(Another scrabble written a while ago.)
Is democracy such a useful political thought as the US provocatively claimed, really?
This may appeal to some too hostile intro enough to brand me as a communist worm if still McCathy followers are around. But, really, think about it.
Yes, it was a military junta that uprised and took a power in Thailand a week ago, the survey tells a very confusing story that makes us hard on defining the characteristics of the junta. It says the majority of Thai population has been severely opposing to the governing (well, now a former governing) Prime Minister Taksin especially since early this year when his tax getaways became a huge scandal in the nation. Those indicated as a majority seemed backing the coup and there were photos of civilians giving out flowers to soliders in tanks. Even the King, supposingly widely admired, granted the coup and vertually weighing more significance of pseudo-legitimacy of the coup. If everything written on major newspapers since the incident is true, can we argue that the action taken by the military junta in Thailand defied the concept of democracy? It seemed certainly not ignoring the willings of majority Thais. Yet, nor it took a conventional form to practice democracy such as campaigning, debating, getting elected, and finally being legetimately appointed by the national assembly,. Then, it would come down to a question whether a methodology matters in democracy. An article with the same title in this week's TIMES clearly sees it matters.
The writing must be written by largely two assumptions.
First, the surveys that have been released are not containing the absolute truth, i.e., there may be false involved in the survey by the military junta eliminating the opposing voices from the pool. If so, certainly, what they did cannot be justified or defined in any ways within the boundary of concept of democracy.
Second, the survey reflects the current affairs in the nation well enough, but people in the country weren't just well organized enough to effectively influence the regime and make a change of their own in a democratic way, thereby failing a reform at an initial stage before the situations got worse. Otherwise, people are not intellectual or enlightened enough to be able to distinguish what they're supposed to do from not. That is, people in the nation were simply after what the others seem after. In either case, the efficiency of the democracy cannot be satisfactorily explained. For the former case, voices of people were united but couldn't find a way to efficiently apply to the existing bureacracy. For the second case, there were united voices of the majory but they were not the voices of awared ones, and thereby only resulting the nation into a deeper quagmire. Whichever it was, the ruling ideology of the contemporary world affairs only implies its flaws.
Now, looking into another side of the world, Afganistan. You see, after the US waged war against terrors and targetted and invaded the country, the propaganda the US heroically has used was to spread the great idea of democracy. There were a war, bloodsheds, unspeakable destruction under the splendid name of democracy. And, once the US reckoned the situations were over and they set the "democratic" election expecting "suppressed" people in the country under the Taleban regime to elect pro-american indigionous allies, no doubt believing the US as liberator. Taaraa~~ what happened? They elected Hamas for a winning party, the "terrorist organization" the US was so desperately wanted to get rid of was elected through a "democratic" election.
How on earth anyone can explain this stunning consequence? I bet Bush's grandpa wouldn't think of any persuasive answer for this. Then, if democracy is nothing but a good illusion, the US's war on Middle East is also nothing but a flaud?
