Last night I had the privelage of visiting the Argentine Embassy
with my wife on the anniversary of the events of March 23 1972 when
the Military staged a coup in Argentina and then proceeded to root
out "terrorists" and leftists.
The results of that coup were a more than ten year long reign of
terror that only ended after the Falklands war and whose
repercussions live on. At that time the "militars" sought to find
all the leftists in Argentine society. People would just disapear.
They'd be taken to any of 350 (approx) detention centers scattered around the
country, interrogated, and then eventually killed.
I went to the embassy, expecting a typical presentation with
speeches and experiences. But what happened was far different. We
arrived a little in advance of the start. We were ushered into a
reception area where my wife ran into colleagues. There was the
usual chitchat going on as we waited for people to arrive, when in
came the Ambassador, followed by 20 or more Senior Officers. They
were all Colonels, Generals or similar high ranking officers. We
basically formed a greeting line and each of these senior officers
shook our hands.
A few minutes later we filed into the adjoining chamber, where the
Ambassador gave a speach. The first two thirds of the speech was a
status report on Argentina's efforts to account for the victims of
the repression years. He recounted statistics on how many bodies
have been recovered, of the efforts to recover evidence, account for
the crimes and bring people to justice. In those days the motto
was "you must have done something wrong." If a woman was pregnant,
she'd be held until she gave birth, then killed and the child put up
for adoption. One of the efforts of the current government is to
find out who the real parents of these children are and to help them
regain their identity.
I confess I was a bit scared of these military men. I could sense
the fear coming from those who lived through these events who were
in the room. State Terrorism is even more fearful than the kind of
terrorism done by small time terrorists. The constant message of "we
are at war", and "don't say anything or else someone might hear you"
is far more frightening than anything that can come from Al Qaeda. I
felt a sense of terror from thinking of the parralels between what I
was hearing and what we (the US) are doing now.
One of the things holding up progress on healing the wounds and
improving life in Argentina is that the people in charge, the Dick
Cheney's and Rumsfield's of that era, were never brought to account.
They gave up power in a plea deal in which the successor government
gave them immunity from prosecution. Since then they have been doing
their best to disapear the records of their crimes. As a result, so
far only a fraction of the disappeared have been accounted for. One
of the efforts underway is to at least reverse the principle of
Impunity under which the Government operated in those days. Some of
those people were doubtless in the room with me.
The Ambassador didn't state the principle "No man is above the law"
in so many words, but he talked about the principle in English. I
could only think of the assertions of executive power and immunity
stated by the President. Of his "signing statement" that he wrote
when he signed the McCain anti-torture amendment that he'd ignore
the law and didn't consider it binding on him. I'm sorry, but I am
terrified that in 10-20 years we could look like Argentina looked in
the 70's.
Then he gave the last third of his address in Spanish. He told the
audience, obviously directing his comments towards the Generals in
the room, that the lesson Argentina should have learned is that one
cannot fight terrorism with terrorism. One must fight terrorism with
the tools of democracy. With hope, with economic and social freedom,
opportunity and progress. One must fight anti-democratic forces with
more democracy -- not less. Repressing people doesn't make society
less violent -- it simply increases the violence level and redirects
the violence into a society that is fearful, conformist, and self-
repressive. Of course that is what the people who use such methods
want. They want a docile populace. And when people are terrorized
enough they become docile. We can see that happening here. When
Belafonte accused Bush of being the worlds biggest terrorist he was
talking about State Terror. The kind where someone insists that he
is fighting a 'war' and that any means he uses, or end he pursues,
is justified by that war. The Argentine Military used the terror war
to hide their corruption and prevent it's exposure. Most autocratic
regimes are usually also Kleptocracies.
The purpose of terror is to create a situation in which people will
give up their freedoms for security. But it usually also results in
a condition in which those using the tools of fear, of appeals to
patriotism, of warfare, make mistakes and costly mis-steps.
Argentina's military eventually launched the Falkland's war with a
drunken triumphalist attitude that they'd take those Islands and
Britain would do nothing. Britain fought back and crushed the
Argentine military -- and the people finally saw how bankrupt,
corrupt and kleptocratic their military was. The Falklands war had
nothing to do with a war on terrorism. It was simply an effort to
control an area claimed by Argentina and that was rich in resources
that Argentina felt it needs. Their incompetance in planning and
fighting the war led to their general incompetance being exposed for
what it is.
Draw your own parrallels.
Chris
A Prayer
I can only at this point pray,
that the fools don't have the day.
That all the young men come home alive,
and the children find food and thrive.
I can only find it in my heart to pray,
that justice wins the day,
and if no one is completely happy thats fine,
as long as everyone gets home on time.
I can only pray,
that at the end of the day,
those left standing and fey,
have lost the desire for war.
Chris
written March 17 2003: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddhist_dialogue_group/message/7190
The fools had the Day
The fools had the Day
Now we all pay and pay and pay
Our prayers reached up into the sky,
but they couldn't penetrate the lies.
How many people have to die?
So that fools can laugh and thrive?
They that think the rest of us are rubes.
Transfixed by manly words displayed on tubes.
How long do we have to cry?
While we are robbed, beaten and tortured, and die?
I feel the pain of my brothers misery.
I feel the slide, the wild ride down the cliff.
But the fools find the whole thing a barrel of fun.
They've set it up so that they hold the mortgage to the guns.
They've sold our ports, our factories and our farms.
And they warn us of enemies, that they created.
So yes, the fools had the day.
And sadly, the biggest fools are we,
who have to pay.
And all we can do is pray?
Chris
“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” – Benjamin Franklin
I'd love for there to be an easy answer. But there isn't.
I was pretty happy, The Democracy Project don't claim to be using Management theories to run their project -- Maybe they aren't the front group I was worried about and may even be sincere (if partisan) so I replied to him in an email and also posted my reply as a reply on the blog entry. I was going to close the blog to further comments, but decided to keep it open in case he wanted to reply. My email came back "Mailbox full" so I guess my hopes got too high too fast. I'll try to email him again later. I'd love nothing more than to take part in a genuine democracy project -- but that would have to be one pursued on a consensus basis. I'm going to instigate it anyway. I'm good at instigating things.
To me the biggest problem with my "colleagues" from the other side of the planet is that those of them with "totalitarian tendancies" (or kleptocrat tendancies) are currently dominating the party. Maybe he'd be for educating Republicans on democratic republican core principles. We'll see.
Anyway, all of us should be serious about reforming Democracy. Both Republicans and Democrats, if they are honest, should be able to see that our Democracy is in serious trouble. On the one hand monied interests have an increasing amount of power over most of the Government, State as well as Federal. On the other hand there is an increasing tendancy for some to see the legistlature as a mere impediment to efficiency and to scorn the common people. This tendancy is a tendancy that leads to fascist behavior if it is left unchecked. Even people like just retired Judge Sandra Day O'Connor are starting to sound the warning on this. It should be a bi-partisan concern (but it isn't). What is the cure?
There is no total cure (see entry on Totalitarianism), but the answer to imperfect democracy is not less Democracy, but better democracy and more Democracy.
What does that mean?
The answer to totalitarian thinking is appreciating that good decisions requires taking into consideration a variety of opinions. And that is the principle behind democracy: "Let the people govern themselves, with good information one gets better outcomes."
We have to analyze what makes a "good democracy" and what makes one that is malignant. Of course for business interests versus labor, elites versus commoners, the definition of a 'good democracy' will vary. But I think that if we all think together we can come up with some common notions -- at least in the US. Anyway I'm wondering if I'll hear from that guy again. Meanwhile I'm not holding my breath.
Note reedited march 13
The basis of totalitarianism is the notion that a single system can represent a totality of wisdom and if applied in the "correct" manner create a paradise or ideal state. Totalitarian thinking can be recognized in any economic system that describes itself as a total solution.
Whether that total system is Marxism, Anarchism, Fascism, Islamicism, Fundamentalism -- or whatever; the pattern is the same. All such systems present themselves as total systems. They areusually believed by their followers as a system of belief, control and rules that if followed would create a Utopia. The followers usually believe that the "end justifies the means" and so often believe in their solution as a far off one to be attained after breaking "eggs" and other severe or even ruthless actions. And all of them create chaos and misery as they duke it out with each other, and as the proponants parse or re-examine their solutions rebel against earlier versions or even reverse individual elemnts of their utopian belief systems.
And one cannot deny the beauty of each of these systems. After all one cannot deny that an end state where the "Lion lies down with the lamb" or "to each according to his needs" is a beautiful end. There is something beautiful about a universal state where God rules and all submit to his rule. There is something sublime about a world where each person is independent and can fend for him/herself. Wouldn't we all love for the "State to Melt Away?" Or for the world to be a place where the "rain drops never disturb a clod?"
Despite the beauty of most of these systems. The results of the actions of the believers and their leaders in these systems are in nearly every case distopia and conflict. In practice all totalitarian systems become tyrannies. Why is this?
Well the answer to this conundrum lies in the teachings of Buddhism. Specifically the reason the world never reaches Utopia is that ideal systems are usually intensely idealistic. Seeking perfection they are rarely content with achievement. modest improvement, compromise or consensus. The proponants of such people have a wonderful vision. But that vision is like that of an Ant trying to understand the World Elephant. The Ant can understand an individual hair thoroughly and maybe have a good idea of the layout of a leg or tail, but the Ant's understanding of the Elephant as a whole will be limited.
If the whole is too big to fit into our heads. Then a total vision will be too abstract. And a specific vision will be too specific. The vision of totality is like a star system seen incompletely from a distance. It may look like an Elephant from our quarter, but in another quarter it may resemble Sagitarrious, or Virgo, or Arcturus. Thus each system claims totality, but is only a total system within the confines of it's limited applicability. That is why both mathematical and logical attempts to develop a total system understanding of human society usually fail. The Marxist understands things from his viewpoint. The "Monetarist" understands the role of money. The Keynesian understands the role of liquidity in causing problems. Each of these systems sets itself up in opposition to it's neighbors. There is never any synthesis because each assumes that it is superior in understanding and perfect in itself. Each theorist has an excellent system of ideas that add up to a partial understanding. And each insists that their views will lead to correct results if only they can "defeat" their opponents.
But all of these systems of ideas have their limitations.
They are like a weatherman who creates a weather model and insists that because it predicts the weather in one circumstance it will always predict the weather under all circumstances. No matter how many times the model fails in it's totality they keep applying the model -- and because these are interventionists models they create savage storms and chaos everywhere they touch.
The Buddha warned about this when he taught Buddhism and Buddhist sages have refined this subject over the years. The Buddha warned about the power of illusion/mara. And how it can influence even people at the highest stages of enlightenment. His realization of this truth was actually central to his enlightenment. Recognizing limits one can compensate for them and even transcend them. Knowing that there is an elephant we don't thoroughly grasp gives us hope we can grasp the elephant better through our dharma work. We can attain to Complete and final awakening, even though it means that we must "return" to a limited existence in the next moment. And we can accept the beauty and smartness of all the "ideologies" while helping them get over their tendancy to simplify and to see their limited understandings as a totality.
Chris