L'Insomniaque

Débats intéressants

Au début de la guerre en Irak, l'un des profs de mon département a proposé un débat sur le mouvement anti-guerre. Les échanges de mail ont été consignés ici. Je vous laisse en juger par vous-même.

Suite à ce débat, un des étudiants du lab a également posté deux courts articles qui ont trait à la démocracie et à la politique internationale. Je lui ai demandé si je pouvais les poster sur le site et il m'a donné la permission de le faire.

Note: le prof s'appelle Balasz, l'étudiant en question s'appelle François; les bouts du texte précédés du symbole ">" sont des extraits d'une des réponses à Balasz, que l'on peut trouver au lien que j'ai fourni plu haut.

Désolé pour le format, le texte est assez long et c'est un copier-coller d'un e-mail.

Hi guys,



As you both know, I have read with interest your debate; I'm siding on
Balazs's side for a variety of reasons I have outlined in my past few
emails; but the last exchange compels me to join in as the debate has
widen to the nature of democracy and fundamental underlying concepts, and it
seems
to me that misconceptions are voiced. I will state my opinion and
reflections on these basic concepts; I have extracted parts of
Jean-Sebastien's remarks and grouped them by subject as the format was
getting awkward due to the length of the discussion.


> In United States, it is different. There are two factions, which
> reveal to be funded by the same oligarchies in the end, and which
> approximately follow the same agenda. And every four years, you
> have the right to change. Well, of course, if you're not too much
> communist nor anti-patriotic, you can start a new party. But then
> you need this bunch of uneducated people to know about you -- well
> now you just need 50% of them -- and this costs money. And the
> money is not in your pockets.


> Let me put it another way. I think the U.S. government (which
> includes all political institutions + everything that has power
> over its decisions) will strive to protect its own interests in
> any conflict, and I think its normal. It is the natural way of
> human institutions.


> I think most of modern states have not yet taken the step towards
> a humanitarian concern beyond their own borders, though I'm ready
> to agree that some have taken a few steps in that direction.
> States first protect their own interests, trying to maintain
> their power. Their power comes from their economy, finance,
> culture, politics and army.


> What could actually make it different, in my view, is by "giving"
> more education, better information and more power/responsibility
> to the people. People can have this CONCERN for other people's
> well-being:


> states never have, except when their leaders have. The problem is
> that just concern does not necessarily leads to good decisions.
> But contrary to you, I think concern plus education and
> information can lead to good decisions, humanitarian decisions.
> And don't think I'm suggesting a direct democracy as you put it
> in your mail to Pascal; however I believe that a democracy that
> promotes participation of people in the decision process and that
> offers education that stimulates critical thinking would be a
> plus for humanity.


> But the institutions we have mostly work the other way by
> concentrating power, paternizing people and tittytaining them so
> as to better control them.


> Coming back to the Rumsfeld example, even if Bush is no more
> president, will he get out of politics? The Bush family will
> still have a say over US policies because of its financial and
> political power, and even if I don't see him anymore, I'm
> confident I'll see in United States policies that overly
> advantages the class that is in power. The same applies to Tony Blair:
> he won't be in the street after all this, he'll still have power and
> though his people may oppose him (because they don't know about their
> own interests nor iraqis') for many important people he's done a great
> job.


> Bush is a product of the system. He's not an error of nature. And
> voting for the democrats won't change much into that (maybe a lower
> death toll).


On representational democracy, virtual democracy (direct democracy),
power,
politics and the majority.


Representational democracy is the de facto standard because it's the
only
system that has worked over the years, and it stays in place because
it's
what the majority wants. When a society is healthy, people concentrate
on
their calling: doctors operate, teachers teach, researchers research,
students study, workers work, and every one comes home and have supper
watches the news, reads the papers a bit, do their leisure activities
and
goes to bed. The majority does not want to vote more than once every 4-5
years, it's not a system imposed by the leaders, it's a system imposed
by
the majority. People want to take care of business, invest themselves in
their hobbies, families, social groups and their charities. They do not
want
to spend a few hours every night reading on topics and making
philosophical
and rational judgments: people do not want to think more than required.


It's
not a global conspiracy of the mass media, René Angelil and Ted Turner
to
keep the majority in the dark : these are free countries; people chose
to
remain indecisive and uninvolved in politics. When the majority is
hungry,
they get involved; but when they do not perceive any major problem, they
choose a representative (and a party) whose ideas globally resemble
their
view and vote for him, entrusting him with the power to take decisions
on
their behalf.


This elected government has a limited freedom of action for 4-5 years,
their
actions have to follow the general lines of their program or else they
will
face a revolt of their militants and representatives, but they are not
required by their supporters to follow each electoral promises they did;
they are politicians after all. This is where lobbying comes in; each
interests group gives a shot at influencing the government decisions.
Lobbying is neither illegal nor surprising, as the citation in my first
email quite nicely puts it: "all power corrupts but we need
electricity". It's clear that politicians are to different degrees movable on decisions,
and
large organizations have some degree of influence on decisions. Lobbies
exist for every minority that wants to influence the government it's
way:
gay rights, big companies, unions, environmentalists, wealthy taxpayers
etc.


To a certain extent, when you go down in the streets and fight with the
cops
to manifest your opinion about the ZLEA or some other globalization
movement, you are a minority that lobbies the government, you are
threatening civil unrest if this or that decision is past. By doing such
actions lobbies very often go against the majority's will: polls are
taken
and show that the majority is against such or such decision, but it does
not
matter to the minority supporting the motion, it will keep pushing the
envelop until the government sways its way.


Now, before going any further, I want to make one point very clear: we
CAN
rely on polls. The only litigious point is the question: there is a
variable
degree of subjectivity that can be introduced in the formulation of a
question that can bias the answer, but the rest is a relatively precise
science: it is statistics and demographics: it's a snapshot of the
population's opinion at a particular moment, within a few percentage
points.


Check out the following link for more information on how polls achieve
their
accuracy: http://www.ncpp.org. Since the question is published with the
poll
results, you can review it and judge for yourself if the question
introduces
a bias. You can also generally review the methodology, it's always
published
with the poll: newspapers do not always reproduce them, but you can get
them
from the pollster.


Since lobbies would not be necessary if the majority would agree to a
decision, one can ague that these work against democracy: they push the
government in directions they may or may not have the mandate for.


The elected government in Washington has an ear for the oil industry, no
one
questions that. Here in Québec, it happens that the unions have the
attention of the government in power; these are facts of life. When it
comes
to war, Americans are for it in a proportion of 70%. (source:
http://www.gallup.com/) The USA is a democracy, and it's population
supports
this war; the reason being petroleum, human rights, democracy, WTC
trauma,
money, it does not matter.


As to getting more informed, and participate actively in the decision
process, the majority does not want to do that; I believe it's probably
better this way. You and I want ourselves and the population to be
better
informed and make rational decisions, we can incite people around us to
be
better informed about their vote and its effects, join a lobby or an
interest group or try to get elected. I chose the first choice as I
don't
like lobbies, and I do not want to get into politics, not for now
anyway.


I will state the opposite of you: you do not need a lot of money to
start a
political party: 500$. Look at "le bloc pot", you do not need a big
budget
to be known. Look at http://www.dgeq.qc.ca/faq/index.html for more
information on how the process works.


As for lobbies, it's granted that lobbies do not care which governments
is
in power, they will lobby nevertheless; what changes is the receptivity
of
the government in place. Bush's advisors and special groups would not
get
much attention with a president like Clinton. To state that democrats
and
republicans are the same is to really not understand American politics.
On
top of that, there are actually several other parties that cater to
minorities: the green party, the libertarians, Marxists-Leninists,
Trotskists, the Reform, etc.


Bush is simply a guy that had the backing of the majority of fellow
party
members.( Just like Jean Chrétien) Being simple minded does not prevent
you
from getting the backing of your fellows party members; he probably has
a
lot of in-person charisma, and good connections in the party
establishment.
It is a system that placed it there; the system is called Democracy.
The
American system even guarantees that the same guy does not govern for
more
than 8 years, that why there is always those leadership races: Bush had
to
win that vote before going on to be elected as the president.
Although I do agree with you that it's not enough, the north-American
governments do give out a lot of humanitarian aid. The USA government is
currently giving 0.1% of it's GDP in humanitarian and developmental aid:
that amounts to 8.7 billion dollars a year (source
http://www.usaid.gov/).
The private charities give out about 1 billion extra overseas, although
way
better administered than public funds. If you want to do something for
the
world's hunger relief, do it with your own money; it's well documented
that
private non-profits have a way better efficiency. A study that I can't
find
anymore was stating that help actually getting to the needy was
somewhere in
the order of 5 times more per dollar for NGOs. Some hunger relief NGO
like
UNICEF are known to be relatively corrupted, but on the other hand,
others
like World Vision (http:www.worldvision.ca) are relatively transparent
and
you can know where the money is going, and have access to their budget
and
expense sheet.


> If we want institutions that go in the sense of equality and
> justice, we'll have to create them: they just don't exist yet in
> ANY modern society (maybe they do in some Scandinavian countries,
> but I won't go into that because I don't know much about their
> institutions).


> It is possible that the things will change after Irak in United
> States, though I seriously doubt it. If the US goes in Kurdistan,
> they'll do it for the petrol, not for the Kurds. Sorry if you
> take it as a blind anti-american stance; I would really hope for
> a different explanation, which I would accept if there is one.


> By the way, you made me realize I kind of idealized the United
> Nations. Thanks, sincerely. I clearly view that UN is submitted
> to the pressures of the different countries in action. Therefore,
> it's actions will mostly go into the sense of what the main
> powers want. For example, in the Balkans, one of the things that
> jammed it was the Russians opposition (for protecting the Serbs).
> It is not a government, it's an organisation, an agora for the
> countries. It has a diplomatic power, but it's quite dim in
> fact.


> Right now, there is little hope the actual war will actually lead to
> a democracy in Irak. Nobody really knows what will happen. What is
> clear
> is that the US want Saddam out and while this will be a plus for human
> rights,
> thinking this will lead to democracy is rather optimistic. Besides,
> the US also said they would bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan:
> the actual situation there, after a war that cost many lives, has not
> changed much: we can't seriously call it a democracy yet and the
> situation of women, just to take it as an example, have not changed
> very much.


> We don't know either the extent of the "collateral" damages this war
> will bring on the country. They will be high and the longer this war,
> the biggest the humanitarian crisis that will follow will be. There is
> also a cost in international relations because of the unilateralism of
> the action, and we should not ignore it.


> So the answer to your first question is that "I can hardly believe
> they're doing it for democracy and human rights. If it's not part of
> their agenda, there is little hope Irak will create democratic
> institutions after the war. And even if it is part of their agenda,
> there is no certainty at all wether they will succeed in doing
> it. However, the humanitarian crisis the war will create in Irak
> cannot be denied. This is why I'm against that war."


On UN, human rights and international law.


Many thinkers argue that the UN is a flawed system, and hardliner
republican
hawks want to do away with it. By putting the US and the UN on a
collision
course, France and Germany are playing a dangerous game, in my opinion.
The
current administration is to blame too, as I have stated earlier, with
their
internal fight.


There is an international convention for the human bill of rights. But
international law has nothing to do about getting them to be respected;
half
of the world lives without freedom of speech right now. International
law is
about borders, international water, diplomatic protocols and procedures.
The


International Criminal Court in the Hague is place where people who are
accused of crimes against humanity are prosecuted because no country
wants
to take on itself the responsibility of a fair trial to ex-dictators,
but as
far as protecting human rights, it's a responsibility of each
government: in
Canada it's in the constitution. These rights come with a sovereign
state,
with the responsibility to vote. In other countries, these people are
given
these rights by us from developed and free countries, but their
constitutions does not grant them these, and therefore their sovereign
government has the (local) right to not respect them.


Sadam has not respected human rights, and he's going down. Post-Sadam,
there
will be a military protectorate like in Afghanistan. If you want to
follow
the progress there, you can check out the link:
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/vLCE/Afghanistan?OpenDocument&StartKey=Afghanistan&Expandview
Every example of post war military occupation by American forces has led
to
democracies, the second and third largest economies of the world have
been
built in 50 years from the ground up and are very successful


democracies,
following a US military occupation.  (Japan and Germany)


There are several other examples; with the rest of the world watching,
the
US does not have a choice. All it wants is regional stability, and a
lower
terrorism threat; a democracy will bring them that, but first a
protectorate
will be necessary in order to restore law and order.


> 'because of people like you' : I don't think I have much power
> over the decisions of any government, so I think I'm free to make
> some judgment mistakes for now, thanks. Besides, this looks like a
> quick generalisation.


I personally do not like lobbies, it's nothing personal. When you
protest
and fight with the police your activism is trying to defeat democracy,
you
know as a fact you are a minority and you still go down in the street to
try
to push your point through. To me, it is bullying tactic, we have
institutions where it is possible to express yourself, you can even go
to
the Assemblée Nationale or to the House of Commons, and there is a
question
period where you can address the leaders.


>Don't take me wrong when I say: "what the terms DEMOCRACY, JUSTICE
>and HUMAN RIGHTS mean to me are different from what they mean to
>you". It doesn't mean we can't have the same official definition, it
>means these words ARE NOT their definitions. They're more like a
>feeling, and I'm sure the feeling inside you (what you "mean") when
>you say one of these words is different from the feeling I have (or
>Saddam, or Bush have).


> That's the same I mean when I say I don't KNOW about oppression. Of
>course I can make a nice definition of it, but my meaning of
>oppression is different from that of an Iraqi, who's oppressed in
>everyday life.


>I'll still try a few definitions:


[.]


A dictionary would clear things up.
Your position seems to involve a lot of hearsay, imprecise information
and
conspiracy theories. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you want
to
argue about it, you have to lay facts down, with their source. If you
put
forward a hypothesis, you have to have evidence that suggest that it is
a
reasonable assumption. It's very hard to argue when even word
definitions
are gut feelings, let alone projections that are unsubstantiated.


Faced with facts and clear definitions, I would be pleased to continue
arguing my views, and review my position if presented with facts and
argumentation that require me to do so in other keep a logical and
rational
view on things.


take care,


Francois