Aktiv werden! Krieg verhindern! ll Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK ll Democracy Now USA
Antikrieg TV http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/12/insanity_codepinks_medea_benjamin_on_obama http://www.antikriegsnachrichten.de http://www.antiwarnews.org http://www.antikrieg.tv http://facebook...
By: antikriegTV
Read the original post:
Aktiv werden! Krieg verhindern! ll Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK ll Democracy Now USA - Video
Watch: Democracy Now! Live Broadcast at the Peoples Climate March in NYC, Sunda
Tune in this Sunday, September 21 for the special Democracy Now! live broadcast from the People #39;s Climate March in New York City, part of a global mobilization in advance of the U.N. special...
By: Kate Nyhan
Link:
Watch: Democracy Now! Live Broadcast at the Peoples Climate March in NYC, Sunda - Video
Feature Article of Friday, 19 September 2014
Columnist: Kwarteng, Francis
George Orwells Animal Farm sums it up best like no other.
It is common knowledge democracy is not a perfect praxis of electoral politics anywhere, not in the West, Asia, Africa, or heaven, for, if it actually were, particularly in heaven, the Devil would at least have been given a fair chance at due process and probably would not have been banished to earth, the natural abode of human mortals, where he allegedly wrecks untold spiritual havoc and unilaterally imposes a dilemma of moral choices upon man through the osteoporotic edifice of human infallibility. We have been told this since the beginning of Biblical time. Perhaps due process has no equivalent in matters of spirituality. Of course these are emotional statements from a carnal mind, borrowed observations that do not want to see themselves construed as bereaved icons of rhetoric homily. Liberal democracy is not made for the heavens where God exercises his rulership with absolute authority. Ask the Devil and his likeminded retinue of fallen angels! This is just by the way.
What is the point? The point has to do with the political exigencies of democratic literalism in the Ghanaian context!
What are the intentions behind democratization? First, this question is not unrelated to the multiplicity of conditions under which the technical expectations of democracy thrive. Second, it is not beyond the bounds of reason to read the latter query as an academic question. Indeed the dancing silhouette of democracy looks so philosophically beautiful, so aesthetically charming, at least against the white paper of theoretic elucidation. It may even look theoretically romantic with expressive possibilities within utopian worlds buried beyond the restrictive boundaries of human consciousness. Yet answers to our questions may vary according to a wide sweep of indices including, but not limited to, geography; history; industrial or technological advancement; a countrys citizens educational level or a countrys educational spread; degree of religious, racial, and ethnic tolerance; moral strength and relative independence of institutional operationalization; how well-informed a countrys citizens generally are; equitable distribution of national wealth; freedom of speech and of press against a backcloth of moral responsibility; respect for human rights; and the like.
Verily, those are the indispensable political variables, not democracy of kleptomania, kleptocracy, which Ghanaian leaders should assiduously be working on. But no, short-term investment in political kleptomania to the average Ghanaian politician seems more attractively lucrative than long-term moral investiture in the national enterprise of development economics. It must, however, be pointed out that this suite of indices is not always acquirable in a democracy, not even in the much-vaunted democracies in the West. This is not to say societies or well-meaning individuals should not vigorously pursue them in the cause of national growth and development. It is the contrary that should not be settled for or entertained. After all, human beings are by nature imbued with the essential ontology of mediating moral choices, call it freewill if you like, and no amount of autocratic delimitation can stifle that innate tendency toward free expression against the dilemmatic arbitration of moral choices.
On the other hand, the elastic potentiality of mans innate infallibility does mean that certain oversight structures must be put in place to chaperone his behavioral excesses. The structural idiomatic language may assume the form of religion or secularity. Arguably not everything about religion is sensitively egregious. On the contrary, religion is necessarily bad, even egregious, only insofar as it imprisons human intellect in the four walls of ignorance, preventing it from active fruition in the progressive development of individual characters, of communities. Religion made Mother Teresa and Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Adolf Hitler was a Catholic, Idi Amin a Moslem, Richard Nixon a Quaker. Religion, especially Islam and Judeo-Christianity, made Apartheid and slavery possible. That is a piece of moral irony of the highest order! In the main, religion becomes a dangerous enemy of human intellect or progress when it uncompromisingly opposes mans innate tendencies toward community, tolerance, critical thinking, moderation, and philanthropy.
There is more to the divisive particularities of religious expressiveness than meets the eye. Generally, the excesses of personal convictions tend to lack a legitimacy of moral compass in the autocratic direction of communal prerogatives. The sum total of communal prerogatives, it seems, tends to skew more toward a corrective inherence of moral objectivity when the miasma of individual excesses threatens the edifice of social morality than toward the moral individuation of human uniqueness. Yet a community cannot always be morally right. An obvious implication is that, the autocratic proclivities of secular theology are where to look for etiological answers in respect of communal dereliction, when the example of moral individuation fails public morality.
An important question to ask ourselves is therefore this: Why does man behave like lower animals, his closest siblings, on the phylogenetic tree of political actuation? Answer! Answer! Answer! Where is that answer? Hiding! Where exactly? Nonetheless, before answering this question, let us bear in mind that, like ants, bees, and primates, human beings are primarily social, not solitary, animals, creatures endowed with seemingly limitless quanta of innate intelligence. More significantly, this innate intelligence harbors hints of generational renewal, of transformational creativity. We are implying that human beings have what it takes to fashion progressive social conditions that could measure up to the moral standards of human dignity. Granted, why are Ghanaian politicians in particular and politicians in general habituated to the dogmatic theology of political eusociality, more often than not putting on the behavioral airs of wasps, bees, and ants in a world supposed to be one of humanized sociality? Man has not sufficiently answered this question!
TODAY, September 15, is the International Day of Democracy as declared by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007.
This year's theme - Engaging Young People on Democracy seeks to highlight the challenges and opportunities of young people engaging in democratic processes.
"I call on members of the largest generation of youth in history to confront challenges and consider what you can do to resolve them. To take control of your destiny and translate your dreams into a better future for all," said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
We claim to be living in a democracy, hanging on to that claim since we booted out the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986.
But are we?
How does the UN define democracy? Lets see.
It says: Democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives.
If that is so, then whatever is keeping the Administration from passing a Freedom of Information law is definitely not something based on democratic principles; that is if they consider the people and not just themselves.
Truly, majority of those in power do not want an FOI. It will expose them for what they truly are: greedy politicians who have lived off the sweat of the wage earners through the decades that their family is in power. Thus, in the myopic view of the present administration, there is really no urgency for an FOI since majority are not for it, anyway. Majority of them that is.
Still, this is a day worth pondering on simply because we may have been allowing ourselves to be deluded that we are still living in democracy by people who are not above using icons of democracy and democratic principles to deny the people of the real one. Think: Edsa Revolution and all those who are now in power because of it. How many of them are truly standing up for real democracy, let us ask ourselves that in between pondering how much better we are now than we were under a dictatorship
The BBC Is Killing Democracy
Complain here http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/ In this video I show how the BBC creates the news stories it wants to create, regardless of th...
By: periurban
View post:
The BBC Is Killing Democracy - Video