|
| |
Why Democracies
evolve into
Dictatorships
By James Cooke
08/18/06 "Information
Clearing House" -- -- It took only six years
with Bush Jr. as President to give birth to a new generation
of radical political activists, journalists, and
commentators, whose main concerns are subjecting the insane
policies of the President to exposure and condemnation;
this, it seems, constitutes the foundation for nearly the
entire realm of real political opposition in the U.S. The
strategy here is limited to educating people about the
destructive policies of the Republicans and hoping that in
response, a protest or political movement will evolve
powerful enough to either reform or displace those in power.
Education of course, is absolutely crucial in transforming
any dissident organization into an entity capable of action
and results. However, by focusing only on the policies of
the Republicans, without explaining the larger framework
from whence they came, political education is greatly
hindered, limiting the potential for effective action.
Undoubtedly, the neo-conservative movement is treated with
mystical awe by those responsible for criticizing it.
Liberal commentators continue to respond with hysterics or
dumfoundedness at the ability of Conservatives to destroy
civil liberties while thus far waging three preemptive wars
(yes Lebanon is a U.S. war). It should have been clear by
now— with the media and Democrats suppressing or supporting
the most blatant atrocities engineered by the Republicans—
that larger forces are at play.
Historically speaking, the transition from democracy to
dictatorship has appeared in various forms, including
military coup, civil war, election tampering and ‘emergency’
situations requiring ‘special’ powers— with Bush’s growing
authority fitting into the latter two categories. Although
dictatorial forms differ radically in their appearance, at
bottom there remain essential common features.
A dictatorship cannot be formed from the heavens; there must
be in every instance a background of interests and groups
that aide the regime by finances, apologetics, or aggressive
support. These interests too have a historical background,
originating from their position as beneficiaries of the
economic arrangement of society. Dictatorship has been, with
few exceptions, performed in the service of a minority;
these dictatorships have always represented the interests of
the financial elite. By limiting the definition thusly, we
are able to make connections with the fascists of Italy,
Japan, and Germany, to the century-old dictatorships of the
neo-colonial world.
It is in the interests of any ruling class to maintain
government control by Democratic means, since the effort in
maintaining order is less taxing, and the ease of channeling
discontent through compromise and concession is increased.
It must be asked then: why do these groups, who already
contain tremendous wealth and prestige, trouble themselves
by resorting to the barbaric and complicated policies that
are implied by dictatorship, rather than keeping the
less-conflicted relationships that are found under a more
democratic government? We must dismiss the shallow answers
of ‘greed’ or ‘insanity’ out of hand, especially when there
are much more sensible answers.
To the dismay of the ruling classes, the social conditions
of society change in a way they have no control over. As
corporations follow the rules of profit-making, they
inadvertently create at the same time an ever-widening
polarization of wealth. As the rich get richer, and the poor
poorer, social conditions gradually change, until the
exploited classes suddenly start making demands, or begin
acts of ‘anarchy’,i.e., strikes, protests, factory
occupations, and rebellion. Social inequality in the U.S.
has had staggering increases in the last 10 years, to the
point where there are now (realistically) 45 million people
living in poverty, 2 million in prison, and with the
processes of a profit-based globalization and harsher
criminal penalties in place, the numbers will inevitably
rise.
A dictatorship is thus the necessary evil born out of the
natural processes of capitalism. Heightened executive powers
are needed to suppress civil unrest, create social
stability, and insure the industries essential to the
‘nations’ economy are not disrupted by strikes; destroying
civil liberties that allow protest, organization, and
freedom of expression are timeless policies in combating a
disgruntled populace.
Explaining dictatorship as a result of social inequality is
especially relevant to third-world nations, where ‘order’ is
needed to ensure that the countries are ‘stable’ enough to
be used as a source for markets and raw-materials for their
colonial masters; however, this explanation cannot be
applied across the board.
For industrialized nations, the causes of dictatorship
become more complex. In addition to social polarization, 1st
world nations are also involved in constant economic and
regional expansion— a phenomenon easily traced to the
interests of the capitalists pulling the strings. A
government is only as powerful as the corporate might behind
it; the interdependence of nation-state and corporate
interests is revealed by the fact that both are ruled by the
same laws of the market, meaning, that at bottom, each are
governed by the processes of either expansion and growth, or
stagnation and decline. In the same way that stagnation in
the corporate world equals recession or depression, so too
are these principles reflected by the mediators of financial
interests— the nation-state. For a country to be in decline
means that its global influence is waning; it has lost
influence over foreign nations, preventing the exploitation
of raw materials and favored market access for manufactured
goods, or rather, the country in question is unable to
supply the basis for the corporations within its boundaries
to dominate globally— thus, the goals of the nation-state
and the corporation cannot be separated.
The activities of the present-day United States are a case
in point. The U.S. has been compensating for its declining
economic position with military adventurism to control the
vast oil reserves of the Middle East. Proof of this
assertion can be candidly found in the writings of the
now-infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In
their ’Statement of Principles’, it says:
”We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing
the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the
military investments and the foreign policy achievements --
built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs
and defense spending, inattention to the tools of
statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it
increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around
the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits
threatens to override strategic considerations”
Advocating this perspective gave the Neo-cons immense
credibility within the world of big-business, who responded
with record-setting campaign contributions and— in an
important first step in destroying Democracy in the U.S—
managed to get Bush ‘appointed’ President by the Supreme
Court.
The aggressive foreign policy of the Republicans, which has
found unanimous reception throughout most sections of the
ruling-elite, has created immense dissatisfaction and
opposition from the majority of the population. To deal with
this hostility, the repressive measures detailed in the
Patriot Act and illegal NSA spying program have been used to
monitor, intimidate and quell protest.
Much of the same measures used to deal with third-world
resistance are used likewise to handle the political
opposition in the United States. Aside from having a virtual
monopoly on Democracy by disallowing third-party candidates
from the ballot, there are other clever tactics being
employed.
The Orwellian ‘War on Terror’ has proven to be the most
effective strategy that both parties continue to use in
order to install fear, destroy civil liberties, and promote
war. The government has effectively applied the
especially-vague term ‘terrorist’ to apply to political
opposition groups. Organizations like Green Peace, Food Not
Bombs, and Independent Media have been— in different
localities— placed on the ‘terror watch list’. This is not
some random mistake, but a deliberate attempt at
intimidation, revealing— aside from preemptive war— one half
of the motive for the ‘war on terror’. The new ambiguous
war-slogan has reached such ridiculous proportions that
environmental protest-groups are called ‘eco-terrorists’,
while drug traffickers are ‘narco-terrorists’— the potential
for the euphemism is seemingly unlimited. In fact, the
situation has deteriorated to such an extent that we are
told that any criticism of the government’s policies is
equal to helping the ‘Islamic fascists’.
Behind the conservative shift of nearly every industrial
country in the world is the worsening profit-crises suffered
by their respective corporate managers. Since the
short-lived ‘tech boom’, there has only been desperateness
and uneasiness voiced by international commerce, who has
successfully been treading water by forcing slave-wages on
the emerging economies of China and India, and thus creating
the need to reduce wages and benefits everywhere. Once
again, the profit-crisis is yet another inherent feature in
the processes of capitalism, which creates ‘lack of demand’
–or excess supply— by constantly lowering the wages of
workers to increase profit, while continuing to flood the
markets of the world with products. This process takes on an
especially-dangerous character when the competing industrial
nations are facing the same problem, while trying to
increase their positions by acquiring— by any means
necessary— the worlds last remaining key-resources and
markets.
Society is not, nor has it ever been, an independent arbiter
of interests. Corporate profit rates— depending heavily on
the impoverishment of their workers— are often used to
measure the economic health of a nation. In times of
economic growth and social stability, Democracy seems like a
fine thing, even if there are broad layers of society who
suffer from generational poverty or the horrors of
homelessness. Although the world—and especially the United
States— experienced unprecedented growth after World War II,
these conditions have reached their natural limit. The
conditions that created the foundation for class and
international peace have turned into their opposite.
Exposing the policies that are destroying our freedoms while
yelling ‘this cant be happening’ can raise political
consciousness to a considerable extent, but it cannot direct
discontent towards a sustainable solution. Impeaching Bush
or defeating reactionary congressmen will not alter the
current course of events undertaken by the bi-partisan
agreement on militarism and war. It also seems incredibly
naïve to think that the Democrats— many of whom are
Ivy-league graduates and multi-millionaire businessmen— are
ignorant of the motives of their so-called rivals; the
Democrats are not simply ‘uninformed’ about the nature and
basis of imperialism, nor can they be persuaded to take a
radical path— the party itself is based solidly on the same
corporate foundations as their nominal oppossition. This
demands an independent strategy. Any course, if it is to be
effective, must be based on the interests of the majority of
the population, in stark contrast with the minority who
benefit from the profit-system. The interests of the
wage-earner, in comparison to that of the stock-holder, are
elaborated and promoted by the program of international
socialism.
James Cooke -
jc26cooke@yahoo.com
First published at Sociast Perspectives - a
weekly blog dedicated to current events, history, and
political theory from a socialist viewpoint.
http://socialistperspectives.blogspot.com
|