Guatemalan Dictators, and Brutes of our Own. . . .

Yesterday the former dictator of Guatemala, Efrain Montt, was convicted of 80 years in prison for Genocide. The sentence is, in a sense symbolic considering that Mr. Montt is now 86 years old and very unlikely to survive any significant time in prison. But the sentence is interesting at least because it is one of the very few examples in which a nation is actually trying to come to grips with its fascist past. The sad fact is that Guatemala has seen a string of dictators and brutal militarists (the current president was an military officer under the Montt regime). Central America (and Latin America in general) is awash with former dictators and political murderers, almost none of which have been brought to justice. In 1954 the CIA orchestrated a coup in Guatemala and in 1973 they orchestrated another in Chili. But few (and certainly no one in the US) has ever been properly brought to account for these events. The sad truth is that Montt is a drop in the bucket.

As the years have past I have come to realize that, for the most part, nations really don't really want to come to terms with their past. Nations (and nationalists) want to wave flags and sing anthems and are very good at ignoring the negative aspects of their country's past. I was shocked with I visited Spain with my partner (who was born and raised there) and realized that not only was it a country that had not come to terms with the fascism of the Franco but the country is full of young people who think he was a pretty good guy. If good ol' George Santayana was right, then counties that fail to come to grips with their past are in real danger of slipping back into the fascism that their country once embraced.

I grew up amid the Watergate scandal and as I have gotten older I have been amazed at the way that people in the US have gradually rebuilt the public image of Richard Nixon. Now, as countries go, the US is surely one of the most rabidly nationalistic and as a result even the so-called left in the US is not eager to keep the memories of Nixon's crimes in the public mind because they feel that it hurts the nation in general. A couple of nations (including South Africa and El Salvador) have used national reconciliation commissions in an attempt to come to grips with their past while avoiding the logistical mess of bringing potentially tens of thousands of people to justice. But it seems almost that, as a general rule, countries want to ignore the anti-democratic, brutal, dictatorial elements in their past. And in many cases they are inclined to even vocal defend such misdeeds. (I think that there is little question that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could, and should, have been brought up on charges of crime against humanity be we all knew that wouldn't happen.) It is not just that the victors write history but nationalists and so-called patriots simply don't want the "wrong" kind of history written.

And the saddest part of all is that Montt, his supporters (and his ilk elsewhere) actually believe that their crimes against humanity were not crimes in the first place, but that their deeds were harsh but necessary.

This brings us to our own dear leader. As far as I am concerned, Stephen Harper is a criminal. He has actively contravened the constitution, he has operated through electoral fraud, he has attempted to dismantle our democratic institutions, he is destroying the environment in ways that will be a terrible burden on future generations, and he has poisoned the political discourse in Canada to a degree from which it may never recover. But despite the fact that Harper makes the previous Liberal government (which he never tires of condemning) like a bunch of honest and honourable public servants, a good swath of Harper supporters believe that ANYTHING Harper does is justifiable and continue to hold to the untenable postion that he is an excellent Prime Minister.

I have no sympathy for a brute like Efrain Montt. But the truth is that this 86 year old man is little more than a scapegoat, a meaningless symbol for people to hold on to as though dictators and brutes really are held responsible for their murderous and anti-democratic past. As a general rule they aren't and perhaps never will be.

The Comfort of Secrets. . . . .

On consideration of recent and past events on the front of modern democracy I have concluded that in troubled times there is a certain percentage of the population that is attracted and comforted by significant government secrecy. I think of the election of Hitler and the re-election of Nixon, two blatantly evil and corrupt figures who enjoyed amazing public popularity. And of course now we have our own example popularity in the face of obvious evil in the Harper regime. When times are uncertain and troubled I think there are many people who react with feelings of fear which are placated by a leader who they perceive to be extremely secretive, shifty, and ethically dodgey. Perhaps it makes these people believe at some (almost subconscious) level that their leader must be doing something to insulate them from the uncertainty and looming disaster.

Think about it for a bit. It was not when Nixon's secretive corruption was simply obvious that his popularity waned in the public eye. It was only when the secrets themselves were exposed that people reacted against this man who was so blatantly evil. Anyone who was paying attention at the time knew that Nixon was up to no good in Indochina and that he was doing dubious things at home. But his so-called 'silent majority' were comforted by Nixon's secretiveness; it made them feel as though their leader was behind the scenes acting on behalf of their interests in ways that would be difficult for him to do openly. It was only when the secrets began to be exposed that people realized, of course, that Nixon was not very interested in 'the people's' interests but was just another (slightly mad) sap who was conniving and grasping in his own bizarre self-interest.

I believe that the same phenomenon is going on here today. One would have to be blind or simply stupid not to see that Stephen Harper is conniving and grasping man who is up to no good. At the very least it is obvious that he has created a government pattern of, in one official's words, "obliterating" public accountability. Slowly the pattern has emerged of a government that is trying to shut down all avenues of information surrounding what the government is doing at every level, from the use of public funds to the actions of our armed forces. And like all good Orwellians, the government actually constantly talks about their openness and accountability while doing the exact opposite.

But in the struggle to understand why Harper has maintained a certain degree of popularity while acting so secretive and ethically dubious, I have concluded that it is this very secretiveness that is maintaining him in the eye of a certain group of the public. As long as the secrets that he is holding do not suddenly become exposed there are many people that are comforted by his secretive approach of denial and cover-up. It is only after his exposure and ouster that people will say "Oh my God, this man was dismantling decades of democracy building in which we have created institutions that are supposed to respond to the people's needs and the people's will!" And then there will be a period of shock and grief much like there was after the Nixon years or, to a different degree, when the population of Germany, Spain, and Italy, had to come to grips with the fact that fascism had actually been very popular in those countries for a time.

We are like children who, when very young, look at the mysteriousness of our parents with awe and are comforted by the power we believe them to have. It is only when we begin to grow up that we see that they are human like everyone else and that they sometimes have feet of clay, that we begin to demand a degree of accountability and reciprocity from them. Every citizenry eventually matures out of a period of fear and vulnerability and begins to ask the questions. Wait for it.

Against the grain. . . .

I understand that I run against the grain. Most of the political sympathies and values that our society seem to hold dear mean very little to me. I don't like sports. I think competition is generally a bad thing. I think fashion is silly and childish and people shouldn't worry about how they look. I believe in being as straightforward as possible with people in social situations short of being thoughtless to the point of hurting their feelings or touching on issues that might be very sensitive to them. I think capitalism is failing badly, as is democracy. I don't believe that the "people" are always right, nor the customer.  I don't support the troops because I believe that standing militaries are just a tool for a ruling-class to pursue more wealth and power. I have little respect for most so-called "professionals" because they are generally self-interested, power-hungry people who know a lot less than they pretend to yet portray themselves as more or less infallible. I don't think politics should be treated like a school-yard game but should be pursued based on fundamental ethical beliefs. I think any true Christian would, by ethical necessity,  be a socialist. I think your real political views are more evident in the way you treat people than in the party you support. I hate school uniforms because they are just another way to try to make people conform. I think kids should wear anything they want to school short of shirts with racist or sexist slogans which is  really just a form of bullying. I believe that Raphael is a greater painter than Michaelangelo, and that Shelley is a greater poet than Wordsworth.  I believe that most of the traditional art forms (painting, the novel, most music)  are essentially dead because technologies have inexorably shifted human creative endeavors. I think that specialization is destroying the human imagination and that technocrats are undermining the full flowering of human society. I think scientists are never objective and that science doesn't depict 'truth' but is just a mechanism of control and prediction that is as much under ideological sway as anything else in society. I don't think science will 'save' us from anything and that imagination is more important than knowledge. I believe that fairies and sprites are as real as my toyota. I think that schools should emphasize music, art, and literature with as much zeal as they do mathematics. I believe that empathy is more important than intelligence and that the economy should serve human needs and desires not the other way around. I think if the human race is to survive and more forward then we must learn to cooperate on a grand scale and learn the importance of compassion and love.

Ok, so I know I run against the grain and most people find my beliefs bizarre and incomprehensible. But even though most people don't share my values and sympathies, there are some things I will never understand, like how anyone voted for Richard Nixon or how any one, anytime, under any circumstances would vote for Stephen Harper. Not because these men's beliefs differ from mine but because they don't believe in anything but their own ambition. 

So much for accountability . . .

One of the only issues that Harper ran on when he initially became prime-minister was accountability. Anyone who really paid attention at all knows that this was never really in the cards. From day one this government has centralized power and information and failed completely to be open, honest, and accountable. But their secretiveness is finally catching up with the Tories and it will eventually take them down. 

This government is spending billions on so-called stimulus and anytime you have that much money around people like this something is bound to go wrong. Though multiple sources are saying that the money is favoring Conservative ridings, exactly what is going on is unclear. This is because the government is not telling anyone, even the parliamentary budget officer, where the money is being spent. Because it is not difficult to track this kind of money, there must be a reason that the Conservatives are hiding the money trail. If there was nothing to hide they would simply put it on a government web site as they did with Harper's rather embarrassing singing. When Martin ran a long election campaign in 2006, he did so with the hope that the Conservatives, given enough rope, would hang themselves. Unfortunately, thanks to corruption at the RCMP, (with the release of information concerning an investigation into the budget leak against their own rules), the opposite happened. However, though it took a while, the Conservatives now have the rope and they seem to be using it liberally (no pun intended). This sh*t is eventually going to hit the proverbial fan. Let us not forget that Nixon was reelected after the Watergate break-in. But once the ship started to sink, it did so in an epic manner. Harper, the most secretive, corrupt, partisan, undemocratic prime-minister in this country's history is just now beginning to come undone. But like Nixon, his strength will eventually prove to be his weakness.

Harper turns into Nixon

For all those doubters who think that Harper is not afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, go to this site and check out the symptoms. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

For those who see scary parallels between Harper and Nixon, check out this interesting article which connects to an even more

compelling article in the London Guardian.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/12/11/02900.html

Scary stuff.....

Democracy's Failures

Well the people of British Columbia, in their (lack of) wisdom, reelected the most right-wing, self-interested, hypocritical premier in the country. But as anyone who has read my blog knows, I believe that democracy is a system severely compromised by market forces that distort results in favor of a corporate agenda and centralizing power. Democracy as it presently exists can be said to be significantly failing the very principles it was instituted to uphold. With this in mind, on this rather depressing day, I bring you some other failures of democracy.

-1933 Hitler’s Nazi Party elected with 44% of the vote.

-1967 Lestor Madox elected Governor of Georgia.

-1963-87 George Wallace elected Governor of Alabama (Four Times!)

-1968 & 72 Richard Nixon elected twice (the 2^nd time with 49 of 50 states)

-1991 Boris Yetlsin elected President of Russia by 57%

-1993 Derek Beackon elected Councilor for Milwall under the BNP banner

-2000 Vladimir Putin elected President of Russia twice!

-2009 the Fascist UBP wins the Cyprus Elections

 

The story continues . . .