Mock Democracy?s Turpitudes and the New Paths to Explore

By Ndzana Seme

01/26/2004 ? At this very moment when the Republican White House imposes its decision to export the
American democracy, notably to Iraq, it is troubling to find out that the American political system itself is
undemocratic. The allegations of electoral frauds and the court sentences that enthroned George W. Bush
as the American president in 2000, the policies of lies, deception and empire building adopted in defiance
of the people?s opinion, and the circus currently unfolding during the 2004 election campaigns, show
nothing less than an absence of democracy in the U.S.

Two critical questions should be answered in order to say whether the American system is a democracy or
not. Representation is it synonymous with democracy? A system that is manipulated by ?organized money?
? also known as the Establishment - notably its favored media tools, should it ever be seen as a democracy?

Democracy is a system where the People is sovereign. In Western societies, the People comprises all
individuals who have reached a minimum age to vote. The People exercises its sovereignty through
decisions that are based upon its opinions. Therefore Democracy is the government of the People by the
People itself.

Since its Founding Fathers? times, the American political system is strongly rooted on representation,
considered as the only method possible for translating the People?s opinions into meaningful decisions;
since a chatting People is viewed as a rabble, known as unable to govern. This argument supposes that the
People?s representative is subjected only to the people he/she represents.

Yet Washington has become the symbol of a place where the ?organized money? creates and subjects the
People?s representatives to its interests, often against the People?s opinions and needs.

G W Bush is the typical candidate the ?organized money? would choose and impose to the People.
Because Bush does not hesitate to support his soft money donors? interests, he is able to raise campaign
money more than any other presidential candidate. He reassures the Establishment because he would use
the American taxpayers? money to engage the U.S. into wars against nations, which ensures contracts to
armament manufacturers, markets to oil companies, and reconstruction contracts to friends, instead of
actually fighting terrorism efficiently through intelligence and battles on the spot where terrorists hide. He
would create a $15 billion AIDS/HIV program that finally benefits American pharmaceutical companies
and protects their intellectual property. Etc.

The most amazing is the fate currently facing Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has tried to
escape the ?organized money?, by raising campaign money directly from grassroots over Internet. His
victory seems to be short-life. The media took care of sullying this intruder?s public picture. On the other
hand the same media brought out a questionable story about the now contender John Kerry, celebrated as
a war hero for having allegedly saved the life of an American soldier in the middle of a rain of bullets during
a Vietnam battle.

And the public bought it, without questioning the news, by thinking that the candidate who would beat Bush
should be a war hero. Even though 75% of the same Iowa population polled did not approve the war on
Iraq, the same population found that Kerry, who voted for the war on Iraq, is the best Democrat
presidential candidate; and not Howard Dean who strongly opposed that war. When the media make fun
of Dean, we should understand that the ?organized money? actually makes a mock of the grassroots?
efforts to take control of the American political system. Democracy becomes nothing else but a mockery
when people polled say they chose John Edwards ?because he looks nice?.

The pollsters would not include the question whether the People thinks that presidents with a military
background are the best U.S. leaders. They would not, because this would bring the essential debate about
the definition of the criteria that candidates should fill to be allowed to seek the White House?s presidential
seat. This type of debates is the one that the ?organized money? would allow the least; because such
criteria would limit its ability to impose any candidates it wants.

The organized money?s media fight Howard Dean, not because he opposed the war on Iraq, but rather
because he promises that he would dismantle the Washington rings of representatives? corruption and give
the power back to the People. He didn?t say how he is going to do it, but he means he would establish a
Democracy in the U.S. - and that is scary for the Establishment.

When the People has less influence over its representatives than the ?organized money?, the system of
representation is definitely undemocratic. When the People has no influence over the expression of its own
opinions, such a system is just a ?mock democracy? as William Greider called it.

Who owns and controls the pollster organizations that currently tell the People in New Hampshire what the
People thinks? Has the People any control over the accuracy and objectivity of the polls published by
Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby, CNN-USA Today-Gallup, Marist Institute, American Research Group, Boston
Globe-WBZ-TV, or Suffolk University-WHDH-TV?

The U.S. is governed by a political system where the ?organized money? is sovereign, not the People. For
at least this critical reason, not only the U.S. political system is a mock democracy, it is not a democracy at
all.

In its attempts to impose its ?American democracy? in the occupied Iraq - a country with 60% of Chiite
Muslims -, it is ridiculous to note that one of the Republican White House?s proposed solutions is the
establishment of caucuses, similar on all counts to the redistricting decisions that recently forced Texan
representatives into exile. It is fearful that transplanting the American undemocratic system in Iraq would
settle that nation into an irrevocable chaos, with an endless growth of anti-American sentiment and
insecurity within the Middle Eastern societies.

Representation is not unavoidable in a Democracy. Ancient Greeks did not need representatives in their
perfect Democracy. In their agora, the People just spoke with one voice. Ancient Nile people, the Ancient
Greek thinkers? instructors, also spoke with one voice; which is perpetuated in contemporary African
societies.

The African ?palaver tree? or ?palaver house?, like the Ancient Greek agora, is the setting par excellence
for the democratic expression. This system of real Democracy had been tested out in America, with the
town hall meetings.

It is advanced that television and telephone, by isolating individuals and restricting them to one on one
communication, while democratic expression is most fruitful only within group debates, have moved
Democracy away. But it is also true that those who defend the Founding Fathers? obsolete system,
because they benefit the most of it, are the biggest bridle for the implementation of Democracy. We must
agree that Democracy is direct, or it is not.

The cacophony that characterizes the People in an anthropocentric society makes the implementation of
Democracy difficult. As long as the People is authorized only to speak by onomatopoeias, such as Yes or
No, instead of clear and various opinions, there will not be Democracy.

One way leading to Democracy is by reestablishing communities, similar to the African ?palaver trees? or
the Greek agoras, as the basic political cells for the democratic expression. Information technology
software applications are currently able to treat data with various opinions, notably in marketing; more
powerful applications can be developed to treat more diverse People?s opinions. Why is it that, when
business is concerned a world dominated by futurism is created on a daily basis, but when Democracy is
concerned eighteen century methods are deified?

Communaucracy(1) , the government of the people by communities, is a political system that can give
sovereignty back to the People.

(1) Communaucracy is a political system defended by Ndzana Seme in his economic and political essay (only the French version is
already available) entitled ?Démocratiser le Capital ? Tome I Le Communautarisme aux frontières du péril libéral en sociétés du Sud ?
Tome II La Communaucratie aux frontières du péril républicain en sociétés du Sud?

Back home

________________________________________________________________________________
___________
©2003 The African Independent, Inc. All rights to republication are reserved