is democracy broken? ... or is it finally working?

Yesterday, the Mexican Federal Electoral Tribunal certified conservative candidate Felipe Calderon the winner of a close and hotly contested presidential election (spurring a serious case of deja vu for any Americans who might be paying attention). The leftist candidate, Lopez Obrador, has refused to accept the tribunal's decision and is now vowing to create a government of his own.

In Britain, the Labor government is in tatters. We saw a string of sleaze scandals earlier this year, and now members of Prime Minister Tony Blair's own party have utterly lost confidence in him, openly criticizing and even insulting him (and his ally George Bush), and now resigning in droves.

This scene could be played out soon in Israel, too, as faltering confidence in Ehud Olmert might couple with a brewing cronyism scandal to topple the ruling coalition there.

It could be that we are just seeing coincidental simultaneous instability... or, it could be that people in democratic nations are starting to become aware of the ways in which their leaders have been betraying them. Am i paranoid to think that the radical distrust of government which seems commonplace today is qualitatively different from the cynical resignation of ten years ago? What i mean by that is, i don't think that people are simply more cynical than they used to be. There is now an active distrust which may start to look like revolutionary fervor before too long.

A kleptocracy, established by aristocrats who band together for mutual gain, can remain in power for a while through fear and the veneer of legitimacy we're collectively willing to grant the institutions of government. But when the aristocratic self-interest leads members of a government to turn on one another and start openly sparring, it can only mean that the inevitable has happened.

What we've seen in recent decades is a worldwide attempt to disguise imperalism and cronyism as "freedom" and "democracy." While in Newspeak freedom is slavery, and the "leaders of the free world" have done their best to misappropriate the word "freedom" so that it is a mere emotional catchphrase (the so-called "Islamo-fascists" are said to "hate freedom," to which Osama Bin Laden replied that Americans should ponder why al Qaida hasn't attacked Sweden), i do not think they will be ultimately successful. That is, i'm optimistic that, in the long run, authoritarians cannot micromanage our lives and exploit us while giving lip service to freedom.

(no subject)

Sometimes i'm just absolutely stunned by the depths to which hatred of women can sink. And i'm dismayed when i see how often the primary excuse is "defending our religious traditions."

Maybe it's the peace, love, and compassion speaking, but no principle is worth defending if it creates injustice.

Lawmakers from a coalition of six Islamic groups threatened on Tuesday to vacate their parliamentary seats if Pakistan's government changes a rape law criticized by human rights activists.

... Under the current law, approved by a former military dictator in 1979, prosecuting a rape case requires testimony from four witnesses, making punishment almost impossible because such attacks are rarely public. A woman who claims she was raped but fails to prove her case can be convicted of adultery, punishable by death.

Maulana Fazalur Rahman, a leader of the Islamic coalition, said Tuesday that lawmakers in his group would vacate their seats in the National Assembly if the government tries to get the assembly's approval to change the law.

"We will render every sacrifice for the protection of the Shariah (traditional Islamic) laws," he said at a news conference.

However, the ruling Pakistan Muslim Party — which has a majority in the assembly — has praised Musharraf for taking steps to amend the law and end the four-witness requirement.

from Rape law rankles some Pakistan lawmakers

racial scapegoating

I just spent the better part of an hour listening to Tom Ashbrook's interview with Pat Buchanan (thanks to pangaia93 for the link). Last year, as Buchanan criticized the Iraq war, i thought it was surreal to find myself agreeing with him. But now, he's back in true form, fresh with a new book sounding the alarm about an invasion of America by Hispanics.

During the summer the heads of the GOP became suddenly very silent about gay marriage. The Chaliban continued to bleat on about it from their pulpits, but after the marriage amendment fight, and poll numbers starting to favor gay rights, there were no more policy proposals. Instead, the new issue became illegal immigration and fears that white American women have stopped having precious white babies.

Is it possible for authoritarians to achieve any kind of popular victory without bashing someone in the process? I do not think so: i think the ascendancy of imperialism depends on racism, on sexism, on homophobia, on religious normativism.

So, if you can stand it, i think it is important to listen to this, and understand what it is that Buchanan's saying and implying. This is the present direction of American politics, and it is ugly, bleak and terrifying.

And i'm shocked -- not so much by Buchanan and his comparison of Hispanic immigration to the Goth invasions of the Roman Empire, by his idea of "Christian and Western culture" that doesn't include Latin society -- but by the callers-in who buy this racist crap hook, line, and sinker.

Does the average American really think their wages have stagnated because of illegal immigration?

Does the average American really think their medical bills have gone up because of those omigosh Spanish-speaking people next to them in the emergency room (who would probably have gone to a primary-care doctor instead if they could get effective healthcare)?

Does the average American really think their 17-year-old son can't get a job because he doesn't speak Spanish?

Does the average American really possess the total inability to see scapegoating and racial baiting for what it is? Are they really so unwilling to investigate the exploitation they suffer at the hands of the aristocrats?

There is so much work to do. So, so much work.