DEMOCRACY BY MAJORITY VOTE HAS FAILED MANKIND!
'Democracy' is quite often only a 'success' in Theory, let me give but a few examples to support my argument (not that i'm asking for any counter-arguments mind you), Cuba is a 'dictatorship' and Barbados (my island) is a 'democracy' (the the USA and Canada)....Cubans cannot vote to change their ruling political party by the ballot box - whereas I can (every 5 years)....BUT...in Cuba, an official from the central government comes around to every neighborhood in the entire country every week and asks the residents if they have any complaints about local government officials that they want to register, the local government official is not privy to the names of the persons who complain about them - only Central Government is, and Central government then investigates every complaint about every government official and if the complaints are true - that local government official is fired for corruption/incompetence and is replaced (with an immediate end to any perks their job may have provided them while held). In Barbados - if we had this low level 'direct democracy' in place that Cuba has - the constituents of our Minister of Finance could have - for example - complained about his 'obvious incompetence' (if that is the case) and gotten him fired & replaced long ago...instead, we have to wait 5 years for the 'buddy system' of cronyism (both parties use) to expire before we can replace anyone (and they still draw a Ministerial pension for the rest of their lives at our taxpayers expense).
Next example, in Croatia the democratic majority voted that homosexual couples do NOT have the right to marry - only heterosexual couples do....this is democracy at work whether you like it or not, the majority HAS spoken...too bad for homosexuals who are always in the minority in EVERY society (except maybe in Ancient Greece)....will we see crowds with rainbow flags rejoicing in the street that 'democracy has prevailed' (for technically it HAS) as we saw in California before? Somehow I doubt that....
Next example - we wanted Egypt to 'enjoy our democratic freedoms' and they DID! But the Islamic brotherhood was voted into office by a democratic majority vote - and suddenly we despised the same 'democratic outcome' that we were previously championing....why the hypocrisy? Either 'Democracy is the GREATEST political system and we wholeheartedly support it (not only when the result is what WE want)...or we do NOT - and are still looking for a better way (my personal view is the latter).
Next example, do you honestly think that if a democratic majority vote was held in South Africa or Zimbabwe to 'take away property owned by whites and re-distribute them among blacks' - that the non-white majority would vote 'NO'? Most people worldwide who have LESS support the idea of taking away from those who have MORE if they (the ones with less) will be the beneficiaries.
Next example, if a democratic vote was held in certain anti-foreigner Eastern European countries today for 'All non-native ethnic groups to be evicted from the motherland'...I guarantee you that a technical majority will vote YES...another case of 'a democratic majority' - but would you celebrate the outcome? I wouldn't.
Next example, if a democratic vote was held in America - where native Americans are only 1% of the current population, for a vote on 'Should the US Government and private non-indigenous Americans return all lands stolen from American Indians to tribes still currently in existence'...I guarantee you that most Americans - a very large democratic majority will vote NO! But on a global scale, what use is any democracy where indigenous peoples will ALWAYS be outnumbered and outvoted by a non-indigenous current majority in the lands of the indigenous peoples....what bloody use is this 'fictitious liberty' EVER going to be in us remaining as a minority group in YOUR 'melting pot' societies (imposed on our lands and on our backs without our consent) - if the will of the other non-indigenous ethnic ingredients in this pot will always be visibly prominent and relegate us to the pot bottom where we continue to get burned forever?
If different ethnic groups have never/will never achieve equity being mere minority groups in the political nation states of OTHER ethnic groups, is Separatism so bad after all? Only in our own political nation states ruled by our own peoples in a manner of our own choosing (but treating and being treated by other states as EQUALS) - will we ever achieve the political parity we deserve - and which our ancestors enjoyed for thousands of years. This whole 'minority group' living in a society predominantly comprised of others - is a very dangerous game, dangerous because the majority of mankind is not enlightened enough NOT to revert to ethnic mob rule when anarchy prevails as the East Indians learned in Uganda and now in Burma, and the Bosnian Muslims learned in Serbia, and the Serb Christians learned in Bosnia, and the Coptic Christians are learning in Egypt, and the Kurds learned in Turkic, Arab, and Persian countries, the whites learned in Zimbabwe, the Aborigines learned in Australia, the Maori learned in New Zealand, the Naga and Meitei learned in India, the Jumma People learned in Bangladesh, the Africans and American Indians learned in most of the western Hemisphere, etc. etc. Why can't the Kalinago Nation State (just for example) exist in Dominica as the closest friend and sovereign political ally of the government of Dominica and share the island with them? (non-Kalinago Dominicans need not go anywhere - the land is big enough for all of us, same can be said for ALL the peoples I mentioned). Why is it 'right' that Kalinagos (and ALL the other peoples I mentioned) be ruled by the descendants of Europe or Africa or India (or anyone else that came to their lands from elsewhere and found them there) in their own country forever? Or every other native people who are expected to live 'happily' taking orders from other non-peoples - in their OWN lands - forever?
In summation, we should put more faith and support in International Laws than in 'majority vote democracy' (as it is quite flawed in practice), for International laws give a greater guarantee that the voices & rights of ALL human beings are recognised and protected....'CONSENSUS' is best, but easier to achieve in mono-ethnic societies (hence it was easy to achieve in Tribal Nations) than in multi-ethnic ones...for each group of people usually has a very different worldview than another....and one minority group or the other is ALWAYS going to be disenfranchised in a society that is not entirely comprised of enlightened human beings - the only group that fits this description of an enlightened homogenous society that I know of are the Amerindian Kogi People of the Colombian Andes...and they eschew contact with the outside world because of all the disharmony that exists in other societies - unlike their cohesive and very spiritually attuned one (they spend more or their time praying for the Earth and the rest of humanity - they call us their 'little brothers' because we still think and act like children - than we do praying for ourselves). A student of history will know that the world was always a patchwork of very unique separate cultural groups and societies....it was the Imperialists who invented the 'melting pot' agenda, forcing a diverse array of people to surrender their core differences and live together...but under the rule of an elitist class of political parasites who reserved the top of their patriarchal & pyramidical society ALL for themselves EXCLUSIVELY......so why continue to force this flawed system where it obviously is not working for the best of everyone? Let us TRULY live as EQUALS and BROTHERS...but not under the barrel of a gun in any 'forced unity' that is one-sided in its distribution of tangible benefits.
Damon Gerard Corrie
13 Highgate Gardens
Wildey, St. Michael
Tel: (246) 228-0227 Fax: (246) 437-2018
Copyright © 2013 Damon G. Corrie