All this talk about making a "change" in the Dominican system of governance and Politics make me think of European history and that geographical area's "progress" toward this thing we call "Democracy".
From mankinds beginings there have been many manifestations of "pseudo-democratic" development. That isto say, tribal "leaders" depending on local "councils" for guidance (primarily to control the tribe itself) in making decisions which would affect the whole. This system evolved into the "kingships" and "privy councils" of later times. Occasionally, a "king" would become an "absolute monarch" with enough power to intimidate all the "lesser" states and eventually control them as well. (Rome is a good example).
By and large, today's "Euroean Union" is an expanded version of this, as is the USA, in that a central authority supercedes (with their participation) the authority of the individual states. This is a pseudo-federalist system and by no means does it fit the definition of a "democracy", per se. That word is a misnomer, even when attempting to describe the self-stated system of the US. The US is a Republic and not a Democracy. Any government which allows election of "representatives" for the constituency is a "republic", plain and simple.
We speak of the "caudillo's" in the DR as if they are unique in modern day political phenomenon. They aren't by a long shot. It's just that here, as in all SA countries, they have been in power for so long that thir presense is imbedded in the pshche of every individual in every country, the US not withstanding.
The problem which has faced each society throughout time has been that of the inequality between the "haves" and the "have-nots". There have been many theories which have addressed these differences and none have yet reached a viable solution to the disparagement between these segments of society. We all "beat our heads against the brick wall" in even discussing such because we each have a different slant on what is most important and therefore which element must be solved first. Kinda like the "chicken and the egg" question we all like to quote from time to time.
We speak of what is "fair". Some philosophies would take from the rich to give to the poor, regardless of the unfairness placed on the rich and not truly defining what is poor and why that condition exists. This is all based on the human element of "jealousy" by one person toward another who has more of what he wants. We seem to forget that people the world over would rather have something "given to them" rather than earn it "by the sweat of their brow". When that simily is placed in action by political figures, it becomes thenorm and people ultimately begin depending on "the guvment" to provide for their every need and desire. Sound familiar? Look around you, look at England, look at the USA, look at France.
I've taken up too much bandwidth, so I'll stop.
Justthink about all this before you go off on a tengent.
I get pi$$ed off too about what I see around me here, but everytine I try to bring it up, I get that "good enough for my dad" bit also, so I've just stopped and am concentrating on my boys. Maybe I can change them, they're still young.
Texas Bill
