Comments on: Al Quaeda in Beslan?

By: anon

anon — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 18:11:21 +0000

Dan, to clarify, I did not pay much attention to the historical accuracy of the claim that “x was elected too” because I was arguing with the point about elections / majority rule vs. human rights in the context of modern democracy, not with the example cited in itself. There are after all instances (ie., again, clearest recent instance, Slobodan Milosevic) of murderous tyrants who were first elected. Of course no matter what political and parliamentary route to power x dictator initially followed, the building of a dictatorship takes more than that, before and especially after. So I completely agree with you on the concept. I just didn’t want to get into a detailed debate on the accuracy of Ophelia’s statement because even if her assertion about x being elected was perfectly accurate, what she implied by that, on the potential conflict between democracy and human rights, wouldn’t.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:05:03 +0000

I’m glad that we’ve finally seen an end to the absurd claim of Ophelia Benson: ‘If you don’t know that, you might want to read a little history. Hitler was elected, for a start.’ Indeed. Two and two makes three and if you don’t know that, you might want to read a little mathematics. But we still have to deal with ‘Hitler became chancellor through perfectly democractic means.’ If ‘perfectly democratic means’ includes a three-year campaign of street terror successfully aimed at making a country ungovernable, the unconstitutional suspension of the Prussian State Government on the grounds that their police might interfere with said terror campaign, and the unlawful arrest and detention of some parliamentary deputies and the armed intimidation of all others during the crucial vote, let me know if you’re ever standing for your local council, will you?

By: damitree

damitree — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:53:32 +0000

Much of this discussion is very interesting, but I think there is a very important point either missing altogether, or mentioned too rarely. The hostage taking in Beslan CANNOT be interpreted in primitive “an eye for an eye” terms as revenge for the atrocities that have been committed by Russian troops in Chechnya. Firstly, the Ossetians that live in Beslan are ethnically NOT Russian. They are, on the other hand, armed, violent, fiercely protective of their children and have a history of conflict with nearby Ingushetia. All this implies that the attack in Beslan was indeed a strategic measure to destabilize the already tenuous peace in the region. The Ossetin population has already started to mobilize and the war is looming. Whether the attack was conducted in the name of independence of Chechnya or otherwise is largely immaterial. What is important is that certain people, in order to attain their possibly lofty and commendable goals, have consciously resorted to torture and killing of children. P.S.: Stalin did indeed order the relocations of Chechens en masse to Siberia. However, apart from the fact that Stalin is not Russian, he also relocated Tartars, Jews, Russian Germans and many other ethnicities. Likewise, he killed a lot of Russians. So the assertion that Chechens suffered uniquely under Stalin is simply untrue.

By: Nata

Nata — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:59:19 +0000

After reading a few of the comments I decided to post my opinion. This may be just an opionon of a former Chechnya resident but as an eyewitness to prior military breakdowns, I must say I am not surprised of current events. Back in 80’s it was known fact in Russia and Chechnya that Iraqis, not aware or educated enough about Al Quaeda at the time, were training in the mountains of Checheno Ingush republic. Giving freedom to Chechens is another story. First of all the current land that chechens reside in is a Russian land that was given to chechens and Ingushes after they were released from Siberia in the 50’s by Khrushchov. Even if they do get their independence I see how that would change their social status within the Russian republic, unless they flee to Arab countries where majority of them have relatives. The final thought is, that Chechens as a race have been and always will remain animals and I apologize for the generalization. They need to be stoped for once and for all and I feel that more drastic measures need to be taken, just like Stalin did by sending them to Siberia away from civilization. If I offended anyone’s feelings I apologize, but after losing a great part of my extended family, that race gets no simpaty from me

By: Nata

Nata — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 06:58:39 +0000

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 01:18:44 +0000

Dan Hardie, You’re quibbling. Hitler became chancellor through perfectly democractic means. There was nothing unconstitutional about the process. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in the Reichstag to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times before and after, in parliamentary systems throughout the world. And no one has considered the process “undemocratic”.

By: anon

anon — Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:27:18 +0000

Dan, of course! I was playing devil’s advocate, don’t misunderstand me. I was arguing with Ophelia on that, obviously I’m not supporting her suggestion. My point is what I already wrote before. Mussolini – yes, the march on Rome, but before that Italy was a democracy and Mussolini had been a player in a democracy, a member of parliament. It was gradual. It wasn’t a coup d’etat of the Pinochet kind (even if, in consequences, it was). But take Milosevic as a better instance of what Ophelia was saying. It is true that even someone ascending to power through parliament and elections could then turn into a dictator – but there need to be other factors allowing that, and the use of “x dictator was elected” (nevermind how accurate and precise) is not in itself a warning that democracy can become ‘tyranny of the majority’, because the moment it does that, it’s no longer democracy… Not to mention human rights are a post-WWII creation so there is no such dichotomy etc etc etc… I don’t even know for sure what Ophelia meant, it’s obviously absurd to imply a dictator had anything to do with democracy just because he may have been elected.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:45:17 +0000

‘Yeah, well, Mussolini was. ’ Yeah, well, Mussolini wasn’t. Source: ‘Mussolini’ by Denis Mack, yeah, well, Smith. The ‘March on Rome’ put M in power, and was as democratic as your average coup d’etat. Persons capable of convincing me of the democratic validity of the subsequent votes for Musso in various referenda will receive a gold-plated pig from me by return of post.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 23:20:34 +0000

Yeah, well, Mussolini was. Milosevic, too. Ophelia, as a last note, since you said that people including political leaders have that notion of democracy as mere elections: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm esp. “the pillars of the democracy” at the end. That is indeed what is meant, today, when speaking of democracy as opposed to tyrannies and repressive regimes. It is so obvious I would have never thought it needed pointing out. The modern definition of democracy does incorporate human rights, and as well as having constitutions or laws recognising those rights, all modern democracies are also, additionally, signatories of the declaration of human rights as an international convention. So it is really a bit stunning to claim this concept of democracy is my own arbitary construction. Or to portray democracy, not just elections, as a potential threat of human rights. Democracy is based on the rule of the majority, but the rule of the majority alone is not democracy – a tyrannical majority gaining power and violating the political and human rights of the minority is quite simply a dictatorship. No matter if it arises out of, or incorporates, elections.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:53:57 +0000

ps—interestingly, the smaller the scale, however, the less elections seem to mirror participation in the process of governance. Elections for counties, cities, school boards and such—where local information is, theoretically, more available to voters—seem to inevitably generate less participation than larger scale elections. I imagine if you surveyed who participated in governance in, say, a shire in England in 1750 and a county in Georgia in 2004, the percentage of participants would be almost the same.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:46:22 +0000

‘That a dictator, like Hitler, can get elected’ (Sigh)…But he didn’t get elected.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:40:46 +0000

Ophelia, you are partly right that fetishizing elections doesn’t give us human rights. However, there are implicit connections that you are ignoring. The idea of an election implies the idea of sufferage, which implies the idea of some equality of responsibility. That a dictator, like Hitler, can get elected (or a racist mountebank, like Strom Thurmond), is one of the consequences of elections—but you will notice that the dictator and the mountebank quickly move to eviscerate the force of elections. Hitler didn’t allow the conditions that allowed him to be elected to be continued. This is true of all dictators, as far as I know. The obvious reason is that elections generate just that sense of suffrage which spreads a sense of equality before the law and the notions that are tied up with equality before the law. The racist mountebank, Strom Thurmond, knew this—which is why so much of the civil rights movement revolved around voting. So does any dictator. In the long run, then, those societies that preserve the conditions that make it possible for free elections to be held at some given interval are those which are generally going to generate liberal democracies. I’d guess this is a pretty good test, actually, since it also implies that the ruling party agrees, tacitly, to its own possible overthrow. All of which implies, to me, that any project that aims at preserving or expanding human rights that does not have an election function is, eventually, going to be as self defeating—given that this is a basic denial of the citizen’s responsibility for the state, and the state’s responsibility to the citizen—as any dictatorship that continues to preserve the conditions for free elections.

By: anon

anon — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:10:18 +0000

robin, yeah, I also posted before I saw the rest – I was starting to think I’d missed the news this week about Iran no longer being a theocratic dictatorship…

By: anon

anon — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:02:26 +0000

So if a supermajority voted to amend the constitution to get rid of free speech, they could, because there is no imperialist power above the US to enforce its notion of human rights. Robin, no, they couldn’t, not until the US is still signatory to international treaties and conventions including the declaration of human rights. It’s interesting how that is overlooked, these days.

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:59:13 +0000

(I posted that before I saw anon’s post – crossed wires)