It is not new to see on the television screen a man or a woman in a tight suit speak "on behalf" of the "people", stating promises and chanting slogans to rile the masses before them to support their transitions to power. The world, however, changes for them once they get comfortable in the leather chairs of their presidential offices. They are swamped with the demands of lobbyists and the common people, and are held ambivalent over what pacifies the rage of the common man and what betters the common man's socioeconomic status in light of an improving nation (both of them mutually exclusive concepts). Consider, however, that voters for a particular politician who aligns himself/herself with a particular political affiliation tend to support the campaigned ideology. Yet, politicians are still stuck in the aforementioned quagmire, even in the light of scenarios which can not be solved at the time being by promoting a certain economic or social system or belief. For example, George Bush Jr. instituted the Patriot Act, which allowed for surveillance of incoming and outgoing communications in the U.S. While this decision was popular amongst his voters, it was not seen as productive for his nation's progress, namely because it was a breach of civil liberties and privacy, and also created a tense atmosphere of distrust.
There are also times that politicians will make unpopular moves for the sake of the improvement of the country itself. A politician might choose to increase taxes in spite of the anger of the voters that hoisted him/her to power. Assuming that such taxes are spent on the improvement of the foundations of social, economical, educational, and other civil institutes, these would prove beneficial to the nation's progress in the long run, no matter how harsh the measure taken turns out to be. Cromwell's Britain was vastly popular at its rise to power, and progressed in spite of the harsh measures he took to reinforce the nation's economy at home and abroad.
The above circumstances beg several questions, the most obvious ones being what decision would constitute as being "for the good of the country", and what one views as "good for the country" to begin with. This requires a transcendence from the social/economic political compass, any associated religions with said compass, and a look at what makes a country progress. It is a given that the only thing constant in this universe, as Einstein put it, is change. What's imperative, therefore, is to address the requisites of a nation vis-a-vis its survival, growth, productivity, and independence as opposed to a government focused almost solely on political, social, philosophical, and cultural demographic representation.
To put it simply, I personally think that elections don't build nations. It's a simple formula: do we want to invest more in genuinely establishing a solid foundation and infrastructure that will sustain a nation indefinitely; or do we want to invest more in political campaigns, slogans, and (electoral) institutions that only serve their meaning every now and then? An analogy would be conceiving a child when the parents don't have any form of child support (i.e. a job or generous loans) available. There is no solid foundation present to sustain the child's development into a healthy adult who can look out for and sustain himself/herself. This is to say that a nation requires self-sustainable industries and resources as well as the infrastructure to make use of said resources. A nation that makes use of income from industry, trade, etc. can therefore use it to build itself towards independence, whereupon concerns of liberalism and democracy can be brought to the table should the people demand such a thing.
Take Iraq as an example. When the American army invaded, they leveled most of the existing educational, social, and military infrastructure (whether by force or by dismantlement), and established in its stead a government centered on the principle of elections. With the looming sectarian rift among several Sunnite insurgencies, Kurdish (Peshmerga), and Shiite groups (e.g. Muqtada al-Sadr) vying for power instead of progress, the case seemed less like free elections and more like throwing a rotten carcass to a pack of famished, ravenous wolves, none of them interested in sharing the piece of meat on the ground. The lack of an existing educational and industrial infrastructure only aggravated the situation as more divisions were stoked.
Yet in spite of all this, the mantra "free elections for all" goes on. Such statements negate history. Most of the democratic nations of today (i.e. democratic AND liberal by Western standards) like England (not entirely), France, Canada, the U.S., and Germany (despite its ups and downs) have been built upon decades if not centuries of development: self-sustenance (whether by industry or colonization [an important factor]) was reached prior to the establishment of liberal values. Another example is Ancient Rome. It took decades and centuries till the Romans built a foothold over most of their early empire and reduced the gaps between the Patricians (nobles) and Plebes (working class). The adage "Rome wasn't built in a day" fits this perfectly.
Why would elections be more effective post-development and not before them? The idea, as I mentioned before, is that a nation and its people need to stand up on their own feet before they can entertain notions of governmental type. Think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: self-actualization comes before more abstract and idealistic visions. To do that, a nation needs proper industry, proper educational, medical, social, economic, financial, legal, protective (security), civil service, agricultural (or - when absent - a sufficient source of food, water, and other daily necessities), and electrical (to name a few) infrastructures that depend on each other and not heavily on outside sources. A proper, more accessible education system can balance any economic gaps and give people the power to make informed decisions in their lives (whether political or not) that can embetter themselves and their communities. Sufficient economy and financial infrastructure can maintain said balance, while legal infrastructure maintains order. Agricultural, civil service, and medical infrastructures maintain the population and its immediate needs. Therefore, I think that post-development and independence in all the above aspects are more resilient to changes in government and governmental functions than lack thereof.
However, is this to say that freedom to choose (i.e. liberal elections) are guaranteed post-development? It is really tempting to say "yes". At this point, an interesting trend to note is that most dependent, developing nations today have more autocratic forms of government than independent, developed ones, the more obvious ones being that of the U.S. and/or Canada, for example, compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. Looking at the past, however, we see something different: the larger and more developed governments were headed by more autocratic regimes with less involvement from the people (think Ancient Egypt) until the advent of Athenian/Periclean Democracy (which was still in itself an oligarchy) around 500 B.C. While a more developed nation may entail more empowered citizens, that alone depends on the direction such development goes into. While both Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece made use of their respective resources to development (primarily agrarian), the latter group established their society on a less centralized political climate (although still relatively centralized due to its populism) while the former based its political structure strongly on particular religious beliefs and monarchical deification [DISCLAIMER: this is not to validate the incorrect, oversimplifying, and unfair assumption that politics "is an outflow of culture", a subject for future discussion. There are multitudes of historical circumstances - largely biogeographical ones - that must be taken into consideration in order to determine more accurate and less lethargic explanations for historical precedents.] It can be assumed, therefore, that the direction of development can determine the direction of a country's political system, albeit there are cases where the two have been shown to be mutually exclusive due to particular external circumstances that hinder or accelerate a particular nation's development.
I think it's safe to say that elections don't make good foundation stones for national infrastructure, but could ideally act as roof shingles that change seasonally. But what do you think? Do you think that elections can be part of a nation's development given the abovementioned points? Or is it impossible?
Salaam, from Saracen
There are also times that politicians will make unpopular moves for the sake of the improvement of the country itself. A politician might choose to increase taxes in spite of the anger of the voters that hoisted him/her to power. Assuming that such taxes are spent on the improvement of the foundations of social, economical, educational, and other civil institutes, these would prove beneficial to the nation's progress in the long run, no matter how harsh the measure taken turns out to be. Cromwell's Britain was vastly popular at its rise to power, and progressed in spite of the harsh measures he took to reinforce the nation's economy at home and abroad.
The above circumstances beg several questions, the most obvious ones being what decision would constitute as being "for the good of the country", and what one views as "good for the country" to begin with. This requires a transcendence from the social/economic political compass, any associated religions with said compass, and a look at what makes a country progress. It is a given that the only thing constant in this universe, as Einstein put it, is change. What's imperative, therefore, is to address the requisites of a nation vis-a-vis its survival, growth, productivity, and independence as opposed to a government focused almost solely on political, social, philosophical, and cultural demographic representation.
To put it simply, I personally think that elections don't build nations. It's a simple formula: do we want to invest more in genuinely establishing a solid foundation and infrastructure that will sustain a nation indefinitely; or do we want to invest more in political campaigns, slogans, and (electoral) institutions that only serve their meaning every now and then? An analogy would be conceiving a child when the parents don't have any form of child support (i.e. a job or generous loans) available. There is no solid foundation present to sustain the child's development into a healthy adult who can look out for and sustain himself/herself. This is to say that a nation requires self-sustainable industries and resources as well as the infrastructure to make use of said resources. A nation that makes use of income from industry, trade, etc. can therefore use it to build itself towards independence, whereupon concerns of liberalism and democracy can be brought to the table should the people demand such a thing.
Take Iraq as an example. When the American army invaded, they leveled most of the existing educational, social, and military infrastructure (whether by force or by dismantlement), and established in its stead a government centered on the principle of elections. With the looming sectarian rift among several Sunnite insurgencies, Kurdish (Peshmerga), and Shiite groups (e.g. Muqtada al-Sadr) vying for power instead of progress, the case seemed less like free elections and more like throwing a rotten carcass to a pack of famished, ravenous wolves, none of them interested in sharing the piece of meat on the ground. The lack of an existing educational and industrial infrastructure only aggravated the situation as more divisions were stoked.
Yet in spite of all this, the mantra "free elections for all" goes on. Such statements negate history. Most of the democratic nations of today (i.e. democratic AND liberal by Western standards) like England (not entirely), France, Canada, the U.S., and Germany (despite its ups and downs) have been built upon decades if not centuries of development: self-sustenance (whether by industry or colonization [an important factor]) was reached prior to the establishment of liberal values. Another example is Ancient Rome. It took decades and centuries till the Romans built a foothold over most of their early empire and reduced the gaps between the Patricians (nobles) and Plebes (working class). The adage "Rome wasn't built in a day" fits this perfectly.
Why would elections be more effective post-development and not before them? The idea, as I mentioned before, is that a nation and its people need to stand up on their own feet before they can entertain notions of governmental type. Think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: self-actualization comes before more abstract and idealistic visions. To do that, a nation needs proper industry, proper educational, medical, social, economic, financial, legal, protective (security), civil service, agricultural (or - when absent - a sufficient source of food, water, and other daily necessities), and electrical (to name a few) infrastructures that depend on each other and not heavily on outside sources. A proper, more accessible education system can balance any economic gaps and give people the power to make informed decisions in their lives (whether political or not) that can embetter themselves and their communities. Sufficient economy and financial infrastructure can maintain said balance, while legal infrastructure maintains order. Agricultural, civil service, and medical infrastructures maintain the population and its immediate needs. Therefore, I think that post-development and independence in all the above aspects are more resilient to changes in government and governmental functions than lack thereof.
However, is this to say that freedom to choose (i.e. liberal elections) are guaranteed post-development? It is really tempting to say "yes". At this point, an interesting trend to note is that most dependent, developing nations today have more autocratic forms of government than independent, developed ones, the more obvious ones being that of the U.S. and/or Canada, for example, compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. Looking at the past, however, we see something different: the larger and more developed governments were headed by more autocratic regimes with less involvement from the people (think Ancient Egypt) until the advent of Athenian/Periclean Democracy (which was still in itself an oligarchy) around 500 B.C. While a more developed nation may entail more empowered citizens, that alone depends on the direction such development goes into. While both Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece made use of their respective resources to development (primarily agrarian), the latter group established their society on a less centralized political climate (although still relatively centralized due to its populism) while the former based its political structure strongly on particular religious beliefs and monarchical deification [DISCLAIMER: this is not to validate the incorrect, oversimplifying, and unfair assumption that politics "is an outflow of culture", a subject for future discussion. There are multitudes of historical circumstances - largely biogeographical ones - that must be taken into consideration in order to determine more accurate and less lethargic explanations for historical precedents.] It can be assumed, therefore, that the direction of development can determine the direction of a country's political system, albeit there are cases where the two have been shown to be mutually exclusive due to particular external circumstances that hinder or accelerate a particular nation's development.
I think it's safe to say that elections don't make good foundation stones for national infrastructure, but could ideally act as roof shingles that change seasonally. But what do you think? Do you think that elections can be part of a nation's development given the abovementioned points? Or is it impossible?
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment