The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
> In fact is there some thing called true democracy with all > the talk about by the people for the people people or we are > dreaming? Dear Ghazwan and List, The principle sounds noble enough. But in the 'true' sense, I'd say no. An ideal yes - and functionally better than the ruling monarchies. But since the industrial revolution 'democracy' is just a synonym for 'capitalism'. And now it's unabashedly finanical oligarchy, ie corporatism - promoting globalization, neoliberalism...the New World Order. Corporations put government leaders place - Bush is the best president the oil industry could buy. Of course, people get to vote. But more than ever corporations own and control government. And they own and control the media. It's just a different kind of dictatorship...I think. This is particularly noticeable in the US, but it's more or less the same in all the so-called western democracies. So the media manipulates public opinion - or thinks it does. At least it suppresses items that run counter to corporate interests, eg. anti-globalization and anti-war opinions. And it faithfully parrots government propaganda - the bigger the lies... On Iraq you can have any opinion you like, as long as it's pro war. Anti-war demonstrations get scant mention in the press. And prominent (ie, influential) war opponents are scorned as "Saddam supporters", "professional anti-Americans", or "bleeding hearts". (eg, Canadian, US, and German media.) A more extreme example from the German press where not even money could buy "free speech". (I don't think this could have happened elsewhere): When Bush visited Europe last May, German peace movements and prominent individuals decided to take out a full-page ad in a national (liberal) newspaper. The ad was to say: "We don't want your war, Mr. President. We don't want any wars - followed by all the signatures. The publishers refused to print the ad. (Instead they put in their own ad: "Welcome, Mr. President".) People wrote furious furious letters about democracy to the editor, which the paper obligingly printed. Presumably George W. would never have seen this anti-war ad, but it would have sent a strong peace message to undecided German readers - this is an influencial paper. So I fear the Arab respondents to Al-Jazeera's poll are right: to be effective, the anti-war sentiments of the public would need strong media support. And according to Halliday, Iraqis are only too aware that no-one "in power" will stand up for them. > Does that mean that politicians are counting on people to > switch their opinion and follow the leader right or wrong > and support the war. I don't know what they are counting on. They certainly don't like public dissent - may even fear it. But corporations have power which public opinion doesn't have. Still, if public dissent grows stronger and stays consistent it may get a voice. But it will take time. Another revolution, like the French? Or else, Oceania and Brave New World rolled in one? But many people are certainly getting fed up with the inane propaganda the papers insult their readers with - and to no effect it seems. "What's right about a Bush", asked an editorial. Answer: everything. With his 'Lincolnesque' view Bush must perform the "'labour of Hercules' confronting him", gushes the writer - ie, bomb, invade and occupy Iraq; then go on to the next country. On the opposite page, several letters to the editor soundly condemn Bush and his wars. Example: "Diabolical plot" - Re: Bush 'sick and tired of deception', Jan. 15: "The United States is... in total disregard of international law. ... The aid group Doctors Without Borders can attest as to how severely the sanctions have hurt the Iraqi people, and their children, not to mention the impact of the continuous bombing by the United States. What about the principles of national sovereignty, human rights, and the self-determination of nations? Should the U.S. ignore these truth, they will be guilty of a criminal offence. The diabolical intention of the U.S. is to impose a new social and economic system on Iraq that would make it a better fit in a globalized world. Globalization, after all, is a concentration of economic and political power that could result in the enslavement of human kind under one world power - a dictatorship. I cannot believe that the world will tolerate such a fraud, hyped up by media propaganda, without millions of people protesting this injustice, aggressive transgression and violation of international law." (name) The media and the public values are not in sync said a recent article in the Globe and Mail: "It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media". "Right on, right on", wrote the readers. One reader said: "My wife and I... are news junkies and your paper happens to be the best of a very sorry lot. How sad." Here are some excerpts from the article: --------------Start Fwd-------------- Globe and Mail "It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media" By LAWRENCE MARTIN Thursday, January 23, 2003 -- Print Edition, Page A19 "'You have a bit of a problem here,' a European diplomat was saying over lunch last week. 'Your media are not representative of your people, your values.' So many of the political commentators are right of centre, the diplomat said, while Canadians themselves are in the moderate middle. There's a disconnect. Who could disagree? Witness Defence Minister John McCallum and his suggestion that Canada might fight a war alongside the United States even if the United Nations did not find reason for one. The media applauded the sentiment. As for Canadians themselves, a poll was taken: A piddling 15 per cent favoured such an option. Canadians aren't becoming more like Americans. It is their media that are becoming bolder imitations. The press, it might well be said, is moving away from the people. ... Take Canada's two national papers... .There are some other perspectives from middle-of-the-road columnists as well as weekly contributors. But there is not one full-time left-of-centre political columnist. ... There are holdouts in the print world.... But the moderate voices, as the Iraqi crisis attests, are increasingly being drowned out. Some wonder, for example, how there could be almost as much of a drumbeat for an Iraq war in the Canadian media as in the United States. Some wonder how President George W. Bush's allegations can be reported at face value by Canadian journalists. If it were in years gone by, my guess would be there would be reams of articles on how he has been humiliated by United Nations weapons inspectors finding nothing, on how he has plummeted in the polls, on how he gets away with such assertions that Saddam Hussein has the capacity to invade America and ruin its economy. But that would be in the Canada of years gone by, before the media forces of the right gained the predominant place. --------------End-------------- Best regards, Elga Sutter --------------Original Message-------------- From: "Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar" <gaz@Suruklink.net> Subject: [casi] Democracy, polls, food for thought Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:57:51 +0300 Dear list members Arabs see the anti war sentiments as having very little effects on the impending war on Iraq. Al-Jazeera satellite channel run a poll in which nearly 77% of the respondent say that war will happen despite the anti war demonstrations and sentiment. The Guardian suggested support for military action was at its lowest point yet. Just 30 per cent of those quizzed supported the use of force, against 47 per cent who opposed it. I am sure that the opposition to war will increase in the next few days to reach above 50%. Assuming that the Arabs are right and the war starts with such high public opposition to it what does that mean to democracy? Does that mean that politicians are counting on people to switch their opinion and follow the leader right or wrong and support the war. Do the Arabs understand that point, how democracy works, better than the west? In fact is there some thing called true democracy with all the talk about by the people for the people people or we are dreaming? Please dont tell me that every system has its weakness. I am not criticizing I am just puzzled. Best regards Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar Baghdad. Iraq _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk