by keybored | 2025-05-25 12:19:46+00:00
(2/2, continued)

> The 2006 election of Hamas to govern the Gaza strip is instructive.

Let’s get a lecture on the problems with democracy by that most democratic and free of occupation entity. Gaza.

> There were insufficient state institutions (or committed outside forces) to ensure that the rules—rules which would have ensured Hamas’ legitimacy as the primary political force in Gaza, at least for that election cycle—were respected. [...]

Ugh, how technical. All too technical when the people of Gaza aren’t even free. That’s much more of a prerequisite then any of this.

> Mob rule and orgies of violence.

The problem with democracy is that it takes violence to overthrow a monarchy. That’s what this paragraph is about. That’s a problem with democracy.

Another problem is that a revolution can lead into a dictatorship. This is the fault of the bourgeoisie revolution and not the repression under the monarchy.

> Dependence on extremist support for political survival.

Again not special to democratic entities.

> As the political balance of their government changes, one might consider what proportion of the limited Lithuanian Land Forces (a division-sized element) may be re-allocated to internal security missions and away from US-led NATO priorities.

Lithuania might need their army for internal security rather than US-led NATO stuff, says US officer.

> Pretextual assertion of emergency powers to extinguish civil liberties.

Ditto.

Just a repetition of the democracy-can-abolish-democracy truism.

> Repression of minority groups.

Is this part about Palestine?

> Inherent in majority rule is that the majority makes the rules.

Again only truisms. Inherent in an absolute monarchy is that one person makes the rules. Inherent in a rule-of-a-thousand is that the thousand makes the rule.

This rule-of-a-thousand is likely to be alike in many respects. What if none of them are of some ethnic minority? What if all the others live in the slums? What do the thosands have to care about them?

This is less of a problem the more spread out the power is. Democracy in other words.

And the process of a “pure democracy” isn’t dictated by the founders or anyone to mean “must have 51% votes on every matter”. You can have consensus processes on some matters where you need to find a consensus that all have to agree to. And you can have a constitution. Amazing stuff.

Having said all that. The “flaw” of democracy was that it didn’t protect the minority of the opulent.[1] But even Federalist Papers devotees apparently think that the founders were woke and wanted to protect the sociological minorities.

> That said, majority rule can involve the use of state power to oppress minority groups. America has easily recalled examples.

The “but America is not a democracy (founding fathers)” fans snap right back to America being a pure democracy when the state did something wrong. But you can’t have it both ways.

> More contemporary examples also often involve conflict between ethnic groups.

> https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/312...

Myamnar was apparently a military dictatorship for fifty years after independence.[4] And Derek Mitchell, 2012–2016 US ambassdor to Myamnar,[5] blames the military for things like persecution of minorities.

And the very link that the author used:

> Mistrustful of the Burman elite who control most levers of power, scores of minority groups have taken up arms since independence.

So is it such a strong democracy that you can blame the democratic part[5] for the persecution of Myanmnar minorities? Of course you can. Because again, in this two-faced worldview, a nominal democracy becomes a pure democracy when something bad happens.

> Redefining conduct to skirt mandatory prohibitions.

Abuse by the military at the executive branch’ order in Abu Ghraib but I would assume Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well. So democratic. Does anything even need to be said here?

> In this instance, the political leadership’s call to unlawful and illegitimate action was largely and steadfastly resisted by the military leadership (particularly the military legal community) based on the baked-in values inherent in Army doctrine. Ultimately, that resistance (as well as the statutory prohibition and related obligations in international law) were overcome by the determination of the political leadership of the day and the primacy of civilian control of the military. #+end_quote

That is honestly the first time I’ve ever heard of that. What a resounding success, too.

And (I wouldn’t bring this up except for this paragraph) how proud the servicepeople must be to protect America by invading the Middle East.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5pJR45HNEM&pp=ygUcY2hvbXNre...

[2] Apparently it is: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

[3] See Robert Dahl and others

[4] https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/g-s1-38848/myanmar-democracy-...

[5] I vaguely recall something by the author about democratic systems not being pure democracies? Well, I guess that especially holds when the military likes to assert their power and do coups.