Just a thought....
In America, we grow up to value our personal freedom. Naturally enough, we want to share that with the world. But it strikes me this might be a bit misguided because it stems from a basic misunderstanding---we think our freedom is a direct result of democracy. I think this can be true, but does not irrevocably follow. You can and often do, for example, have an unwitting and even completely unintentional oligarchy of the people that paradoxically causes tight restrictions on freedom. The fact that slavery was legal in this country until the Emancipation Proclamation is a classic example. After that, severe restraints were placed on blacks in a way that was legislated by democratic rule.
And I also think the converse is not true (that lack of democracy necessarily means lack of freedom).
What I mean is this: the thing that enables personal freedom is the fact that power is effectively dissipated by the system of checks and balances. And also, just as important, that freedom is defined by structure and limits. Freedom does NOT mean that you can do anything you want whenever you want. It means more that your actions are shaped in a way that is in your best interests, and contributes towards the common good, while causing minimal harm.
So I suspect that regardless of the particular form of government, it is only the dissipation of power that creates the environment where freedom can flourish, and people can lead happy, satisfying lives without too much persecution. "Benevolent despot" is an oxymoron that is as unstable (and unsexy) as tightly contracted BBs.
Of course, some forms of government lend themselves to checks and balances more readily than others, but I think it important to make a distinction between political systems (which are IMHO much more rhetoric/theory/propaganda, much less reality) and power management systems.
T |
