Notas: Die pad na demokrasie

Shares0Facebook0 Tweet0 Pin0 Print0 Email0 LinkedIn0

Hello,

Die argument gaan oor demokrasie en wie het die reg tot demokrasie. Die argumente teen die uitbreiding van demokrasie is bekend en word opsommend soos volg aangebied.

“Hulle” is nie gereed vir demokrasie nie en het ook geen ervaring met demokrasie nie net soos “hulle” vatbaar is vir geweld en onverdraagsaamheid. In so ‘n bestel is die enigste uiteinde dat ‘n outokrasie of ‘n teokrasie die gevolg gaan wees. Die vraag was ook kan demokrasie werklik buite die Weste bestaan en was van die bekommernisse of dit sou sin maak “to have these other countries governed on the basis of elections that might mobilize the passions of the uneducated and poorly informed “masses”. Soos nou al gesien ook bekend as “die hordes”, ”die massas”, ”die pes”, tot die groot gejuig van ‘n Trienie.

Die volgende argumente teen die reg tot demokrasie word ook uitgelig deur Larry Diamond en word soos volg aangehaal:

In the words of Lucian Pye, one of the most respected scholars of Asian political cultures:

“they not only lacked the intrinsic suspicion of authority that buoyed democracy in the West but practiced a deference to authority that answered deep psychological cravings for the security of dependency”.

Terwyl Elie Kedouri famous British historian of the Middle East dismissed:

“the political traditions of the Arab world—which are the political traditions of Islam,” as completely lacking any understanding of the organizing ideas of constitutional and representative government.”

Dan is daar natuurlik Samuel Huntington wat dit soos volg verwoord en ‘n waarskuwing gerig het oor die volgende:

“fundamental [civilizational] divides.”

Hy het ook klem geplaas op die “cultural distinctiveness of the West, most notably its Christianity, pluralism, individualism, and the rule of law”.

Hy voer ook aan dat:

“Western civilization”, in its commitment to liberal democratic values is valuable not because it is universal but because it is unique.

Hierdie is dan die agtergrond en is tekenend van die tyd waaruit dit kom maar voeg die sosiale wetenskappe die volgende tot bogenoemde toe:

Seymour Martin Lipset, argued theoretically and showed statistically that poor countries were unlikely to sustain democracy; if they would first acquire the facilitating conditions—widespread education, a large middle class, an independent civil society, and liberal democratic values—then democracy would be more viable.

Hierdie was nie die argument volgens Larry Diamond waarvoor Lipset gestaan het, maar was wel so gebruik deur die wat demokrasie wou inperk.

Dit is aangevoer dat ontwikkeling slegs volgens die volgende patroon kan geskied:

Countries had to grow rich under authoritarian rule; then they would be able to sustain democracy.

Die tweede argument ontwikkel deur die sosiale wetenskappe in verhouding tot die beperking van demokrasie word soos volg verwoord:

The second intellectual tradition was dependency theory, which insisted that Third World countries were poor because the West had trapped them in a structural condition of economic dependence and servitude (a modern form of imperialism. To break out, argued theorists countries needed to concentrate power, assert control over their natural resources, seize and redistribute land, expel multinational corporations or expropriate their holdings, renegotiate unfair terms of trade, and sideline a domestic business class that was doing the bidding of foreign governments and business interests. While (socialist) dictatorship was not necessarily the political prescription of this school, its critical analysis tended to reinforce the narratives and legitimize the claims of Marxist revolutionary movements and one-party dictatorships.

Hierdie alles behoort duidelik te wees vir almal wat nou al sonder end moes aanhoor hoekom demokrasie nie in Suid-Afrika kon implementeer word nie.

In teenstelling met die argument dat die verspreiding van demokrasie ‘n hoogtepunt bereik het en beperk sou wees tot die Weste het daar ‘n drastiese uitbreiding gekom vanaf die 1980’s deur die 1990’s en het nou stabiliseer op ongeveer 3 uit 5 lande of dan 60% wat standhoudend demokraties bly.

Die gunsteling argument is dat demokrasie as ‘n unieke eienskap net die Weste toekom, maar Larry Diamond dui die volgende aan:

Democracy has taken root or at least been embraced by every major cultural group, not just the societies of the West with their Protestant traditions. Most Catholic countries are now democracies, and very stable ones at that. Democracy has thrived in a Hindu state, Buddhist states, and a Jewish state. And many predominantly Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Indonesia, have by now had significant and mainly positive experience with democracy. People virtually everywhere say they prefer democracy to authoritarianism. What people want is not a retreat to dictatorship but a more accountable and deeper democracy.

Die mensdom het dus sy keuse gemaak en word byvoorbeeld in ‘n meningsopname gedoen in Afrika waar 70% van die respondente aangedui het dat hulle keuse vir demokrasie is. In Afrika het bitter ondervinding geleer dat sonder demokrasie is beide vryheid en brood buite bereik en dat dit die fondasie is van die beskerming van alle verdere regte.

Dit word aanvaar dat demokrasie in ‘n land kan misluk, grootliks as gevolg van korrupsie en die mag wat deur gekose leiers misbruik word om regte terug te rol en dan nooit van die mag afstand doen nie.

Die vraag was, is daar ‘n fondasie in Suid-Afrika vir ‘n suksesvolle land daargestel?

Die antwoord kan wees, die beste manier om demokrasie te bereik is deur demokrasie.

Sekerlik beaam historici dit.

Baie dankie

Wouter

Shares0Facebook0 Tweet0 Pin0 Print0 Email0 LinkedIn0

Kommentaar

Wouter

2013-03-17 at 09:47

Hello,

In die inleidende skrywe word die volgende opmerking gemaak:

In die Beeld van die naweek publiseer Dr. Leopold Scholtz, http://www.beeld.com/Rubrieke/Gasrubriekskrywers/Demokrasie-is-vir-ANC-lastig-20130315-2 die volgende kommentaar en word sommige van die punte hier aangehaal:

In Hongarye het die party Fidesz van premier Viktor Orbán pas grondwetwysigings deur die parlement gejaag wat die demokrasie in sy hart tref.

Die grondwetwysigings kom daarop neer dat die konstitusionele hof daar voortaan nie meer wette of optrede van die regering inhoudelik aan die grondwet mag toets nie, slegs of die korrekte prosedure gevolg is.

Die wysigings bevat ook verskeie elemente wat tevore deur die konstitusionele hof as ongrondwetlik verklaar is.

Só kry die regering die reg om mense wat op straat leef te beboet of toe te sluit en word wetgewing so verander dat gay-huwelike onmoontlik word.

Ook word regters verbied om op presidente van voor 2011 te steun wanneer hulle uitspraak oor ’n saak lewer.

Politieke advertensies op handelsradio en -TV word verbied.

Peilings wys Fidesz word tans deur slegs 18% van die kiesers gesteun. Maar alles dui daarop dat Orbán – soos pres. Robert Mugabe van Zimbabwe – alles sal doen wat nodig is om kiesers te intimideer en die verkiesingsuitslag so te manipuleer dat hy in die kussings bly sit.

Dr. Scholtz wil deur die voorbeeld van Hongarye by die volgende punt uitkom:

Hongarye se lotgevalle moet ’n ernstige waarskuwing vir Suid-Afrika inhou. Ons land is geseën met ’n uitstekende grondwet waarvan veral die Handves van Menseregte nie werklik grondig verander mag word nie.

Dit help.

Maar die ANC kom uit ’n agtergrond waar die liberale veelparty-demokrasie as ’n hindernis beskou is. Soos sy ideologiese leermeesters in die Kremlin was die beweging, oorheers deur harde kommuniste, uit op die vestiging van ’n eenparty-diktatuur in Suid-Afrika.

Met die ineenstorting van die kommunisme het die ANC – tydelik – teruggekrabbel. Maar alles dui daarop dat hy die demokrasie opnuut as ’n lastige hindernis begin beskou.

Nie noodwendig op grond van ’n kommunistiese ideologie nie, maar op grond van sy groeiende magslus.

Die ANC mág nie slaag nie.

Dit word aan die leser gelaat om te oordeel.

Der Spiegel rapporteer soos volg daarop:

Constitutional Reforms

Hungary Steps Away from European Democracy

By Keno Verseck

As expected, the Hungarian parliament on Monday evening passed a package of constitutional amendments that legal experts say are an affront to democracy.

Prime Minster Viktor Orbán, like Áder a member of the conservative Fidesz party, has expanded his power dramatically.

The amendments weaken the country's constitutional court, the last defender of Hungary's constitutional state, and they limit the independence of the entire judiciary branch.In other words, a country at the center of the European Union is moving away from the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

The vote on Monday evening in Budapest easily provided Fidesz with the two-thirds majority it needed to pass the amendments, with 265 voting in favor, 11 against and 33 abstaining.

László Kövér, president of Hungarian parliament and one of the most influential men in the country, was a primary mover behind the cause. He is a veteran leader of Fidesz and, when it comes to issues of nationhood and country, he doesn't shy away from confrontation.

Last Friday, in an interview with the conservative broadcaster Hír TV, he laid out his theory that the world was conspiring against Hungary.

International capitals, the EU and the United States had singled out Hungary as a "symbol of their Cold War," he said, simply because the government in Budapest had rejected the "forced path of liberalism."

The constitutional amendments do, in fact, represent a serious departure from the principles of liberal democracy and civil rights is a view shared by the opposition, EU policymakers and also legal scholars. Hungarian constitutional law expert Gábor Halmai has called the reforms a "systematic abolishment of the constitutional order," while Hamburg-based European law expert Markus Kotzur calls the changes "highly problematic."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who is due to meet with President Áder on Tuesday, said the German government "has left no doubt that Europe is a community of values, and that we expect these values to be lived out."

Among the most controversial aspects of the reform are severe limitations on the power of the constitutional court.

The court will now be allowed to review the constitution or amendments to it based only on formal procedural aspects, not on their actual content. Additionally, all the court's decisions prior to the date when the country's new constitution came into force in 2012 are to be invalidated, essentially eliminating precedence.

Freedom of expression is also to be limited when it damages the broadly defined "dignity of the Hungarian nation."

Students will be required to stay and work in Hungary for a certain time after finishing a university degree, or else pay tuition fees -- a measure meant to curb the emigration of highly-educated workers and academics.

The reforms also write into the constitution certain laws that had previously been overturned and deemed unconstitutional by the high court, making them essentially untouchable.

These include a ban on the homeless from loitering in public spaces, and allowance of the state to prosecute them for violations; a ban on electoral campaign advertising in private media; and an exclusion of umarried, childless or same-sex couples in the official definition of family.

In die lig van bogenoemde kan die argumente soos dit in Suid-Afrika oor Zanufikasie die rondte doen ook ondersoek word.

Baie dankie,

Wouter

Litnet

Notas: Die pad na demokrasie

Kommentaar

Reageer Cancel reply