[Note: Antiwar.com is a conservative web site, nevertheless it
publishes interesting and revealing articles about the situation in
the Balkans and the related western-imperialist moves.
We believe this comment by N. Malic has to be read as a highly
paradoxical text to seriously think about. We agree with the author if
the word "Democracy" is read as "western democracy". On the other
hand, our opinion is that a different, more profound conception of
democracy as "distributing power to the common, working people" should
be used, in a positive sense. CNJ
Please refer to the original URL for the many useful links:
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html%5d
"Balkan Express" by Nebojsa Malic
May 1, 2003
After 'Liberation,' Democracy
A False and Violent Religion
As any survivor of Imperial "liberation" can
attest, it is usually followed by the mass
conversion to the conquerors' religion,
Democracy. As with most religions, it means
different things to different people. Its
definition is kept deliberately vague to preclude
criticism, and even when offered, frequently
changes for the same reason. Because of its
asserted and perceived planetary primacy of
lethal force, the Empire reserves the right to
define Democracy any which way it pleases at
any given time, and trump any other definition
- by force, if so desired.
Democracy's sinister nature has been
addressed in this space before, as was its
futility. The best scholarly dissection of the
false religion is undoubtedly Hans-Herman
Hoppe's Democracy: the God that Failed.
Also well-documented is the distaste of
America's founders for the damnable
delusion, which unfortunately did not prevent
their Republic from becoming the Democratic
Empire.
Misconceptions of the beguiled masses aside,
Democracy clearly destroys freedom, and its
fundamental disrespect of property rights is
unquestionably opposite to prosperity. To
quote what is attributed to Ben Franklin,
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting
on what to have for lunch." Put that way, it
seems humorous - but it is also lethal, more
so because most people still believe in it.
The Empire's greatest victory was convincing
the world Democracy was good. Now even
those who oppose Imperial conquest do so
claiming they fight for the "real" Democracy,
which is why their resistance remains a losing
proposition.
The Enemy of Peace
Last April, this column advanced the
argument that Democracy was at the root of
the Bosnian War:
Bosnia went to war because of democracy.
Ethnic parties that came to power in Bosnia
after the 1990 election all had "democratic"
in their names: Croat Democratic Union
(HDZ), Serb Democratic Party (SDS), and
the Muslims' Party of Democratic Action
(SDA). Together, they took democracy to its
most extreme: the will of their voters led to
forcible relocations, combined with property
seizures and murder on a large scale.
Ethnicity and party membership became
synonyms, voting mirrored census results, and
politics transcended taxes and plunder to
become a game of life and death.
Apparently, what happened in Bosnia was not
an exception, but rather the rule. According to
attorney and noted libertarian scholar, James
Ostrowski, not only logic, but also "empirical
evidence indicates that democracy promotes
ethnic and religious conflict."
Noting that 23 of 29 recent intrastate conflicts
have occurred under democratic governments,
Ostrowski argues that in democracies, "people
tend to vote along ethnic and religious lines. It
is inherent in the nature of democracy. [?]
Thus, ethnic voting is a rational response to
the problem of rational ignorance about
candidates and issues. Ethnic identity provides
valuable information at very low cost. Given its
efficiency, it always has been and likely always
will be a major factor in elections." (original
emphasis)
Given this, Ostrowski argues not only that
"democracy, inherently, contains the seeds of
ethnic conflict," (original emphasis) but also
that "conflict created by democracy necessarily
worsens over time," (original emphasis) as
government power grows and with it the
discontent of the groups that are in the ethnic
and political minority.
Bosnia Demystified
Bosnia bears proof that Ostrowski's thesis is
entirely accurate. Even after seven years of
occupation, tyranny and social engineering of
the most extreme kind, its inhabitants still
vote along ethnic lines.
Worse yet, the Imperial occupiers continue to
insist on creating a unified state. "We still do
not have a truly functioning democratic
government in Bosnia Herzegovina, one that
exercises a unitary sovereignty recognized by
all factions," retired General Montgomery
Meigs, former commander of NATO
occupying forces in Bosnia, recently wrote.
Never mind that this is expressly opposed by
over half of Bosnia's population, as the very
issue over which the war was fought, and that
this "unitary sovereignty" will never be
voluntarily recognized by all factions.
Because of this, and keeping in mind
Ostrowski's thesis about ethnic conflict
inherent in democracy and worsening over
time, it becomes clear that Democracy and
Bosnia are mutually exclusive. Only if most of
Bosnia's non-Muslims somehow disappear
can that state continue to exist in the form
now envisioned.
The refusal to understand this obvious truth is
at the root of the opposition
Social-Democrats' failure to challenge the
status quo. Their recently announced policy,
advocating a unified citizen republic where
ethnic and religious affiliations will be
politically irrelevant, indicates that wishful
thinking is definitely interfering with sound
judgment.
Meanwhile, the prevailing atmosphere of
despair has predictably created an impetus to
leave. A recent poll showed that 30% of
Bosnia's inhabitants wish to leave the country
permanently, another 44% would live abroad
for a while but eventually return, and only 25%
would stay no matter what. Ironically, these
figures are one of the rare things that do
transcend ethnic lines.
Croatia, Kosovo and Macedonia: Further
Examples
Bosnia has three major ethnic groups and no
clear majority, so its case may be a bit
extreme. But other conflicted parts of former
Yugoslavia validate Ostrowski's thesis just as
well.
Croatia has been a democratic country
since 1991. It helps that most of its Serbs
are gone, though.
In Macedonia, democracy has led to the
2001 Albanian rebellion, ostensibly fought
for "greater human rights" but clearly
aimed at separation (see map). As a result,
most ethnic Macedonians have been
expelled from Albanian-controlled areas,
and are still unable to return. So much for
human rights, then.
The occupied Serbian province of Kosovo
is now dominated by ethnic Albanians,
who are busily establishing a democracy
after violently expelling most others and
trying to make the rest follow suit.
In all three cases, as well as in Bosnia,
democracy-driven ethnic conflicts have
resulted in "ethnic cleansing": yet another
crime that can be laid at the feet of the false
god.
Serbia: A War Of One's Own
Kosovo can be seen as Serbia's brush with
open democratic warfare, but it is by far not
the only instance of ethno-religious conflict.
Montenegro's leaders are obviously aware of
the potency of ethnic politics, as they
campaign for separation from Serbia on both
ethnic and religious grounds. They've even
invented a church and a language for the
purpose.
The Serbian regime's zealous commitment to
Democracy has predictably encouraged
complaints of "mistreatment" by ethnic
minorities. Hungarians in the north, Muslims
in the southwest, and Albanians in the south
have all claimed "ethnic cleansing" and
discrimination, while recently members of the
Vlach minority in the east have declared
themselves oppressed ethnic Romanians.
While these complaints might indicate that the
Serbian state is repressive (well, yes it is - but
irrespective of ethnicity), they really mean it is
the most multi-ethnic in the region, and thus
naturally susceptible to conflicts Democracy
brings...
Perhaps the most intriguing is the ongoing
conflicts among the Serbs themselves, which
seems ideological but is really more
ethno-religious. It is the contest over the
nature of their country between the
anti-ethnic Democrats/"modernist reformers,"
currently in power, and the
traditionalists/patriots/"nationalists". The
Democrats are an excruciatingly vocal
minority, determined not just to impose their
views on the rest but to actually remake
society. Recent purges, conducted in the name
of "war on crime" after the assassination of
Prime Minister Djindjic (a Democrat leader in
more ways than one), has served their
purposes splendidly.
The Democrats are many things, but mostly
anti-ethnic (i.e. anti-Serb) and pro-Empire.
Now that they are in charge of Serbs, they
seek to "cleanse" them of the stigma imposed
by the Empire's blockade, demonization and
ostracism during the 1990s (while, of course,
blaming the Serbs themselves for all those).
Now, self-purification is "one of the most
dominant motives in any socially stigmatized
group. One tries to wash away the taint that
your opponents have attached to you by
finding someone within your own movement
who is more distasteful, more extreme? then
denouncing him. Best of all if you can lead the
chorus of ostracism. That renders you yourself
ritually pure, at least for a while - and joins
you securely to the community that has now
been purged." (J.P. Zmirak)
The important difference here is that
Democrats are not purging themselves, but the
Serbian people they rule, and actually deplore
their identity and heritage. They are currently
triumphant primarily because their opponents
are disorganized, devoid of ideas and
programs, cowed by propaganda, and most of
all confused, because they also claim to favor
Democracy.
A Heritage of Strife
The first Yugoslavia was a monarchy and a
dictatorship with just the outer trappings of
Democracy, and its ethnic disputes resulted in
a World War Two genocide. One could argue
that the Socialist federation was democratic
(under the modern definition of narrowly
accepted "democratic" values), and Tito
certainly governed Yugoslavia with a keen
understanding of ethnic conflicts. He played
various groups against each other, while
setting himself up as the ultimate arbiter of
their disputes - and thus their supreme ruler.
But when he passed from this world to meet
the real Supreme Ruler, he left no successor.
Yugoslavia soon converted to open
Democracy, and the results are obvious.
Between that, and a legacy of socialism and
statism of some kind or another, the former
Yugoslavia (as well as the rest of the peninsula
and half of Europe, really) has suffered an
enormous cost in human spirit already, not to
mention lives and property. If not for their
misguided belief in Democracy, most people
would have long since decided they've had
enough, and sought liberty.
The Big Lie
If the 20th century has been a century of
Democracy, then it's little wonder it has also
been the bloodiest in human history. Here is a
quasi-religious notion that is said to promote
liberty and prosperity, while in reality it is the
worst enemy of both. It is said to promote
peace, but it really causes conflict and
destruction. It is also the ultimate sacrilege:
the elevation of State to godhood.
Why anyone honest and good would support
Democracy, knowing all this, is truly beyond
understanding.
- Nebojsa Malic
publishes interesting and revealing articles about the situation in
the Balkans and the related western-imperialist moves.
We believe this comment by N. Malic has to be read as a highly
paradoxical text to seriously think about. We agree with the author if
the word "Democracy" is read as "western democracy". On the other
hand, our opinion is that a different, more profound conception of
democracy as "distributing power to the common, working people" should
be used, in a positive sense. CNJ
Please refer to the original URL for the many useful links:
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m-col.html%5d
"Balkan Express" by Nebojsa Malic
May 1, 2003
After 'Liberation,' Democracy
A False and Violent Religion
As any survivor of Imperial "liberation" can
attest, it is usually followed by the mass
conversion to the conquerors' religion,
Democracy. As with most religions, it means
different things to different people. Its
definition is kept deliberately vague to preclude
criticism, and even when offered, frequently
changes for the same reason. Because of its
asserted and perceived planetary primacy of
lethal force, the Empire reserves the right to
define Democracy any which way it pleases at
any given time, and trump any other definition
- by force, if so desired.
Democracy's sinister nature has been
addressed in this space before, as was its
futility. The best scholarly dissection of the
false religion is undoubtedly Hans-Herman
Hoppe's Democracy: the God that Failed.
Also well-documented is the distaste of
America's founders for the damnable
delusion, which unfortunately did not prevent
their Republic from becoming the Democratic
Empire.
Misconceptions of the beguiled masses aside,
Democracy clearly destroys freedom, and its
fundamental disrespect of property rights is
unquestionably opposite to prosperity. To
quote what is attributed to Ben Franklin,
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting
on what to have for lunch." Put that way, it
seems humorous - but it is also lethal, more
so because most people still believe in it.
The Empire's greatest victory was convincing
the world Democracy was good. Now even
those who oppose Imperial conquest do so
claiming they fight for the "real" Democracy,
which is why their resistance remains a losing
proposition.
The Enemy of Peace
Last April, this column advanced the
argument that Democracy was at the root of
the Bosnian War:
Bosnia went to war because of democracy.
Ethnic parties that came to power in Bosnia
after the 1990 election all had "democratic"
in their names: Croat Democratic Union
(HDZ), Serb Democratic Party (SDS), and
the Muslims' Party of Democratic Action
(SDA). Together, they took democracy to its
most extreme: the will of their voters led to
forcible relocations, combined with property
seizures and murder on a large scale.
Ethnicity and party membership became
synonyms, voting mirrored census results, and
politics transcended taxes and plunder to
become a game of life and death.
Apparently, what happened in Bosnia was not
an exception, but rather the rule. According to
attorney and noted libertarian scholar, James
Ostrowski, not only logic, but also "empirical
evidence indicates that democracy promotes
ethnic and religious conflict."
Noting that 23 of 29 recent intrastate conflicts
have occurred under democratic governments,
Ostrowski argues that in democracies, "people
tend to vote along ethnic and religious lines. It
is inherent in the nature of democracy. [?]
Thus, ethnic voting is a rational response to
the problem of rational ignorance about
candidates and issues. Ethnic identity provides
valuable information at very low cost. Given its
efficiency, it always has been and likely always
will be a major factor in elections." (original
emphasis)
Given this, Ostrowski argues not only that
"democracy, inherently, contains the seeds of
ethnic conflict," (original emphasis) but also
that "conflict created by democracy necessarily
worsens over time," (original emphasis) as
government power grows and with it the
discontent of the groups that are in the ethnic
and political minority.
Bosnia Demystified
Bosnia bears proof that Ostrowski's thesis is
entirely accurate. Even after seven years of
occupation, tyranny and social engineering of
the most extreme kind, its inhabitants still
vote along ethnic lines.
Worse yet, the Imperial occupiers continue to
insist on creating a unified state. "We still do
not have a truly functioning democratic
government in Bosnia Herzegovina, one that
exercises a unitary sovereignty recognized by
all factions," retired General Montgomery
Meigs, former commander of NATO
occupying forces in Bosnia, recently wrote.
Never mind that this is expressly opposed by
over half of Bosnia's population, as the very
issue over which the war was fought, and that
this "unitary sovereignty" will never be
voluntarily recognized by all factions.
Because of this, and keeping in mind
Ostrowski's thesis about ethnic conflict
inherent in democracy and worsening over
time, it becomes clear that Democracy and
Bosnia are mutually exclusive. Only if most of
Bosnia's non-Muslims somehow disappear
can that state continue to exist in the form
now envisioned.
The refusal to understand this obvious truth is
at the root of the opposition
Social-Democrats' failure to challenge the
status quo. Their recently announced policy,
advocating a unified citizen republic where
ethnic and religious affiliations will be
politically irrelevant, indicates that wishful
thinking is definitely interfering with sound
judgment.
Meanwhile, the prevailing atmosphere of
despair has predictably created an impetus to
leave. A recent poll showed that 30% of
Bosnia's inhabitants wish to leave the country
permanently, another 44% would live abroad
for a while but eventually return, and only 25%
would stay no matter what. Ironically, these
figures are one of the rare things that do
transcend ethnic lines.
Croatia, Kosovo and Macedonia: Further
Examples
Bosnia has three major ethnic groups and no
clear majority, so its case may be a bit
extreme. But other conflicted parts of former
Yugoslavia validate Ostrowski's thesis just as
well.
Croatia has been a democratic country
since 1991. It helps that most of its Serbs
are gone, though.
In Macedonia, democracy has led to the
2001 Albanian rebellion, ostensibly fought
for "greater human rights" but clearly
aimed at separation (see map). As a result,
most ethnic Macedonians have been
expelled from Albanian-controlled areas,
and are still unable to return. So much for
human rights, then.
The occupied Serbian province of Kosovo
is now dominated by ethnic Albanians,
who are busily establishing a democracy
after violently expelling most others and
trying to make the rest follow suit.
In all three cases, as well as in Bosnia,
democracy-driven ethnic conflicts have
resulted in "ethnic cleansing": yet another
crime that can be laid at the feet of the false
god.
Serbia: A War Of One's Own
Kosovo can be seen as Serbia's brush with
open democratic warfare, but it is by far not
the only instance of ethno-religious conflict.
Montenegro's leaders are obviously aware of
the potency of ethnic politics, as they
campaign for separation from Serbia on both
ethnic and religious grounds. They've even
invented a church and a language for the
purpose.
The Serbian regime's zealous commitment to
Democracy has predictably encouraged
complaints of "mistreatment" by ethnic
minorities. Hungarians in the north, Muslims
in the southwest, and Albanians in the south
have all claimed "ethnic cleansing" and
discrimination, while recently members of the
Vlach minority in the east have declared
themselves oppressed ethnic Romanians.
While these complaints might indicate that the
Serbian state is repressive (well, yes it is - but
irrespective of ethnicity), they really mean it is
the most multi-ethnic in the region, and thus
naturally susceptible to conflicts Democracy
brings...
Perhaps the most intriguing is the ongoing
conflicts among the Serbs themselves, which
seems ideological but is really more
ethno-religious. It is the contest over the
nature of their country between the
anti-ethnic Democrats/"modernist reformers,"
currently in power, and the
traditionalists/patriots/"nationalists". The
Democrats are an excruciatingly vocal
minority, determined not just to impose their
views on the rest but to actually remake
society. Recent purges, conducted in the name
of "war on crime" after the assassination of
Prime Minister Djindjic (a Democrat leader in
more ways than one), has served their
purposes splendidly.
The Democrats are many things, but mostly
anti-ethnic (i.e. anti-Serb) and pro-Empire.
Now that they are in charge of Serbs, they
seek to "cleanse" them of the stigma imposed
by the Empire's blockade, demonization and
ostracism during the 1990s (while, of course,
blaming the Serbs themselves for all those).
Now, self-purification is "one of the most
dominant motives in any socially stigmatized
group. One tries to wash away the taint that
your opponents have attached to you by
finding someone within your own movement
who is more distasteful, more extreme? then
denouncing him. Best of all if you can lead the
chorus of ostracism. That renders you yourself
ritually pure, at least for a while - and joins
you securely to the community that has now
been purged." (J.P. Zmirak)
The important difference here is that
Democrats are not purging themselves, but the
Serbian people they rule, and actually deplore
their identity and heritage. They are currently
triumphant primarily because their opponents
are disorganized, devoid of ideas and
programs, cowed by propaganda, and most of
all confused, because they also claim to favor
Democracy.
A Heritage of Strife
The first Yugoslavia was a monarchy and a
dictatorship with just the outer trappings of
Democracy, and its ethnic disputes resulted in
a World War Two genocide. One could argue
that the Socialist federation was democratic
(under the modern definition of narrowly
accepted "democratic" values), and Tito
certainly governed Yugoslavia with a keen
understanding of ethnic conflicts. He played
various groups against each other, while
setting himself up as the ultimate arbiter of
their disputes - and thus their supreme ruler.
But when he passed from this world to meet
the real Supreme Ruler, he left no successor.
Yugoslavia soon converted to open
Democracy, and the results are obvious.
Between that, and a legacy of socialism and
statism of some kind or another, the former
Yugoslavia (as well as the rest of the peninsula
and half of Europe, really) has suffered an
enormous cost in human spirit already, not to
mention lives and property. If not for their
misguided belief in Democracy, most people
would have long since decided they've had
enough, and sought liberty.
The Big Lie
If the 20th century has been a century of
Democracy, then it's little wonder it has also
been the bloodiest in human history. Here is a
quasi-religious notion that is said to promote
liberty and prosperity, while in reality it is the
worst enemy of both. It is said to promote
peace, but it really causes conflict and
destruction. It is also the ultimate sacrilege:
the elevation of State to godhood.
Why anyone honest and good would support
Democracy, knowing all this, is truly beyond
understanding.
- Nebojsa Malic