that the worst of democracies is always preferable, if only from the educational point of view, than the best of dictatorships. Of course democracy, so-called government of the people, is a lie; but the lie always slightly binds the liar and limits the extent of his arbitrary power. Of course the 'sovereign people' is a clown of a sovereign, a slave with a papier-mache^ crown and sceptre. But to believe oneself free, even when one is not, is always better than to know oneself to be a slave, and to accept slavery as something just and inevitable." Errico Malatesta March 1924
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
- Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard [transcripts of parliament], November 11, 1947
Rick
And you use the world 'melogamania' in the same sentence... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I don't even speak English too well and I know it is megalomania... at least you got it right at the end there. Well done! 