DISCREPANCIES: A closer look at the nations which call themselves democracies will show that the word democracy is now little more than a “get out of jail” free card to cover for what is, in fact, oligarchic rule

By Margaret Kimberley

What is democracy? Dictionaries provide a variety of meanings but in general, they define it as “rule by the people,” which includes the election of representatives in a legislature or a parliament. This simple definition is easily understood but when one takes a closer look at the nations which call themselves democracies, it is clear that the word is now little more than a “get out of jail” free card to cover for what is, in fact, oligarchic rule. No one has to look very far to see the discrepancies between democracy as advertised and how states really function.

Most people in the United States, 61% according to one poll, want a ceasefire in Gaza. That number is significant but it shows no correlation whatsoever with how the state acts. Only 69 members of the House of Representatives and 5 members of the Senate have publicly called for a ceasefire. Even worse than the sparse number willing to speak up for what the people want, those who say they want a ceasefire are duplicitous in making their own case.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has visited the Rafah border crossing and was incensed that Israel is preventing aid from getting through to Gaza. In a speech on the senate floor he called Israeli officials war criminals but when push came to shove, he was pushed and he voted to send $14 billion in aid to Israel. It seems that elected representatives see no need to actually represent their constituents.

The same is true in the rest of the “democratic” nations known as the Collective West. A leaked letter from a cabinet level ministry in the Netherlands read in part, “What can we say so that it appears that Israel is not committing war crimes?” The outgoing prime minister is angling for the NATO General Secretary’s job and wants to stay on the good side of the U.S., hence the need to give the appearance that Israel isn’t committing crimes that the whole world can see.

Meanwhile, Dutch civil servants protested against their own government’s support for Israel and yes, they were ignored. That nation has been ordered by its Supreme Court to stop selling F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel but the elected government has chosen to appeal their court’s decision.

Not to be outdone, France is forcing any organizations receiving governmental aid to repeat debunked allegations that Hamas committed atrocities on October 7. Aurore Bergé, the French Minister for the Fight against Discriminations, said, “what happened on October 7th is that thousands of women were exterminated, murdered, burned, or raped.” She added, “On behalf of the government, I have requested a meticulous review of all statements from all feminist organizations related to October 7th and its aftermath, because I refuse to allow the state to financially support associations that cannot clearly define what happened […] I have asked for all financially supported organizations to be thoroughly scrutinized—hundreds and hundreds of associations—because being feminist means speaking out, it means supporting the women who were mutilated on October 7th. If there is any ambiguity about statements that have been made, it would not be right for these associations to continue receiving government subsidies, it’s as simple as that.” In other words, French organizations are being forced to lie if they want to continue functioning.

The U.S. and European nations are not alone. Canada, neighbor to the north with an undeserved reputation for being more humane, actively pursues a campaign of suppressing protest and dissent. El Jones and other members of a delegation were scheduled to speak to members of the Canadian Supreme Court about anti-Black racism in that country.

Just one hour before they were scheduled to meet, they were informed that unnamed social media posts made court clerks feel “unsafe” and that some delegation members such as Ms. Jones would no longer be allowed to speak. She was never told what the offending post was, but she has concluded that pointing out Israel’s genocidal policies was the cause of the rescinded invitation.

This same Canadian government paid homage to a Ukrainian Naz i in the parliament elected by its citizens. Fallout from the scandal made clear that Nazi worship is not what the people there want to see at all.

 Protest itself is criminalized in the world’s so-called democracies. The United Kingdom has forbidden the wearing of masks at protests:

No protester should be able to evade justice by wearing a face covering. That’s why we’re banning them. Offenders could receive up to a £1,000 fine and a month in prison.

The liberal democracies are not so liberal after all. Their elected representatives are bought off and cowardly. They may, like the Netherlands prime minister, want a plumb position, or members of congress want to avoid being targeted by well funded lobbyists in Washington. The U.S. treats every nation as an enemy, and even friends may be threatened and punished if they don’t toe Uncle Sam’s line.

This missive is an examination of responses to the U.S./Israeli/NATO war crimes being committed against the popular will. But the same questions can be asked about the lack of a public health care system or a shredded welfare state or increases in homelessness. None of these issues are addressed by electoral politics. The F word, fascism, comes to mind. Neo-liberal corporate power, including corporate media power, is combined with militarism to disappear the disaffected and to intimidate others into being silent.

In the U.S. we are told that this presidential election is a fight for democracy against the evil and undemocratic Donald Trump. But Trump did nothing as president that his predecessors didn’t, and in any case he can’t get rid of a democracy that doesn’t even exist.

The word should be stricken from discussion about the U.S. and its puppets who are decidedly undemocratic and authoritarian when they want to act against what their people want.

Democracies are few and far between. The countries that use the word so readily do so because they know they are nothing of the sort. The rest of us must know it too and stop using this word to describe an increasingly dystopian world.-

* Originally published: Black Agenda Report.

Comment

THE DA MUST COME

OUT CLEAN

It is interesting that after their failed application in the Pretoria High Court to have the cadre deployment policy of the ANC declared unconstitutional, the opposition Democratic Alliance party, which has already declared it would win the general elections to be held in May this year, has announced its intention to appeal the ruling.

The  dismissal of their application by the Full Bench and the judgment delivered by Deputy Judge President of the Gauteng Division, Aubrey Ledwaba this week, was announced two days after the ANC – following a Constitutional Court order –  submitted records of their cadre deployment meeting records dating back to January 1, 2013 to the DA.

In its court application which was dismissed with costs, the DA contended that the ANC’s cadre deployment policy  had facilitated State capture, systematic corruption and deterioration  of service delivery.  The court ruled that the DA’s case was based on speculation and conjecture. Corruption knew no boundaries as it inflicted great harm to society. ‘’ For that  reason, it ought not to be used by political parties to pursue political objectives.’’

DA leader John Steenhuisen, has respected the judgment but says they intend challenging it in the Supreme Court of Appeal. Without pre-empting the outcome , we find it strange that the DA – following reports that it practiced the same cadre deployment policy in the Western Cape  where it governs – should turn to the courts to seek an order declaring this policy unconstitutional.

The DA’s alleged double standards were exposed by the ANC’s leader in the Western Cape legislature, Cameron Dugmore when he released a letter from the DA’s provincial leadership – written in Afrikaans – addressed to the George municipality in 2018. The letter, sent to several senior party members, discussed  the vacancy of director of corporate services. Part of the letter asked the George municipality not to proceed with the recommended appointment before they got permission from the Federal Executive – the DA’s highest decision-making body.

The DA was apparently unhappy with the appointment of a Black person who had obtained more points during the interviews and was recommended for the post. The selection panel ultimately proposed a White male who had scored less points to the position.

It is ironic that while the DA was applying the same principle in the deployment of their cadres in the Western Cape, they were against the ruling party doing the same. The DA must learn to practice what they preach. Some  media commentators have now called on the party to come out clean  and also make public their cadre deployment meeting records and stop portraying themselves as angels.

Steenhuisen is quoted as saying that the DA believed that cadre deployment was a violation of the constitutional provisions which stated that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of their party affiliation. Really ?

The DA must learn that people who stay in glass houses should always avoid throwing stones.