Even Deeper into Despotism

By batsman 

The danger of going too deep into anything is that there is a possibility that you may find out it has turned into something else. The same happens here as despotism turns into democracy. 

Despotism and democracy must have their social and economic bases. They are not just concepts devoid of any underlying supporting structure. 

I offer here the idea that democracy is only possible with wealth and not just wealth but fairly widely distributed wealth justly acquired through skill, perseverance, sweat and tears (and consequently widely acquired knowledge and creativity). 

The oldest form of democracy, tribal democracy is based upon the equal contribution (wealth) from each tribal member. Since wealth as we know it has not yet been accumulated by civilizations at the level of tribes, the contribution was in terms of labour power and human skills. Each tribesman was therefore treated more or less equally by their peers and valued as such. The strongest, wisest and most skilled tribesman enjoyed the highest prestige, but he could easily be overcome by 2 or 3 or his fellows and therefore did not lord it over the others too much. 

The problem arose when tribes went to war and started accumulating assets such as slaves, weapons and land. Simple wealth was being created and the wealthiest often became the chiefs. By extension, as tribes grew, the largest slave / land owner became the king and biggest despot. 

In feudal England, the feudal lords were often more powerful than the king if they banded together. This created the conditions for the king being forced to sign a contract with the feudal lords called the Magna Carta. In a sense, this created some sort of democracy for feudal lords, in the same way that democracy existed for slave owners in ancient Greece as well as for the merchants of the city states of Italy during the Renaissance. 

If wealth is fairly widely distributed and no one is obscenely wealthy, democracy is possible. Unfortunately, if wealth is too finely distributed, there is no one person who stands out. Conditions are created for endless quarrels, plots and counter-plots which in effect makes the community weak and disunited if an external enemy appears. 

Ancient Rome which engaged in endless wars was a case in point where the republic of equals was not sustainable and the senate was forced to choose an overall temporary dictator in times of war. It came to pass that some leaders or generals (Julius Caesar comes to mind) were so successful that they stood heads and shoulders above the rest. This created conditions for the rise of a despot in the form of the emperor. 

So it is that democracy is a very natural tendency for humans and not at all a rare and precious concept. It is only rare when the world is divided into a few very rich technologically advanced countries exploiting a large number of poor backward countries. Democracy therefore exists only in the few rich countries while despotism is the fate for the poor majority. 

It is no accident that democracy is healthier in the Scandinavian countries because wealth is more widely spread and distributed. There are few giant enterprises and their economies comprise a very large number of small and medium businesses and industries while any big companies are well controlled by the state. 

Britain and the US in contrast are actually poorly functioning democracies by comparison. Britain in particular is where Big Brother is alive and well. It is probably the state where the citizens are most spied upon and lied to – contrary to propaganda that the communist or ex-communist countries are where Big Brother lives. This is because they have the biggest and most powerful companies and where the rich-poor gap is the widest among developed nations. 

In fact their companies such as Shell are so powerful and so influential that they are often stronger than sovereign governments. Recently they suffered a law suit (which they settled out of court) in which they were accused of “paying” corrupt authorities in poor countries such as Nigeria to murder protestors. A similar case exists with a big US banana corporation operating in S. America which stands accused of paying para-militaries to get rid of trade unionists and industrial trouble makers. 

It is also no accident that the US and Britain have some of the highest prison populations per population. Unfortunately since their populations are relatively rich and relatively rebellious, they practice most of their despotism on the weaker people of poor countries. So it is that in spite of all the hoo-haa about exploitation of child labour, it still exists with young children still picking cocoa for a few pennies a day. Think about it while you enjoy your bar of chocolate or banana split. 

The most nauseating thing is that they use human rights and the torch of democracy to oppress poor countries, ruin local culture and economies, and impose foreign ideas and values as well as dominate tottering economies with giant multi-nationals. 

By definition, poor countries do not have the economic basis for a viable democracy. Most have despots ruling them because most of them have been colonies in the past and have had most of their wealth removed forcibly. Not only is there a tradition and culture of violence and brutality, when independence is won, what existing wealth remaining is cornered by the political party that gains independence. This means that the rich-poor gap is even more pronounced with bureaucrats and their cronies lording it over the poverty-stricken masses, often with the connivance of big mining or agricultural multi-nationals. 

Under such conditions, “introducing” democracy in these countries is a recipe for disaster. A country such as Iraq where “democracy” was forcibly introduced has been knocked back into the middle ages. Its people are at war with each other, suicide bombs are exploded with horribly unrelenting frequency and basic amenities are almost non-existent, not to mention basic human rights. The people have been made even less fit for democracy and poorer by far than they were under their old local despot. 

In addition despotic US intervention and occupation has allowed Al Qaeda to run riot in Iraq where none were allowed any chance of existence by the old (now executed by kangaroo court) despot. This either means the US is incompetent in their war on terror or is secretly / uncaringly encouraging terrorists for motives of their own. 

Sadly the same fate threatens countries such as Burma, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan, which must surely make their despots totally paranoid and psychotic about the hangman’s noose. Sadly, even the fact of an unfriendly US (not to mention any black operations if existing) is enough to set back any natural development of the people for democracy. 

What about Malaysia? I think we are doing very well in our historical development given the circumstances and especially so since March 2008. We are not quite yet a rich developed country. Our accumulation and distribution of wealth is more advanced than most other 3rd world countries, but it is hampered by racial complications and domination by foreign capital as well as bureaucratic corruption. As such our rich – poor gap is relatively huge even compared to those of 3rd world countries. 

Consequently, our democratic viability is still poor with masses of poorly educated or semi-literate population topped by a thin layer of well exposed and articulate metropolitan literate class which seems to get thinner with time rather than thicker. Year after year, the government proves itself to be the strongest force in the economy as well as the biggest employer and has no serious challengers. 

In addition our wealthy classes are rumoured to be weak and lacking in integrity. They are said to defend their wealth by corrupting and paying off officials and gangsters than with institutional or legal methods. If this is true and if they are weak in defending their own wealth as well as dependant on the government for contracts and permission to make profits, it stands to reason that democracy will also not be strongly defended. Democracy in Malaysia needs to find champions made of sterner stuff – maybe even a despot or two to clean up the corruption first. 

These days, our PM seems to be enjoying very friendly telephone chats with the US President. Our PM as we well know can be a very charismatic and seductive person if he wants to be. I wonder whether growing US influence and interest will be beneficial to the natural development of democratic forces in Malaysia. What do you think?