The Hierarchy of American Democracy

America — and in this article it is important we make clear that “America” signifies the government which presides over the union of fifty states in the Northern part of a landmass whose entirety shares the same name — this America preaches Democracy with all the conviction and aplomb of a minister pounding the Good Book. But with such faith come tests, and like a minister shrugging off the notion that his family line traces back to an hominid swinging in a tree, and not an architect named Noah, America seems unfazed by recent evidence that perhaps Democracy is not a benevolent end in and of itself.

Hamas, elected Democratically, has been shunned by the American government in favor of the bypassed-because-ineffectual Fatah party. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, re-elected with 63% of the vote, is deemed an enemy of Democracy, and is anathema in Washington. The former is understandable; Hamas has attacked Israel, a Washington ally, both verbally and physically. In the case of Venezuela, however, the animosity is not so easily traced back to its source.

Yes, there have been verbal attacks against America from Hugo Chavez, but there has never been any threat, whether direct or implied, of military action against the United States. Furthermore, if one reviews the rhetoric of Mr. Chavez, one sees that his attacks are not against a country so much as a man (George W Bush) and the ideology that, to Mr. Chavez’ mind, the man and the American government represent (imperialism). Not even his fiercest critics have suggested that he wishes harm upon American citizens. They instead paint him as a threat to our faith, the religion of Democracy, and in this they are correct.

The men who devised our form of government, so often referred to as our Founding Fathers, were not only men of intelligence and foresight, but also men of ambition. The new government they set out to create would begin as a modest union of thirteen states, but it would not end there. They envisioned a government that would span the entire New World, with those original thirteen serving as “the nest” (the words are Jefferson’s) of both North and South America. This idea did not fade with time.

In 1823 the Monroe Doctrine was signed into effect, painting the entire continent, North and South, as a single zone in which the U.S. had sole right of intervention. In effect, the Monroe Doctrine was a stated ambition of hegemonic power that has influenced our hemispheric interaction to this day. We are the arbiter of all things that happen in “Uncle Sam’s backyard.”

The instances of American intervention, meddling, and outright subversive action in South American politics are manifold. Whether it be our role in Pinochet’s coup in Chile, our support for the Contras in Nicaragua, the tolerance of human rights abuses in Guatemala, or the coercive use of military aid, the U.S. has not hesitated to put its own interests over the “democracy” of another nation. One quote from Henry Kissinger, in regards to the Chilean election of Salvador Allende, sums this situation up nicely:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

So, as America is “the nest” of a Democracy that spreads from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia, important decisions are not to be left in the hands of any underling Democracies. Our neighbors to the South may vote, but if the outcome is unpleasant to Washington sensibilities, our Democracy in Washington trumps it.

In the new millenium, however, Hugo Chavez enters the political realm; a man who doesn’t accept that trump card, a man who plays with a different deck altogether. He does not accept the American hierarchical form of Democracy. In fact, he does not even buy into the internationally accepted, standard form of Democracy. Instead he is forging his own, many would say radically new, many would say tragically old, form of government. The aim is not a vision shared with Lenin, and it is not a vision shared with our Founding Fathers. Instead it is Hugo’s Bolivarian Revolution, some hybrid that seeks equity for the disenfranchised, but still (and the words are Chavez’ own) “allows for private property.”

These words are nice. They are also meaningless if action does not parallel the statements, and there have been signs to the contrary; recently the nationalization of the oil industry, and modest steps towards land redistribution, have taken place. But these are not categorically unjust moves. They can be defended with specific, rational questions; “Why should Venezuela not benefit more from the resources that lie underneath its own soil?” “Why should those who hold the spoils of colonialism and dictatorial rule be allowed to let their fields lie fallow while others have no land to work?”

Any answers to these questions are subjective, and there are strong, well-thought out lines of reasoning on both sides. To brand Mr. Chavez and his government “enemy” for these moves, however, is premature. We must give his “Revolution” time to unfold, or potentially to unravel — at this point we cannot be sure which verb will fit. It is, after all, still in its nascent stages.

Winston Churchill, the wordsmith, once said “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.” He, as well as any other individual who has observed a government in action, is all too aware that the system we currently live under can, and should, be improved upon. Yes, it is true that Hugo Chavez at times displays troubling behavior and questionable initiatives, but he has yet to cross a line that earns him the title “villian,” or “tyrant.” He has simply followed a new ideal of government with zeal and determination. So long as America strives to put down such innovative efforts like that of Mr. Chavez, and values hegemonic power over improved governance, we are left with a system that can receive, at best, back-handed compliments like Mr. Churchill’s.

Illustration by Quinn Stephens

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: