logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-03-28 08:18:20 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005

  Novecento
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Novecento  (Read 1421 times)
rhinoceros
Adept
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 7.97
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Novecento
« on: 2005-09-12 08:01:40 »
Reply with quote

<quote>
"I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then.  In 1900, women did not have the right to vote.  If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.  I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy."
<end quote>


The title of the post refers to Bertolucci's movie "1900" with Robert De Niro (1976). The... elderly may remember it. So, what about 1900? The reason I remembered it was this interview which I noticed last month and thought that it offered some handles for a discussion about democracy, but then I forgot:


Transcript for August 21
Trent Lott, Russ Feingold, Larry Diamond and Reuel Marc Gerecht
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/

<snip>
Differing viewing on how to secure Iraq and whether a stable, democratic government is even possible.  With us, Larry Diamond, author of "Squandered Victory:  The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq," and Reuel Marc Gerecht, former Middle Eastern specialist with the CIA and author of "The Islamic Paradox."
<snip>

MR. GREGORY:  Fast forward to this morning.  Gentlemen, we put this on the screen from The New York Times.  "[American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay] Khalilzad had backed language [in the constitution] that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes.  That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are annunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed. ... [The[ arrangement, coupled with the expansive language for Islam, prompted accusations from [a Kurdish leader] that the Americans were helping in the formation of an Islamic state."

Mr. Diamond, is that a change of position?

MR. DIAMOND:  It would be, I think, a substantial change if it's true.  We need to wait and see what exactly is true.  All of these are just reports. Let me say, I don't think we have--and I think Reuel would agree with this--we don't have the power anymore to foreclose this, to veto this.  We're not a veto player there anymore.  But neither do I think the United States should be endorsing it.  And I think our clear stand should be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, as vigorously as possible. So I hope the ambassador on the ground is standing up for that principle.

MR. GREGORY:  Mr. Gerecht, the consequences of this?

MR. GERECHT:  Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this.  I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible.  It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote.  I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then.  In 1900, women did not have the right to vote.  If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.  I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy.  We hope they're there.  I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
<end snip>


[rhinoceros]
So, it is back to 1900... If you remember that women's rights in Iraq were well ahead of other Middle East countries during Saddam, the question comes up: What is democracy really, and what is really being promoted in Iraq?

What are the immutable definitive characteristics of democracy? Is it the right to choose a president such as G.W.Bush, and if so, based on what information, supplied by whom? By what criteria was he chosen as the best for the job among all Americans? The election debates on TV where the candidates are compared by the commentators in terms of posture or how photogenic they are offer some clues. Or is democracy just any rule-based system?

What makes Saddam (or even the elected Hugo Chavez according to some) a dictator? What made the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia not a dictator? Was it the royal tradition?

Or is democracy something which must permeate society in all kinds of small things?

Or does the word depend on the context and sometimes it only means setting up a field for the corporations?

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed