Monday, March 28, 2005
Revolutionary Democracy
The news has been full of the Kyrgyzstan chapter in a developing democratic wave. A few years ago the country and its ruler were considered the most democratic in Central Asia. But after familial and other corruption and a questionable parliamentary election, the situation unraveled. A popular movement began in the south, the poorer and more religious area. It spread rapidly to Bishkek, the capital. Soon, the police abandoned their posts and the President fled the country with this family. The newly elected parliament (the one the protesters rejected) and the old parliament (elected at a more promising time) have begun meeting on separate floors in the parliament building (confusing since some people are in both old and new parliaments). But the popular coup has stalled for now. The Supreme Court has not registered the new parliament and the new interim PM elected by the old parliament is not sure he has the right to rule. Demonstrations for the President have occurred. Stay tuned.
Whatever happens, the movement to reject the announced election result was inspired in part by events recently in the Ukraine and before that in Georgia, where the outcomes were rejected and the rejections legitimated by new elections. A legitimating second election did not happen in the Philippines in the 1980s when Marcos was thrown out after an election that the opposition claimed was rigged. (As one of the observers of that election I do not know that it actually was. Where I was Marcos clearly won on the basis of ballots counted — but how free the average voter felt he was in making his choice is another question.) Many of these movements look back to the popular movement that finally got rid of Milosevic in Serbia in 2000. Today, we have examples of popular movements in Lebanon and Zimbabwe, and may see one in Egypt.
This democratic fervor and ferment is generally to be applauded. However, we must remember that mob democracy is not the same as constitutional democracy. The revolutionary birth of a nation such as occurred in the French Revolution is not something we would want to see repeated. It is important to not be too quick to endorse such movements, taking sides only when there is a high probability that the result will be a stable, responsible government.
Whatever happens, the movement to reject the announced election result was inspired in part by events recently in the Ukraine and before that in Georgia, where the outcomes were rejected and the rejections legitimated by new elections. A legitimating second election did not happen in the Philippines in the 1980s when Marcos was thrown out after an election that the opposition claimed was rigged. (As one of the observers of that election I do not know that it actually was. Where I was Marcos clearly won on the basis of ballots counted — but how free the average voter felt he was in making his choice is another question.) Many of these movements look back to the popular movement that finally got rid of Milosevic in Serbia in 2000. Today, we have examples of popular movements in Lebanon and Zimbabwe, and may see one in Egypt.
This democratic fervor and ferment is generally to be applauded. However, we must remember that mob democracy is not the same as constitutional democracy. The revolutionary birth of a nation such as occurred in the French Revolution is not something we would want to see repeated. It is important to not be too quick to endorse such movements, taking sides only when there is a high probability that the result will be a stable, responsible government.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
