|
May
1, 2003
After
'Liberation,' Democracy
A
False and Violent Religion
As
any survivor of Imperial "liberation"
can attest, it is usually followed by the mass conversion
to the conquerors' religion, Democracy. As with most religions,
it means different things to different people. Its definition
is kept deliberately vague to preclude criticism, and even
when offered, frequently changes for the same reason. Because
of its asserted and perceived planetary primacy of lethal
force, the Empire reserves the right to define Democracy any
which way it pleases at any given time, and trump any other
definition – by
force, if so desired.
Democracy's
sinister
nature has been addressed in this space before, as was
its futility.
The best scholarly dissection of the false religion is undoubtedly
Hans-Herman Hoppe's Democracy:
the God that Failed. Also well-documented is the distaste
of America's founders for the damnable delusion, which unfortunately
did not prevent their Republic from becoming
the Democratic Empire.
Misconceptions
of the beguiled masses aside, Democracy clearly destroys
freedom, and its fundamental disrespect of property rights
is unquestionably opposite to prosperity. To quote what is
attributed
to Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb
voting on what to have for lunch." Put that way, it seems
humorous – but it is also lethal, more so because most people
still believe in it.
The
Empire's greatest victory was convincing the world Democracy
was good. Now even those who oppose Imperial conquest do so
claiming they fight for the "real" Democracy, which
is why their resistance remains a losing proposition.
The
Enemy of Peace
Last
April, this column advanced
the argument that Democracy was at the root of the Bosnian
War:
Bosnia
went to war because of democracy. Ethnic parties that came
to power in Bosnia after the 1990 election all had "democratic"
in their names: Croat Democratic Union (HDZ), Serb
Democratic Party (SDS), and the Muslims' Party
of Democratic Action (SDA). Together, they took democracy
to its most extreme: the will of their voters led to forcible
relocations, combined with property seizures and murder on
a large scale. Ethnicity and party membership became synonyms,
voting mirrored census results, and politics transcended taxes
and plunder to become a game of life and death.
Apparently,
what happened in Bosnia was not an exception, but rather the
rule. According to attorney and noted libertarian scholar,
James Ostrowski,
not only logic, but also "empirical evidence indicates
that democracy promotes ethnic and religious conflict."
Noting
that 23 of 29 recent intrastate conflicts have occurred under
democratic governments, Ostrowski argues that in democracies,
"people tend to vote along ethnic and religious lines.
It is inherent in the nature of democracy. […] Thus,
ethnic voting is a rational response to the problem of rational
ignorance about candidates and issues. Ethnic identity provides
valuable information at very low cost. Given its efficiency,
it always has been and likely always will be a major factor
in elections." (original emphasis)
Given
this, Ostrowski argues not only that "democracy, inherently,
contains the seeds of ethnic conflict," (original emphasis)
but also that "conflict created by democracy necessarily
worsens over time," (original emphasis) as government
power grows and with it the discontent of the groups that
are in the ethnic and political minority.
Bosnia
Demystified
Bosnia
bears proof that Ostrowski's thesis is entirely accurate.
Even after seven years of occupation, tyranny and social engineering
of the most extreme kind, its inhabitants still vote along
ethnic lines.
Worse
yet, the Imperial occupiers continue to insist on creating
a unified state. "We still do not have a truly functioning
democratic government in Bosnia Herzegovina, one that exercises
a unitary sovereignty recognized by all factions," retired
General Montgomery Meigs, former commander of NATO occupying
forces in Bosnia, recently
wrote. Never mind that this is expressly opposed by over
half of Bosnia's population, as the very issue over which
the war was fought, and that this "unitary sovereignty"
will never be voluntarily recognized by all
factions.
Because
of this, and keeping in mind Ostrowski's thesis about ethnic
conflict inherent in democracy and worsening over time, it
becomes clear that Democracy and Bosnia are mutually exclusive.
Only if most of Bosnia's non-Muslims somehow disappear can
that state continue to exist in the form now envisioned.
The
refusal to understand this obvious truth is at the root of
the opposition Social-Democrats' failure to challenge the
status quo. Their recently announced policy, advocating
a unified citizen republic where ethnic and religious affiliations
will be politically irrelevant, indicates that wishful thinking
is definitely interfering with sound judgment.
Meanwhile,
the prevailing atmosphere of despair has predictably created
an impetus to leave. A recent
poll showed that 30% of Bosnia's inhabitants wish to leave
the country permanently, another 44% would live abroad for
a while but eventually return, and only 25% would stay no
matter what. Ironically, these figures are one of the rare
things that do transcend ethnic lines.
Croatia,
Kosovo and Macedonia: Further Examples
Bosnia
has three major ethnic groups and no clear majority, so its
case may be a bit extreme. But other conflicted parts of former
Yugoslavia validate Ostrowski's thesis just as well.
- Croatia
has been a democratic country since 1991. It helps that
most
of its Serbs are gone, though.
- In
Macedonia, democracy has led to the 2001 Albanian
rebellion, ostensibly fought for "greater human
rights" but clearly aimed at separation (see
map). As a result, most ethnic Macedonians have been
expelled
from Albanian-controlled areas, and are still unable to
return. So much for human rights, then.
- The
occupied Serbian province of Kosovo is now dominated by
ethnic Albanians, who are busily establishing
a democracy after violently expelling most others and
trying to make
the rest follow suit.
In
all three cases, as well as in Bosnia, democracy-driven ethnic
conflicts have resulted in "ethnic cleansing": yet
another crime that can be laid at the feet of the false god.
Serbia:
A War Of One's Own
Kosovo
can be seen as Serbia's brush with open democratic warfare,
but it is by far not the only instance of ethno-religious
conflict. Montenegro's leaders are obviously aware of the
potency of ethnic politics, as they campaign for separation
from Serbia on both ethnic and religious grounds. They've
even invented
a church and a language for the purpose.
The
Serbian regime's zealous commitment to Democracy has predictably
encouraged complaints of "mistreatment" by ethnic
minorities. Hungarians in the north, Muslims in the southwest,
and Albanians in the south have all claimed "ethnic cleansing"
and discrimination, while recently members of the Vlach
minority in the east have declared themselves oppressed
ethnic Romanians. While these complaints might indicate that
the Serbian state is repressive (well, yes it is – but irrespective
of ethnicity), they really mean it is the most multi-ethnic
in the region, and thus naturally susceptible to conflicts
Democracy brings...
Perhaps
the most intriguing is the ongoing conflicts among the Serbs
themselves, which seems ideological but is really more ethno-religious.
It is the contest over the nature of their country between
the anti-ethnic Democrats/"modernist reformers,"
currently in power, and the traditionalists/patriots/"nationalists".
The Democrats are an excruciatingly
vocal minority, determined not just to impose their views
on the rest but to actually remake
society. Recent purges, conducted in the name of "war
on crime" after the assassination of Prime Minister
Djindjic (a Democrat leader in more ways than one), has served
their purposes splendidly.
The
Democrats are many things, but mostly anti-ethnic (i.e. anti-Serb)
and pro-Empire. Now that they are in charge of Serbs, they
seek to "cleanse" them of the stigma imposed by
the Empire's blockade, demonization and ostracism during the
1990s (while, of course, blaming the Serbs themselves for
all those).
Now,
self-purification is "one of the most dominant motives
in any socially stigmatized group. One tries to wash away
the taint that your opponents have attached to you by finding
someone within your own movement who is more distasteful,
more extreme… then denouncing him. Best of all if you
can lead the chorus of ostracism. That renders you yourself
ritually pure, at least for a while – and joins you securely
to the community that has now been purged." (J.P.
Zmirak)
The
important difference here is that Democrats are not purging
themselves, but the Serbian people they rule, and actually
deplore their identity and heritage. They are currently triumphant
primarily because their opponents are disorganized, devoid
of ideas and programs, cowed by propaganda, and most of all
confused, because they also claim to favor Democracy.
A
Heritage of Strife
The
first Yugoslavia was a monarchy and a dictatorship with just
the outer trappings of Democracy, and its ethnic disputes
resulted in a World War Two genocide.
One could argue that the Socialist federation was democratic
(under the modern definition of narrowly accepted "democratic"
values), and Tito certainly governed Yugoslavia with a keen
understanding of ethnic conflicts. He played various groups
against each other, while setting himself up as the ultimate
arbiter of their disputes – and thus their supreme ruler.
But when he passed from this world to meet the real Supreme
Ruler, he left no successor. Yugoslavia soon
converted to open Democracy, and the results are obvious.
Between
that, and a legacy of socialism and statism of some kind or
another, the former Yugoslavia (as well as the rest of the
peninsula and half of Europe, really) has suffered an enormous
cost
in human spirit already, not to mention lives and property.
If not for their misguided belief in Democracy, most people
would have long since decided they've had enough, and sought
liberty.
The
Big Lie
If
the 20th century has been a century of Democracy,
then it's little wonder it has also been the bloodiest in
human history. Here is a quasi-religious notion that is said
to promote liberty and prosperity, while in reality it is
the worst enemy of both. It is said to promote peace, but
it really causes conflict and destruction. It
is also the ultimate sacrilege: the elevation of State to
godhood.
Why
anyone honest and good would support Democracy, knowing all
this, is truly beyond understanding.
–
Nebojsa Malic
|
comments
on this article?
|
|
|
Please Support Antiwar.com
Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Ave., Suite #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
Your
contributions are now tax-deductible
|
