OPINION & EDITORIAL
Democracy in substance
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Adam Lichtenheld:
- American policy not very 'Christ-like' (November 26, 2007)
- Media martyrdom plagues shootings (November 14, 2007)
- Discussing Middle East? Go there first (October 31, 2007)
- 'Awareness' weak on Islamic reality (October 17, 2007)
Related Stories:
- All African human rights violations deserve media attention (November 16, 2005)
- Darfur situation worsens (March 8, 2006)
- The Aftermath of the Afghan War (February 20, 2003)
- Neglected tragedy in Darfur (December 7, 2004)
by Adam Lichtenheld
Friday, April 29, 2005
In the malnourished and neglected continent of Africa, tragedy and death have become the norm throughout the region’s war-torn, impoverished nations. The clash of ethnic groups and tribal units, historic divisions caused by Western colonialism, are being used as firepower in bloody internal wars that leave thousands dead and millions displaced and homeless.
I ended last semester’s columns with a piece focusing on the horrific autocracies against black Africans in Western Sudan (“Neglected tragedy in Darfur,” Dec. 7, 2004) and the failure of the international community to appropriately respond. Since then, increased outrage against the Darfur crisis (including the creation of the activist group Action Sudan! on this campus) has pressured American leaders to take legislative action and advocate peace negotiations, and the release of the film “Hotel Rwanda” has portrayed the horrors of the 1994 Rwandan genocide to viewers around the world. Though the slow starvation of displaced refugees or the systematic burning of rural villages may not be as sexy to the international media as violent virus outbreaks, “nation building” in the Middle East, or an American pop icon’s child molestation trial, citizens are becoming aware of the inhumane crimes that ravage sub-Saharan Africa and the West’s deliberate, racially-motivated ignorance of them.
Violence particularly plagues Africa’s eastern region, which includes Congo, a country engulfed in a decade-long civil war (once dubbed “Africa’s First World War”); Rwanda, a nation recovering from genocide; Sudan, a nation enduring genocide and Uganda, which may contain today’s most under-reported and unforgiving acts of inhumanity.
In the northern provinces of democratic Uganda, an insurgency led by rebel leader Joseph Kony roams villages and rural areas searching for victims. Operating from bases in southern Sudan and intent on overthrowing the Ugandan government, the Lord’s Resistance Army slaughters men, rapes women and abducts children from their homes. Girls are used as sex slaves and boys as young as eight years old are forced to fight as rebel soldiers, often terrorized into torturing or killing family members and other children. Thousands of teenagers are sold for slave labor in exchange for arms (primarily in Sudan, where Osama bin Laden has been reported to be a main buyer). At night, more than 40,000 children flee their homes and seek refuge in nearby hospitals and churches. In a world intolerant of terrorism, thousands of young people are being stripped of their innocence and molded into terrorists. The 18-year conflict has continued much to the neglect of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, a tyrant in a democratic system who enjoys the support of many Western leaders.
Those who rationalize the injustices of America’s invasion of Iraq often use humanitarian and ethical arguments vis-à-vis Edmond Burke’s claim that good men’s failure to act will allow “the triumph of evil.” Yet when it comes to Africa and other Third World regions, that maxim is discounted as the “good” men do nothing and evil remains uncontested. As globalization increases the North-South economic divide and the world’s rich get richer at the expense of the poor getting poorer, the fight for survival will continue to cheapen human life.
Herein rests the flaw of the West’s concept of democratizing nations — the assumption that a specific form of government ensures an end to domestic conflict. Yet democracy does not solve problems of poverty, ethnic and religious division, governmental abuse and war. Freedom is not the fundamental attribute of democratic governing; it is merely the hopeful result. When people are subjected to the same oppression common of authoritarian states, and when there exists no accountability within the system, elections and civil institutions mean nothing.
So what is spreading democracy really about? Self-interest — it’s merely better for America to live in a world where self-rule is the sole form of government? Or is it about human compassion — we care about our fellow man, are committed to concepts of universal rights and human justice and wish to end the days when individuals fall victim to hatred, greed and aggression? If the answer includes the latter, then inaction in response to humanitarian crimes betrays our objective. Whether democracy produces peace is reliant on the quality of the system, not merely the presence of it, and as Uganda shows, installing democratic governments is not necessarily liberation.
Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 7:27am):
Spreading democracy, like all foreign policy, is about self interest. That is why nations have foreign policy. But it is nice when our interests that the interests of other nations are aligned.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 8:25am):
" a tyrant in a democratic system"
If a tyrant is elected in a truely democratic system, then the people have the government they deserve and I have no sympathy for their plight.
I do pity the citizens of Zimbabwe, as I don't beleive that Mugabe could be elected in a truely democratic system.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 8:30am):
"as Uganda shows"
What Uganda shows is that tribalism is a big problem in Africa. Also, that letting a racist, murderous canibal run things is a bad idea.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 9:30am):
Africa is pretty much a lost cause...sorry.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 11:41am):
should we just write off an entire continent and the millions that live on it just because they don't have enough oil?
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 11:44am):
Frankly, yes.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 11:56am):
I'm sure we could find other redeemable qualities about the place besides oil. For example, they have great backdrops for Star Wars movies.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 12:46pm):
They have plenty of oil (Nigeria, Sudan, Lybia, etc.) but too many greedy native dictators. Africa is rich in resources (diamonds, gold, etc.) but poor in leadership. Too many "leaders" like Mugabe, who transformed Zimbabwe from a bread basket into a starving basket case.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 12:56pm):
Poster #2:
Really? Would you feel that way if you knew that in the 2001 elections, Museveni won the vote by initmidating voters, having his military officers kill and abuse opposition party members and leaders, and disallow members of the other parties to hold rallies and gather support? Just because it's a "democratic" system doesn't mean that corruption and fraud doesn't put the wrong person in office (and by wrong I mean the person who didn't win all the votes). Take President Bush's victory in 2000.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 2:06pm):
We should write off a continent for a few reasons.
1) They cannot control their own populations in any way
2) They choose to spread diseases like AIDS despite the billions the rest of the world spends to stop it
3) They can't grow/make enough food to feed themselves, instead we are forced to feed them
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 2:31pm):
Anyone who considers abuse, intimidation, corruption and fraud to be part of a truely democratic system must be from Chicago.
Ps. ALL legitimate studies have shown that Bush did win the election in 2000. Unlike Kennedy in 1960 - thanks to vote fraud by Daley the First.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 3:25pm):
Again with the Bush 2000, how many times did the Florida vote have to be counted before you'll give up the unfounded notion that Bush won?
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 3:26pm):
UNFOUNDED NOTION THAT GORE WON, sorry miss type it above
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 3:28pm):
"3) They can't grow/make enough food to feed themselves, instead we are forced to feed them"
Zimbabwe grew enough to feed itself and had lots left over to export. Mugabe ran off all those nasty people without color farmers and gave the land to his cronies. Now Zimbabwe starves. Home-grown greedy dictators are a root cause of the problems.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 5:26pm):
But it would be terrible to interrupt them too...we would get trashed for inflicting ourselves upon another country. We should not be giving money to a country unless they are willing to do things we request. If you want our money, adopt the policies we demand.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 5:38pm):
Yeah, just look how grateful Kuwait has been.
"a tyrant in a democratic system who enjoys the support of many Western leaders."
But does he feed people into grinders feet-first? Does he use poison gas? The USA is still getting shit for taking down a tyrant who did.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 5:44pm):
"ALL legitimate studies have shown that Bush did win the election in 2000. Unlike Kennedy in 1960 - thanks to vote fraud by Daley the First."
You're just mad that the Packers suck this year and the Bears will actually beat them. Stop the Chicago hate.
Anonymous (April 29, 2005 @ 6:04pm):
Just go buy some stuff from Africa - save the world by shopping!
***
In fact, the percentage of human beings who live in some degree of comfort and safety, with secure hope that their increasingly educated children will do better, has been rising spectacularly for two generations. And the principal driver of this change has been the U.S. consumer, purchasing the output of tens of thousands of foreign factories, wherein the same pattern gets repeated from one country to the next. Workers systematically move from exploited peons to hard-pressed semi-skilled assemblers, to unionized skilled labor... while roads and infrastructure get built all around them and their kids go to school, graduating into the bourgeoisie.
Let me reiterate this point. Far outweighing all "aid" the world ever saw, the greatest force for good in the world has consisted of Americans purchasing megatons of crap we never had to buy in the first place, under trade rules designed to favor those thousand of foreign factories.
Alas, we'll never get a scintilla of credit for this vast beneficence. Because it did not blossom out of motivations like guilt or generosity. To a large part, it flowed out of a childishly spendthrift love of shopping.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2005/03/aside-how-us-saved-world-by-buying.html
Anonymous (April 30, 2005 @ 7:41am):
a right wing blog is hardly a convincing source from which to pull your news.
Anonymous (April 30, 2005 @ 1:01pm):
news??? opinion maybe or speculation, but not news.
Do you have any idea who Brin is? Have you ever read any of his excellent SF?
I don't think this guy is too right-wing:
http://www.gayspermbank.com/brin/
Brin has lectured worldwide on topics as diverse as Ecology, Information Technology, Twenty-first Century extrapolation, Spaceflight, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent Life. He serves on government and non-government advisory committees dealing with the future "information age".
