There Was a Time

I remember writing, two years ago, an essay on Global Politics. It was a second year university course. Actually, there was two of them, I took both. The final exam was no big deal, but the essay... I talked about africa a lot, I think. I remember reading about Congo. This man, Mobutu Sese Seko, was the president or some such of the Republic of Congo. He was also affiliated with the CIA. Anyway, it's a long and short story, but the upper echelons of government in congo were corrupt, and in the 90's, when he was exiled, this Seko guy had made the situation in Congo far, far worse that it would have been had the money given to Congo had actually gone somewhere other than his pockets. But I have mentioned this before, in class. This is a classic example of  What Happens When Democracy Fails... In many, many cases the western world attempts to implement a System For The Betterment Of All Humans but it falls prey to the opportunistic personalities located helter skelter along the system. With nothing but empty sky above their heads, leaders are free to become What They Are In The Dark. I think that all nations that begin as a democratically - Haha. I just had a flashes-of -light-connecting-the-dots moment.


Our democracy is effectively protected and stabilized by the presence of the Crown. This is a statement. 19th c. France, {who's  leaders at the time of the 1st and 2nd republic; Robespierre and Napoleon 3rd were chosen by election or vote within the parliament or commune} had abolished it's monarchy, and for good reason. But the reality of social instabilities, coupled with popular support within the ruling senate/commune/parliament infrastructure could potentially lead - and did, to the establishing of a regime. Alternately, a succession of regimes established by the ruling millitary authority in the region, and challenged by smaller groups inhabiting the more remote areas in that authority's jurisdiction, is common in the third world. Many, like Seko, ally with global powers to cement their rule, and through a mix of backdoor business deals and official restrictions/sanctions/requirements imposed upon the regime, a suitable level of stability is established in the area. Truly, a state ruled by an iron-fisted man can hardly be worse than a country torn apart by war... The problem in both cases is not the means by which an autocracy is established, but that the system doesn't have a means to ensure that the leader is indeed acting in the people's best interests. This of course can lead to civil war, or stigmatization and genocide.  Naturally the entire modus operandi of autocracy means that the leader is not serving the people, but that it is them who serve him, and at best he acts upon his perception of what his state is or should be like, and at worst he - or she, really - does not care. My entire point is this; above the ruling authority, another is required that establishes the purpose of the first and maintains the state's course when there is instability, or in democracies like Canada, dissolving of the ruling body. Thus is Canadian democracy brokered by an institution; the Crown and not, as I had originally assumed, the Parliament.


However whether that democracy represents its people accurately is rightfully beyond the authority of the Crown, the institution, or little would separate us and them. The people govern themselves. The crown governs the governors. Paradox! The Crown has no power, and yet it is the base on which a (hopefully) righteous nation is based. Another point was brought up in class; that recycling of governance is preferable, and this to prevent the same response to conflicts. Another reason exists, I think; that is to prevent the leader from spending so much time in office that they can change the country too much: This would be a good thing, but only if the change represented the country's collective vision, not that of one man. Haha! This has led me to an interesting realization: Democracies are inherently conservative! Not strictly in the political sense; but they are slow to change partly because constitution requires it. Of course a man who has changed a nation might take a lifetime to have done so; by which time the -I have no words- issues may have changed, and his policies would be outdated. So shortening the terms ensures a country stays on course. But in case the course changes sharply, the changes will take long to implement, decades, possibly even centuries; it has been roughly 200 years since the industrial revolution, more than 50 years since political leaders became aware that there was an issue, but visionaries are not accepted by their peers, and in a majority vote system, the coolest cat has all the friends. I suppose that's why they are called revolutionaries. Unable to correct the course quickly enough, they either usurp it out of frustration and take control or destroy it and make a new one. Meanwhile countries like Canada are stuck arguing about whether to support the states and oil and the kyoto agreements and militarizing the nation. This is a good and a bad thing, bad when you agree with the leader because he can never move too far too quickly towards something or he'll lose parliament support, and good when you think the leader's a total idiot. Ultimately it is more or less a good thing,, if you think that it prevents us from erupting into civil war or political instability.

When you think about it, perhaps the US have a better system... Unlike Canada, you can't get re-elected for 30 years straight with a majority vote, which is as Quebec demonstrated rather damaging...  This is common knowledge where I come from. Should I source it? Yes. What If I've been wrong all this time, in my assumption? I would look quite the fool. 

"Everybody's jaded by fame?" Van,  you are quite correct.