Albert Einstein wanted world government.

[Eclipse Now]

I wasn't talking about China's ancient past, but it's modern progress. Look what expansive government has done there? Sure it might not be as efficient on a per dollar per politician basis as a democracy, but then with the money thrown at USA presidential races I have to wonder about the actual cost of democracy itself these days... bribes V propaganda?

 

Anyway, the Left / Right debate is beside the point. Stuff is getting DONE in China... there's law and order, there's fast rail being rolled out across the country, there's construction, jobs, food...

 

If only the same thing could be said of Africa as a whole. No, I'm NOT recommending a massive Communist uprising or one party state! But I'm stating that government cultures can change fast, good or bad, uphill or downhill, within one generation or so. Compare China's cultural revolution with today's generation. Oranges and apples, or is that more comparing death-squads and socialist dogma with free-market economics operating within the confines of certain 'guidelines' of the Communist state? Very different government cultures, and only a generation or so apart.

[freeztar]

I've been following this thread through the weeks and have found it very interesting. Kudos to all contributors! :shrug:

 

I'm against the idea of a world government. Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn, and Roman Emperors might disagree with me, but so what! They're dead! :phones:

 

Only when each person becomes their own government, can a world government exist. This is my belief.

 

Yes, I realize it is paradoxical. How do we overcome this? Well, I'm not sure that we can at this point. I think it is typical for all of us, in this modern age, to see ourselves as standing on the shoulders of giants. We are the pinnacle of human societies thus far, but those last two words are very important. I think we've merely made it to the Giant's knees, or maybe hip. We forget that we are merely an arbitrary point on this timeline. Two thousand years from now, humans (if we still exist) will probably look back on this era with scorn, much like we do with human culture of 2,000 years before present.

 

TheBigDog's quote from a previous post in this thread rings true for me.

 

Government needs to respect the diversity of people, promote individual achievement and insure equal opportunity. And it must protect the rights of the people from the hands of government lest that government find its own path to tyranny was paved with the best intentions.

 

I think we are a very long way from either the imperative need for a world government, or the cultural readiness to sustain one.

 

Indeed!

 

On another note, it seems the title of this thread is no longer valid for the current discussion. If no one is opposed, I will move the recent discussions unrelated to Einstein to a new thread(s).

EDIT: No need to move anything

[Eclipse Now]

There's an older world government thread that could be resurrected.

[TheBigDog]

I wasn't talking about China's ancient past, but it's modern progress. Look what expansive government has done there? Sure it might not be as efficient on a per dollar per politician basis as a democracy, but then with the money thrown at USA presidential races I have to wonder about the actual cost of democracy itself these days... bribes V propaganda?

 

Anyway, the Left / Right debate is beside the point. Stuff is getting DONE in China... there's law and order, there's fast rail being rolled out across the country, there's construction, jobs, food...

 

If only the same thing could be said of Africa as a whole. No, I'm NOT recommending a massive Communist uprising or one party state! But I'm stating that government cultures can change fast, good or bad, uphill or downhill, within one generation or so. Compare China's cultural revolution with today's generation. Oranges and apples, or is that more comparing death-squads and socialist dogma with free-market economics operating within the confines of certain 'guidelines' of the Communist state? Very different government cultures, and only a generation or so apart.

It is not often that a post gets under my skin really badly, but this one did just that.

 

First, to the points of JM and Boer that were countered in this post; when comparing how China got to its current cultural/governmental state you cannot dismiss the last 3000 years of history and focus only on the last century as you have chosen to do. It was a long journey of violence and oppression that took China from a collection of warring states to a single government. And Africa would need to go through a similar journey to get to a similar place. And to Boerseun's point, all you end up with at the end is strongest strongman ruling through brute force. Which is not too far off from China's government, despite what their state propaganda and foreign apologists may tell you otherwise.

 

Stuff may be getting done in China, but saying that is the greatest "ends justify the means" bullshit I can imagine. China's economy is fueled by western consumption of manufactured goods. IIf the west stops buying from China they collapse. America could gear up the manufacturing that is coming from China in a short while and would deal with the higher consumer costs as a medium sized bump in the road. China's economy cannot exist without western buyers of their manufactured goods; period.

 

China's economic advantage comes from borderline slavery of the manufacturing workforce. In China it is every person's constitutional duty to work to the satisfaction of the state (Article 42 of the Chinese Constitution). Safety is a notion, not a mandate and is subject to cost/benefit analysis that would make the most hardcore western industrialist cringe. There is construction as shown off by the 2008 Beijing Olympics, but westerners are strictly forbidden from visiting much of China, with the state controlled media and PR arm presenting to foreign nationals and nations only what they want to be seen.

 

There is law in China, but there is no protection from the state. The Chinese Constitution speaks of the rights of the people, but the highest law is the continuance of the Socialist State. People can own things in China, but the state owns all the land and can do with it whatever the state see as most beneficial. You can own a home, but if the state wants to use the land for anything they simply do so and the individual does not need compensation, they simply submit to the better judgment of the state. Prior to the 1997 handover of Hong Kong from GB to China the Chinese government amended their constitution to allow very carefully worded free enterprise. They did this because they were smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. But the businesses that are allowed to run have no legal protection from state takeover other than benevolence of the central communist dictatorship. The same communist dictatorship that in 1987 lived up to the ideals of their then five year old constitution when crushed the demonstration in Tienanmen Square with brutal military force on their own unarmed peaceful citizens. The fact that they have learned to exploit their workforce more effectively and are wearing their sheep's clothing while they allow their world strategic economic position to grow into their advantage does not change who they are and how they will ultimately operate. And they are morally as bankrupt as the government of Mao and the cultural revolution who so brutally punished free thinking in China that the pain is remembered by a hand shy population to this day. Tienanmen square was another vicious newspaper across the nose to tuck the people's tail between their legs and remember who their master is. Nothing about the Chinese government has changed since Mao except the window dressing.

 

I am stunned that nobody speaks out against posts like yours more vociferously. China violates every moral and ethical code I would presume from your writings that you hold dear, and yet you describe them through the vision of rose colored glasses. You say you don't advocate a central Communist government, but you speak only praises of them while denouncing the US for what it spends on its Presidential elections (??). What is the price of democracy? Think on it a while before you go shooting off that China is a little less economically efficient, but the corruption of the US makes it as bad. Think about human rights. Think about real freedom of speech, of press, of religion, of the right to gather peacefully, and of any other basic human right. Try reading the Chinese Constitution (CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA). How does that fit your ideals. Read it carefully. Like Article 25. "The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development." In the US we debate the constitutional rights of the unborn versus a woman's right to choose to keep a pregnancy. In China the state can control not only your right to choose, but your right to conceive - and that is in their Constitution! In China there is freedom of religion as long as it does not interfere with the teachings of the State. So all religion is welcome as long as it is socialist. The rights of the people are at the whim of the state; that is tyranny. Note how very carefully worded the Chinese Constitution is to disallow "unlawful" violations of individuals rights, which simply means the word of the laws of the government defines the limits of the rights of the citizens of China. And no good socialist would put themselves over the needs of the state; another part of the Chinese Constitution.

 

Even a benevolent tyrant is a tyrant.

 

In Africa you have culture thousands of years old that conflicts with the moral and ethical standards of modern eastern and western societies. We cannot force people to live in a way they simply do not want to. We can educate them, but simply pouring money into a brutal tribal culture makes them just a brutal tribal culture that can afford more effective weapons. Over thousands of years the different countries that make up modern China were conquered and oppressed by one government after another, until their culture adapted to one of seemingly accepting oppressive rule. The current government has every intention of making that culture last for a long long time. The African continent has never been conquered and ruled by a single dictatorship like China, and is a very long way from accepting that from happening. No country is powerful enough to overthrow all the others, and a meddling world would not stand by and let it happen anyway. So that is a road that simply does not look like it would happen.

 

So how do you do it? How do you develop a world government for a people who do not desire anything more than a local warlord? You mentioned in one of your earlier posts that some countries might have to forgo the right to emigrate in order to protect proper population balance. So right off the bat you are promoting an inequality of rights as part of your solution. Who determines the balance of equality? The only way it can happen through domination of the world government over the member states.

 

The EU works because of the economic, political, historical, cultural phenomena that is modern Europe. The United States was built from the same combination of phenomena that happened over the past 300 years in her geography. Each region of the world will take different paths toward larger government entities as regional needs demand it. Ultimately global needs will come into play and I believe that a peaceful ascension to a world government may someday happen, but we are centuries away from it. The ONLY way to make it happen faster than that is by brute force, and that is a world I will fight to my last breath, as my children will, and theirs.

 

Bill

[Eclipse Now]

Woah... take a deep breath there mate. I agree with much of what you write about China, really I do! I love modern democracy. But can I say I'd rather be a factory worker in China and able to feed my family than watch my kids get raped and then stabbed before it's my turn in one of a thousand petty tribal conflicts or regional warlord conflicts. Maybe Africa NEEDS a strongman for a while, until they get law and order, in some kind of emergency provisional government, because the place just KEEPS falling apart!

 

I just want to know how we're EVER going to see a world without yet another hundred thousand Africans starving to death again because the rains failed yet again. Got any ideas?

[Buffy]

There is another point that Bill doesn't mention but is very important: the Han Chinese represent an extremely homogeneous and unified culture. The Communist Party has exploited this to create a virulent and *truly grassroots* nationalism that has resulted in the massive numbers of freelance hackers who are busy bringing down us Capitalist Fascist Running Dogs.

 

Africa on the other hand not only had endless ethnicities that we white folk have no clue about--most of us are clueless as to why the Tutsi's and the Hutu's are so fanatical about murdering one another when they "look so much alike"--but even within groups, clans have been warring for hundreds of years without end, in an environment where--with some notable and commendable exceptions--there is no tradition of rule beyond inheritance or warfare.

 

"Efficient" and "Stable" are attributes that at least some of us don't think are actually attributes of a perfect political system, but on the other hand, you'd better have a strong "will of the people" or you will indeed have nothing but dictatorship.

 

Quite true, captain. That tiny country--beaten, bankrupt, defeated--rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Eclipse Now]

Agreed... but how do we get to the moving forward part? I repeat, I'd rather live in China than in Somalia or Ethiopia or some other civil war torn, famine ravaged, pestilence ridden failed state. At least China has drinking water, food, some jobs, and even cops you can call if some local thug gets a bit out of line.

 

But I really don't know how this turned into an "USA v China" conversation above, when I was making the point that cultures can change fast. I think I also mentioned youth culture adapting to the internet, and maybe even threw in the fall of the Berlin wall! (If I didn't, I am now).

 

How have they gone in the former Yugoslavia? Is there law and order yet? What political solutions have they enacted there... and could they be partially transferable?

[Eclipse Now]

I'm not alone in wanting a world wide democracy.

 

Check out this documentary: the preview is great, turn it up loud!

 

WORLD VOTE NOW // GLOBAL DEMOCRACY

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: this film has screened at the EU parliament.

 

Part way down this page...

http://worldvotenow.com/news.html

 

BRUSSELS - At an event inside the European Parliament hosted by European lawmaker Graham Watson, the Club of Rome – EU Chapter and the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, the cornerstones for a possible future global democracy were debated on the occasion of a special screening of the documentary “World Vote Now” by Joel Ben Marsden.

 

Jessica Elio, Chargé d´affaires of the Bolivian Embassy to the EU elaborated on the proposal for a global referendum that Bolivian President Evo Morales made during the recent Climate talks in Copenhagen. “When my President, went to Copenhagen, what most struck him was the lack of democracy,” she stated. “It´s the people that will decide what the states have not been able to decide.” According to President Morales, the citizens of all nations should be asked, among other things, whether consumption patterns on the planet should be changed, and whether pollutants emission should be reduced to one percent. Elio commented that “President Morales gave this idea, now it is up to a World Vote to decide on this.”

 

 

Pau Solanilla, representing the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council, stated that “we need to create the conditions for this democratic process.” Solanilla named five fundamental conditions for global democracy. These included global citizenship with equal rights and duties, a global constitution and rules at the global level, a global public opinion and debate, a parliamentary assembly at the global level and truly global political actors,“that think globally and not only in terms of their territory or their particular interests.”

 

Solanilla, who is Parliamentary Advisor to the Spanish Secretary of State for the EU stressed that “we need a kind of parliamentary assembly.”

 

The Director of the Secretariat of the Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, Andreas Bummel, pointed out that the efforts for global democracy are closely connected with the struggle to establish democracy at the national level. “Both is interlinked and cannot be separated,” he said.

 

Commenting on the debate, the Director of Amnesty International’s EU office, Dr. Nicolas J. Beger said that “I do not see why the Utopia of global democracy should not come.”

 

Graham Watson summarized: “People are recognizing that we have a global economy, but we don´t yet have a global culture, or a global governance or even a coherent vision of global concern. And that´s what I think we have to build.”

 

Brussels Declaration on Global Democracy

 

On the occasion of the event, Watson presented the Brussels Declaration on Global Democracy that demands “sound democratic structures at the global level” and that ”mechanisms and preconditions are explored that make it possible to conduct a global referendum.”

Initial supporters of this declaration include former UN Secretary General, Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali, UBUNTU-World Forum of Civil Society Networks, the Club of Rome – EU Chapter and the Union of European Federalists.

 

A PDF of the Declaration can be downloaded HERE.

 

Jessica Elio, Chargé d´affaires a.i. of the Bolivian Embassy to the EU

Graham Watson, MEP

 

Pau Solanilla, representing the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council

Dr. Nicolas J. Beger, Director of Amnesty International - EU Chapter

[Boerseun]

Graham Watson summarized: “People are recognizing that we have a global economy, but we don´t yet have a global culture, or a global governance or even a coherent vision of global concern. And that´s what I think we have to build.”

Imagine a world with a "global culture".

 

I simply cannot picture a more boring place.

 

Why would you want that?

[Eclipse Now]

I agree! Maybe in the context he's talking about a global culture of governance and respect for human rights, freedom of speech, etc? I certainly appreciate the cultural diversity that makes travel interesting and a variety of approaches and perspectives to problem solving possible.

 

But will the Chinese be less Chinese if they are given the opportunity to have their own views heard through a global ballot box? Will Tibetans be less Tibetan if they get their hearts desire, and are free of oppression from the Chinese, and are able to vote at the global ballot box?:)

[Boerseun]

But will the Chinese be less Chinese if they are given the opportunity to have their own views heard through a global ballot box? Will Tibetans be less Tibetan if they get their hearts desire, and are free of oppression from the Chinese, and are able to vote at the global ballot box?:rolleyes:

That's arguing from the assumption that the western democratic culture is the end-all and be-all of all political options, and compatible with every culture.

 

If you read a few of my previous posts in this thread, there is a very strong case to be made that western democracy is completely and utterly incompatible with African culture, for instance. And the attempt by the west to have Africa move in that direction might be directly attributable to the sorry state Africa currently finds itself in.

 

If you live in a green world, with green walls and green floors and a green sky, you will have a bias towards green. Green will be your favourite colour, it will be the bestest, most greatest colour in the whole goddang world! Until you meet a guy who lives in a blue world.

 

Same with western-style democracy.

[Eclipse Now]

No, that will not do at all! I'll grant that your previous posts — especially links to TED.com talks that were quite influential on my thinking —*established that some regimes in Africa had created a mockery of democracy. But you have far from proven that truer, cleaner, more accountable democracy is itself incompatible and not beneficial to Africa as a Continent! The TED talk complained of tinpot dictator mentalities currently involved in siphoning money off the top of AID work, and how AID work needed to consider the local tribal cultures and human capital already in place. I agree with all of this... except your conclusion that there is no place for political reform in Africa, and that hope for such must be abandoned because the African people will never adopt it! I'm sure the TED speaker would love to see an African Union gradually emerge out of the chaos that is currently in place, and create real Federal Standards of accountability, transparency, good governance, etc.

[Boerseun]

Hoping for democracy to arise in a pure and clean form out of what's left of Africa depends on a continent-wide cultural shift away from tribalism and patriarchy.

 

Tribalism and patriarchy is essential to the culture of Africa.

 

You can have democracy, or you can have African culture.

 

You simply cannot have both.

[Eclipse Now]

Is tribalism rampant in South Africa, and if it is, are you saying South Africa does not have a 'modern' democracy? (However we define that.) If South Africa is a modern democracy then Patriarchy has been expelled according to your rationale... so what has SA lost as a result?

 

Africa is a big place. What part does Patriarchy play in say southern, more tribal African nations as opposed to Northern, more Muslim nations? It seems to me that you're making some fairly large and fairly destructive generalisations in your argument.

 

Basically, if the Patriarchy being discussed is the duty of a father to indulge in Muslim honour killings, then I for one say 'culture smulcher' and be done with it and bring on a Pan-African Federalism ASAP!

[Boerseun]

Is tribalism rampant in South Africa, and if it is, are you saying South Africa does not have a 'modern' democracy?

Yes it is, and as to your second question, South Africa has a very modern democracy. Same as the rest of Africa. On paper.

 

The Xhosas and Zulus are roughly equal in number, so they can't beat each other at the polls. Also, the main party on the political landscape, the ANC, is seen as the only vehicle to carry the country forward. The Xhosas used to own the ANC, but in 2008 there was a palace revolution where the Xhosa president, Thabo Mbeki, was ousted by Zulu Nationalist Jacob Zuma. The Zulus have now taken over from the Xhosas, but the ANC is still in charge. It's a long story. But yes - tribalism is rife. And on paper, democracy is all dandy and stuff, South Africa having one of the most progressive constitutions in the world - but in practice, barely worth the paper it's printed on.

 

I have explained all this in my previous posts in this thread. Please read it again.

If South Africa is a modern democracy then Patriarchy has been expelled according to your rationale... so what has SA lost as a result?

On paper, everything is dandy. In practice, not so. In African communities, what the Old Man says, goes. Women have very little rights. A modern democracy assumes that men and women are political equals with equal power. Culturally, that is not the case in Africa. So - sure; SA is a modern democracy - once again, on paper. Patriarchy has been expelled according to law. But in practice, nobody bothers to enforce it. And beaten and downtrodden African women will rarely lay charges against their men, not because they're afraid of them, but because "it is not the African way", and they are supposed to be their men's "servants". Poligamy is rife. Our president, Jacob Zuma, just married his fifth wife (one died, another divorced him) and he has in excess of 20 children by all his wifes. Note, however, that men are allowed to be polygamous, women not. Not in our actual law which prohibits it, but in "cultural law" which our law caters for. Sounds crazy? TIA, man. This Is Africa. Women have all the rights in the world, here. On paper. In practice, they're doin' things the same way they've been doin' things forever. "Western-style" democracy means nothing. Not here.

Africa is a big place. What part does Patriarchy play in say southern, more tribal African nations as opposed to Northern, more Muslim nations? It seems to me that you're making some fairly large and fairly destructive generalisations in your argument.

Come visit.

Basically, if the Patriarchy being discussed is the duty of a father to indulge in Muslim honour killings, then I for one say 'culture smulcher' and be done with it and bring on a Pan-African Federalism ASAP!

I don't think we're on the same page regarding patriarchal systems. Also, I don't think we're on the same page regarding Pan-Africanism (which I've also addressed in previous posts in this here very same thread. I highly recommend you read those posts again.)

[Eclipse Now]

And on paper, democracy is all dandy and stuff, South Africa having one of the most progressive constitutions in the world - but in practice, barely worth the paper it's printed on.

So does South Africa have fair voting and rule of law? Do people have the right to go to court before being thrown in gaol? Are leaders subject to the same laws as the people of the land?

 

I'm not talking about social justice issues about wealth and how that might affect *access* to legal services, which is an issue here in Australia with our poor, or socially marginalised, like some of our Aboriginals, but I'm talking about the fact that a cop can't just put you in gaol and throw away the key without at least having a hearing before a court of law.

 

Our president, Jacob Zuma, just married his fifth wife (one died, another divorced him) and he has in excess of 20 children by all his wifes. Note, however, that men are allowed to be polygamous, women not. Not in our actual law which prohibits it, but in "cultural law" which our law caters for. Sounds crazy? TIA, man.

Yes, TIA in some cultural aspects... do you find these praiseworthy? So let's just remember that you objected that a world wide *culture* of democracy might eliminate some cultures.

 

You've then complained that in South Africa they have culture's like treating women as their servants, rife Polygamy, tribal violence that might flare up at any point in the obvious tensions in South Africa every time they vote, etc, and that basically it's a democracy on paper, and now you wish they had the *culture* of democracy and lived by the spirit of the law, not pretending to just meet the outward forms of the law?

 

Ummm, I agree then. You've spelt out my argument for me.

 

I don't think we're on the same page regarding patriarchal systems.

Then while you are very informed about some aspects of African patriarchy, it sounds like you need to catch up on some other aspects of your continent. It's a big place, and female circumcision and honour killings amongst traditional Muslim communities occurs in some areas... National Geographic or something from years ago... can't find a link right now, and I'm NOT as informed on Africa as you are, but I do suggest you get up to speed on the role of Patriarchal society in Islam and investigate the effects that has on some African countries.

 

And yes, if female circumcision is part of their 'culture', I think a modern democracy would conflict with that. Again, bring it on! Isn't that a good thing?

[Boerseun]

So does South Africa have fair voting and rule of law?

Yes. South Africa has "fair voting" and the "rule of law". On paper.

 

South Africa have embarked on converting itself into one of the biggest welfare states in the world, percentage-wise. Out of a population of about 40-50 million people, 13 million are dependent on social grants. Before every election, the ruling party's agents move amongst the population, telling them that if they vote for any party other than the ANC, they will lose their grants and benefits, and will be generally beaten to a pulp. Come voting day, they get their ballot papers with all the parties duly listed, their votes secret. Who do you think they'll vote for? There goes "fair voting" out the window.

 

South Africa has the "rule of law" embedded in our constitution. Yet, when the current president was being investigated before the election that elevated him to that austere position, on more than 900 charges of corruption, ranging from taking bribes in South Africa's Arms Deal Scandal where the country procured submarines, frigates and advanced fighter jets that SA can neither use nor has any need for, what happened? The Directorate for Special Investigations, called the "scorpions", an elite branch of the Department of Public Prosecutions - analogous to the FBI in the 'States, got abolished. An entire elite task team that was charged with investigation upper-level corruption got sacked because their investigations to the "Big Man", the "Chief", got a little too close. The "Big Man" has the right to suck the country dry with any means possible, because he's the "Big Man". And any questioning of this right that he has, like the "Scorpions" investigating his affairs, is not the African Way. There goes the "Rule of Law".

 

So, to answer your question - yes. We have Fair Voting and The rule of Law. But it is utterly meaningless in the African milieu.

Do people have the right to go to court before being thrown in gaol? Are leaders subject to the same laws as the people of the land?

Every person has the right to go to court. Every person has the right to a speedy trial. On paper, yet again.

 

It has become a game for the cops in the town I live in, to see how many whites they can arrest on petty charges before the weekend. They perform arrests on white people on Friday afternoons, and the bail hearings can only be heard by judges when they are back on the bench - i.e. Monday. So you get to spend a weekend in a seriously overcrowded prison cell that you get to share with rapists and killers because you failed to pay a speeding ticket on time. The cops tauntingly shout "sort out the Boer" to the invariably black crowd of serious criminals and chuck you in, to maybe consider taking you to court for a bail hearing on Monday. White men caught for petty traffic offenses have been ***-raped by HIV positive serious offenders, and the cops turn a chuckling blind eye.

 

So yes - you do have the right to go to court, but every loophole is exploited to make it as hard as possible for whites and blacks who are members of opposition parties to get there. And once in court, cases are postponed for months to even years on end for any silly reason - simple cases that don't need much investigating and used to be sorted out in less than a week drag on for years. Except, of course, when the ruling party's blue-eyed boys are involved. Then the case either speedily wraps up or gets thrown out of court for "lack of evidence".

 

Yet, on paper, everything's dandy.

I'm not talking about social justice issues about wealth and how that might affect *access* to legal services, which is an issue here in Australia with our poor, or socially marginalised, like some of our Aboriginals, but I'm talking about the fact that a cop can't just put you in gaol and throw away the key without at least having a hearing before a court of law.

Everybody has "access to the courts". Everybody has the right to legal representation, paid for by the state. The thing is tat the system only seems to work if you're a connected member of the ANC, one of the ruling class. If not, you can go directly to hell in a handbasket. If you're not blindly loyal to the king, the king doesn't bother with your "rights" or "privileges". That's the African way. Only now, the Democratically elected president is the King.

Yes, TIA in some cultural aspects... do you find these praiseworthy? So let's just remember that you objected that a world wide *culture* of democracy might eliminate some cultures.

Eclipse, you keep on misreading my posts. You keep on raising the same tired issues. I do most certainly not find it praiseworthy. I would like you to point out anywhere in my prior postings where I might even have hinted at that. I find it the total soul-sucking opposite of "praiseworthy". What I am saying, however, is that democracy exist in Africa, on paper. And look where it got Africa. All it did was to enable African culture to manifest itself on a bigger scale. If you have a petty chieftain killing a few of his enemies in a tribal setup and you make him a "democratically" elected president, with access to all the State's resources, his mentality will stay exactly the same as it was when he was chief. Only now, he'll be killing more people. And misery will spread as he enriches himself to the empoverishment of the rest. A tribal member is an "employee of the chief". A western-style democratically elected president is an "employee of the people". An African president sees it the other way around. A subtle shift, but you will be surprised at the excesses people with a tribal mind can get up to when they see themselves as the "chiefs" of whole nations, with everybody being their servants. The whole "president employed by the people" thing haven't struck quite home yet. Subtle, but crucial.

You've then complained that in South Africa they have culture's like treating women as their servants, rife Polygamy, tribal violence that might flare up at any point in the obvious tensions in South Africa every time they vote, etc, and that basically it's a democracy on paper, and now you wish they had the *culture* of democracy and lived by the spirit of the law, not pretending to just meet the outward forms of the law?

Yes. But I have also spelled out repeatedly to you why this is not possible. You cannot expect to get democracy in the real western sense, not only the paper-bound one we currently see in Africa, to work here WITHOUT changing African culture across the width and breadth of this sad and sorry continent. You, for some reason, fail to see my point. Am I not coming across clearly? Should I somehow reformulate my sentences? What gives?

 

I would love to see real democracy in Africa. I cannot see how this is possible without changing African culture from its very foundations. I cannot see how they will allow outsiders to prescribe a new culture to them. It will be a good thing, I agree - but in who's eyes? If they live happily in their mud huts and carry on doing what they've happily been doing for thousands of years, who are we to demand anything else off of them? And how would that feature in a "World Government"?

 

You can have an entire "World Government" but you will have to exclude Africa. She's not ready. She won't be ready for that for thousands of years. You do know, though, that when the Voortrekkers moved into the interior of a country laid waste by King Shaka it was the very first time that any of the local tribes saw a wheel. Expecting advanced politics that assume a huge homogenous population (failure #1) with a sophisticated political outlook that recognizes the rights of the individual (failure #2) over that of the State (failure #3) where the population should accept the fact that their culture won't work, that you as an outsider know better and that they should all abolish their ancient cultures to suit you (failure #4) is simply unrealistic, unworkable, pie-in-the-sky, and naive to the n'th degree.

 

You can have your "World Government", but at best, Africa could serve as one big wildlife sanctuary. Build a wall around the entire continent and let Darwin sort them out. Wait until the year 4010 and break the wall down. Look for a wheel. If you don't see one, build the wall up again and wait another 2000 years. Once you see a wheel, you can maybe consider discussing advanced politics with them.

Ummm, I agree then. You've spelt out my argument for me.

...and you once again haven't listened to a word I said.

Then while you are very informed about some aspects of African patriarchy, it sounds like you need to catch up on some other aspects of your continent. It's a big place, and female circumcision and honour killings amongst traditional Muslim communities occurs in some areas... National Geographic or something from years ago... can't find a link right now, and I'm NOT as informed on Africa as you are, but I do suggest you get up to speed on the role of Patriarchal society in Islam and investigate the effects that has on some African countries.

For someone so in tune with matters African, you should of course know that Africa's Muslim population's loyalties lie more with the Arab world than with sub-Saharan Africa. Also, sub-Saharan Africa's Muslim population is tiny, and won't feature in any democratic outcome. Less than 2%. But you know this, of course. So there's not much profit in discussing this.

And yes, if female circumcision is part of their 'culture', I think a modern democracy would conflict with that. Again, bring it on! Isn't that a good thing?

Your arrogance astound me. Of course it's a good thing. In your view.

Make no mistake, I am no proponent for female circumcision. But you have to be consistent. I am of the opinion that if anybody want their genital mutilated, it's their own problem. In other words, circumcision is good if the owner of the particular body part gives her consent. This, of course, is impossible in the African female circumcision discussion, because females are circumcised at a very young age, before they can give consent. And as there are no medical benefits and serve only as spiritually-inspired mutilation without consent, why don't you object to circumcision amongst Jewish boys? Imagine the cultural depth of circumcision amongst Jews. Now imagine that very same thing with female circumcision in Africa.

 

I don't like it, I think its barbaric, no consent is asked or can be given, there are absolutely zero medical benefits, but an entire culture have been doing it for years. Yet we respect the one and not the other. Male circumcision based on cultural practice is any time as wrong as female circumcision based on cultural practice. Yet you respect the one culture and not the other.

 

I think Australia might be a tad far from here for you to have a real grasp on what you're saying. You can't opine about an entire continent based on "National Geographic or something"