Katanya sih suara rakyat suara tuhan. Kenyataannya suara rakyat yang digembar-gemborkan suara tuhan, terutama di NKRI tercinta, tertutup oleh amplop atau intimidasi. Disamping, kecuali aktifis masing-masing partai, sesungguhnya demokrasi adalah sebagaimana milih kucing dalam karung. Apa dan bagaimananya siapa yg akan dipilih untuk mewakili masing-masing pemilih, bisa dilihat kasus-kasus di Indonesia. Berapa banyak pejabat publik di NKRI yg bermasalah dg hukum? Atau ignorance? Demokrasi tidak lepas dari promosi saat masing-masing calon "wakil" umbar janji, dst dst. dimana setelah mewakili atau menjabat yg dilakukan kebanyakan bagaimana bertahan selama mungkin. Memang ga semua demikian, masih ada yg pegang amanah. Anda-anda boleh atau bahkan tidak se-iya namun kepentingan fihak luar, yg kemungkinan penyandang dana maupun strategi adalah "inti" demokrasi.
Mungkin demokrasi, kalaulah boleh, bisa digambarkan seperti di zamannya kaisar Pilatus, yakni bagaimana menangnya para imam maupun ahli taurat saat "pemilihan" antara membebaskan (bandit) Barabas atau Yesus a.s. Meski Pilatus punya kekuasaan namun kalah suara. Maka matilah Yesus sebagai korban kemenangan (pesta) demokrasi --- In [email protected], "sunny" <ambon@...> wrote: > > http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1043/op3.htm > > 14 - 20 April 2011 > Issue No. 1043 > Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 > > What prospects for Arab democracies? > Democracies in their beginnings are messy. A case in point is the United States, writes James Zogby > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ -------- > > "Will Arabs be able to form real democracies?" (or some variation on that theme) is a question I am frequently asked these days. After several exchanges with those who ask this question, I have come to realise that in most instances in the backs of their minds are a set of assumptions about what constitutes a "real democracy" and a rather naïve and ahistorical understanding about how democracies come into being and then function and evolve. > > Democracies are more than an election, and it's not the first election that matters, it's the second and each one that follows that matter more. > > I was in Yemen in 1993, having been invited to speak there on democracy and elections. The country was about to hold its first post-unification parliamentary contest and the air was as thick with politics as the city's walls were with posters. As I visited the headquarters of each of the competing political parties and heard their election strategies for winning this contest and their plans for the future of the country, I also listened to their complaints. "The ruling party keeps tearing down our signs," or "They are paying people to vote and telling them for whom to vote," and more. > > Having been involved in politics and elections since my childhood, none of this was new to me, and I told them so. "That happens in Chicago all the time," I would say, or "In Philadelphia, we call that 'walking around money,'" or "I know how difficult that behaviour can be, it was done to us last year in Michigan." > > A US State Department official who was present at one session complained to me afterwards about these comments. I rejected the criticism arguing that I could not pretend that America's democracy was a flawless model to be emulated -- a sort of "Cindy Crawford of democracies". Because holding ourselves up as perfect is not only false, it sets the bar too high, beyond the reach of others. > > The issue, I would remind each group I addressed, is not the flaws in this election, but whether or not processes were being put in place to impartially adjudicate complaints and take action to correct problems before the next election. > > This did not occur in Yemen, with the result that with each election that followed, the system became less -- not more -- open, undermining confidence in political processes in general, and democracy in particular. > > Democracies aren't born, they are made over time. > > Early in President Clinton's term in office I was invited to the National Archives to hear the president address how he planned to "mend, not end" our nation's affirmative action programme. Waiting for the speech to begin, I was struck by the murals that surround the ceiling of the building's main hall. They portray scenes of the "Founders" who were, of course, all white men of means (landowners, merchants, or professionals, etc). As I looked at them, I thought to myself "Did these men (many of whom were slave-holders) have any idea what would become of their fledgling and imperfect enterprise?" > > It is important for us to remember that when, in 1788, the vote was taken in Virginia to ratify the newly drafted Constitution of the United States, it passed 89 to 79. Those numbers reflected the limits on the franchise in our new democracy. Only white men of wealth were entitled to vote. And we should never forget that it took another seven decades before slavery was abolished, as an institution, and six more decades before women were given the right to vote, and even longer still before the franchise was fully extended to African Americans. > > One could add the discriminatory and burdensome restrictions placed on African Americans even after they were guaranteed the right to vote, or the shameful genocidal treatment of Native Americans, or the "dirty tricks" that have used to intimidate and suppress the turnout of Hispanic and other minority voters. The point should be clear. Our democracy was not born perfect. To the contrary, it was extremely imperfect. But equally important to recall is how our democracy has continued to grow and expand. > > Even now, though, after evidence of widespread problems that called into question the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential contests and the Supreme Court decision that opened the doors for unlimited amounts of undisclosed corporate funds to play a role in our elections, it is painfully clear that we still face real challenges to our democracy and a lot of hard work to do here at home. > > And so, before we either pontificate or prejudge, a bit of history and humility are in order. > > Final thoughts: Having said all this, two additional observations are appropriate. The first is that while the shape and pace of the new democracies that may emerge in Arab countries will vary depending on customs and conditions, the test of their vitality and their validity will be in their ability to self-correct, change and expand. > > Second, while elections and expanding political participation are important, it is also imperative that governments respect basic human rights and freedoms. They should: provide citizens with the right, individually and collectively, to redress grievances; protect them from abuse at the hands of the state; and create an independent judiciary that guarantees due process, rule of law and protects the rights individuals in their homes and persons. > > If new democracies do this, they will be starting ahead of where we started our enterprise. The rest will take time and hard work -- though, one can only hope, not the centuries it took us. > > The writer is president of the Arab American Institute. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ------------------------------------ Post message: [email protected] Subscribe : [email protected] Unsubscribe : [email protected] List owner : [email protected] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
