We learn quickly in life that things are what they are, and not the way we wish them to be. It is a universal truth that also applies to the political belief in democracy. No matter how much lipstick and powder we apply to the face of democracy its imperfections remain apparent. Among democracy’s several serious flaws is of course excessive financial self-interest, frequently leading to inequality and greed, and may I interject often, too often, international conflicts and wars that more than likely do not directly concern us.
Moreover, we find once the democratic electorate realize its power to vote itself benefits far beyond the reach of a nation’s economy to sustain them, they do so and deliberately approve them knowing someday someone has to pay. It has happened repeatedly to the regret of European nations, and the U. S. is not immune. Among these imperfections is the trait of hypocrisy. It is as the others a human weakness and not necessarily a part of democratic theory, the principal of freedom and the ability to choose wisely. An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it or waste it, or manhandle it. This last defect shows itself today in the bidding for the loyalty of the Ukrainian people.
The democratically elected Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovshey was ousted in a political coup d’etat in late February by violent uncontrollable street demonstrations that had gone on for weeks. The ousted prime minister shortly fled for his safety, fearful of the radical elements in the crowds demanding he be removed, imprisoned, and tried for corruption and mismanagement. (all charges appear to be valid) The revolutionary act was quickly applauded by Washington, the European Union, and Western Ukraine. The people had justly spoken. After all isn’t that what it’s all about? “The will of the people” to seek justice, liberty, and the right to select a better government to guide them. Within hours the new transitional government designated Arseniy Yatseyuk as interim Prime Minister, the first office holder in that position from the western part of Ukraine. Much involved and a leading odds-on future Prime Minister candidate Yulia Thmoshenko, a women once jailed by Yanukovshey on dubious charges, and a divisive, but favored figure. Within virtually hours this temporary gerry-rigged regime was encouraged and supported by the U.S., the European Union, and further legalized by a visiting Secretary of State John Kerry offering one billion U. S. dollars in loan guarantees to boost reconstruction. It appears to be the beginning of a popular relationship with the West, on the border of Russia and the first unsteady steps toward rebuilding the country under wholly supposedly incorruptible economic principles. That will prove to be a tough job, Ukraine is 35 billion dollars in debt, and is often referred to as an “economic basket case.” The previous government was considering declaring bankruptcy this year.
In response to the uneven transfer of power in the Kiev capital, Russia militarily intervened in the Crimea, a southern peninsular Ukrainian province claiming protection for the Russian speaking citizens living there and to protect a large naval base, airports, and garrisoned troops allowed by decades old treaty. On 16 March a referendum will held to advocate and ostensibly legitimize the Crimea people’s desire to enter the Russian Federation. At that time the Crimeans will have their say and undoubtedly vote to return the peninsula to the Russian Federation. This time, however, there was NO applause from the West, and was met with vituperation as a direct rejection of the Ukrainian Constitution, although it appears to be a valid political act by “The Will of the People.”
What is confusing is in one instance jubilant acclamation by the West and in the other event castigation. Here we have a simple illustration of the contradiction in the ideology of Democracy. Most readers will not agree, but democracy is an ideological tool similar to others and may be placed near or close to the workings of the”ism’s” Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism and has a similar harsh hardcore belief once the velvet gloves are taken off. Normal Democratic elections, and consensus are successful accepted as is demonstrated in the flourishing of the U.S. and European political systems, but just so it is compatible with desired outcome and the need for the survival of the system. It is one thing to believe democracy is a superior form of governing, but quite another to worship it as an absolute, as the most ideal, because it has many critical imperfections.
When an election does not please the West, attempts are made to reverse it once the returns are in. Recently the Gaza, Palestine election was ridiculed and calls to the U.N. were made to invalidate it. During the past century when the voters did not cooperate with the ideals of Democracies they were overthrown. There were dozens of unsuccessful attempts and minor achievements by the CIA to do so. Here is a short list of those of major importance that succeeded: Iran, 1953, Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq: Guatemala, 1953, President, Jacobo Albbenz Guzman; The Congo, 1960, President Patrice Lumumba; Brazil, 1965, President Joano Gulart; Republic of Ghana, 1966, Prime Minister Knwano Nkummah; indonesia, 1967-69, President Bung Sukarto; and assisting the British Iraq, 1968, Prime Minister Abdul Rahman Arif; Chile, 1973, President Allende Gossens, Argentina President Isabel Peron; Nicerogua,1981-1990, the Sandinesta Government ect., ect. To name a few.
The CIA have been as busy as bees as you can see, but the aforementioned is not the point I’m trying to make. The will of the people in West Ukraine and those living in the Eastern province of Crimea should equally have the opportunity of determination as to where and to whom they want to govern them. Equal Rights for Equal Folks. The ultimate solution in the Ukraine dilemma is a national referendum and a divided, hopefully peaceful country with no red line.
All the Best.