Posted by
Mhu Cao on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:38:30 AM
Some have noted that our enemies are using the democratic to install powerful Islamist, anti-US governments. They become confused about Islam being a "peaceful" religion and the governments of those states planning death for Americans worldwide.
If these Islamist countries only had "free" elections, the thinking goes, they would become just like us (US) and peaceful. Not so.
Some countries are moving to popular votes instead of edicts, as a way of gaining control of the populace. It's a two-step process, with radical Islamists laying the initial relgious groundwork for the final political step. It smells like democracy; the people have a say in what happens; and we have not ground to complain.
In a way, we may become a victim of our own success, our craving to clone our flavor of freedom in areas where Freedom is defined by Sharia law. Where radical Islamists are democratically elected, we have no room to gripe. Look at trends in Pakistan.
In the US, a very small but motivated, political, religious, or social group can seize control of government. For example, a turnout of only about 10% of the voting population can be enough to determine the winner of the election. To be sure, the voters need to be strategically located, but it does not invalidate the concept.
When only 20% of the voters turn out and the other 80% stay at home, the outcome of the election, though "democratic," can be very skewed to one particular view. For example, in a three-candidate race with a 20% voter turn-out, where 10% vote for one candidate, 8% for another, and 2% for a third, it is the candidate with 10% of the vote who goes on to govern.
Although this election cycle will have a wider representation of the populace, may elections in this country have been held with a voter turnout of 20% or less. So, I'm not speculating here.
It really doesn't matter whether the 80% non-voters are bored or angry with both candidates, as happens here in the US, or whether the 80% of non-voters are fearful of voting, as happens in some radicalized states, the outcome for both is still bad, even if the democratic process was faithfully followed in each country.
As you can see, a highly motivated voting block of only 10% of the voter population can have a dramatic impact on a nation's leadership, and a small minority, or faction, can rule and control the (unarmed) masses.
So if Ayatollah Azzahola gets out his followers in droves, while the rest sit at home, then the Ayatollah Azzahola governs the nation as it sees fit. Being in power, they can persuade or even force a enough of the other 90% to do their bidding, that worldwide havoc would result. After all, how many people were originally in the Nazi Party?
So, we must use a modicum of caution and common sense to "liberate" countries and introduce them to democracy. If our enemies' governments are democratically elected, we lose the pretext of wiping them out to eliminate a dictatorship, and we have a perversion of democracy used to our detriment.
We need to keep this concept in the forefront of our minds for November. When you look at the kooks ranting during this election, consider that they may be crazy enough to turn out. Their turnout may be enough to turn this country on its head. When all of the "Drink The Kool-Aid" rhetoric starts to fly about voters abstaining or making protest votes, I'm reminded of just how fragile our democracy really is. These dimwits could kill our country and not even realize it.
We do not need "majority rule" to determine our leaders, only the most motivated voting bloc.