Corante

About this Author
Dana Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
About this Site
Moore’s Law defines the history of technology. It held that the number of circuits etched on a given piece of silicon could double every 18 months as far as its author, Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, could see. Moore’s Law has spawned constant revolutions since then, not just in computing but in communications, in science, in a host of areas. Moore’s Law applies to radios, and to optical fiber, but there are some areas where it doesn’t apply. In this blog we’ll take a daily look at new implications of Moore’s Law in real time, as it rolls forward to create our future.
Media Bloggers
Check out the The AppGap - a group blog on the tools and trends that are changing the way we work.

Moore's Lore

« Where to Find the Times' Columnists | Main | Mobile Growth for 2005 is 380 million »

September 16, 2005

This Week's Clue: The Mugabe Precedent

Email This Entry

Posted by Dana Blankenhorn

This week's issue of my free weekly newsletter, A-Clue.Com, offered some real political red meat. (Subscribe here.)

Some like that. Some hate it. So most of it is after the flip. Enjoy.


How is a democracy lost?

It isn't. Just as freedom can't be given, only taken, democracy can't really be lost, only stolen.

There are dozens of examples over the centuries, of honest systems turned to dictatorships. And what they all have in common is ruthlessness, not just of the dictator, but of those around him.

robert mugabe.jpgNo one can seize power alone, and toss a system of popular government on the ash heap. That only happens when there are enough people committed to the dictator's cause that they can overwhelm, through discipline, the vast majority.

One of the most recent examples we have is in Zimbabwe.

As Rhodesia, Zimbabwe was a dictatorship of a peculiar sort. It was a dictatorship of a white minority that nevertheless tried to adhere to democratic norms. Its ruthlessness was leavened by its conscience. Ian Smith's people would not follow him all the way to any genocide he might have had in mind.

So real democracy came, just as it later would to South Africa, and Zimbabwe's Mandela became a man named Robert Mugabe. But Mugabe wasn't Mandela. In the end he wasn't even Smith. He was a tribal chief, just like dozens of others across that sad continent, and those around him were willing to do anything, to anyone, in order to maintain power.

So, gradually, democracy was crushed, the media was crushed, non-government opposition was crushed. This year Mugabe's people pushed tens of thousands of their own out of shantytowns built around the largest city, Harare, and few noticed because it simply wasn't covered.

South Africa's leader, Thabo Mbeki, is silent on the Mugabe Precedent, trying to balance the needs of a truly modern civilization with the tribal demands of his own cronies. But Botswana, to the southwest, is building a fence, an African Berlin Wall, on its border with the country, to keep the victims of Mugabe's tyranny from overwhelming it.

Without an open, transparent, and nominally democratic system, no country can move forward. All must regress into tribalism, into tyranny, into barely controlled chaos, starvation at the point of a gun.

This is a lesson China learned throughout the 20th century. A balance between order and liberty, between governed and governing, must be found, a balance that allows people to explore ideas which might, in time, threaten the government's control. We don't know what to call China these days. Is it still an absolute dictatorship? Is it still Communist? Is it free? It's none of these absolutes. It is in flux, headed toward freedom in many ways, but with a corrupt lid still covering the whole, like a pressure cooker whistling on top of a fire.

These ruminations, which I began when I started writing The Chinese Century nearly a year ago now, come to me more and more often, witnessing events in my own country. The novels represent, for me, a virtual diaspora. In fact I remain in America, in my Atlanta home, watching events with a sort of horrified fascination.

bushstencil.jpg
How far down the road toward absolute tyranny has George W. Bush moved? However far he has moved (and he has moved some distance), he hasn't done it alone. He has been supported at every turn by a massive, albeit minority, set of political movements - neoconservatives, social Darwinists, and religious fanatics. It's the same alchemy that held Mexico in thrall for centuries - the military, the oligarchs, the church - that in many ways still holds it in thrall.

Keeping it together takes discipline and ruthlessless. We're seeing both on display in regards to New Orleans. Bills are being shoved through Congress without debate. The media is now being prevented from covering the disaster by force of arms. Yet the President's supporters continue to not only buy his spin, but add their own.

It is this discipline among the conservative masses that scares me. George W. Bush, I've come to learn, is a dumbass, a spoiled rich brat with no more cojones than Marie Antoinette. He's a dry drunk living in a bubble of privilege, a figurehead.

The real evil in this country is that of his followers. Those who refuse to question the results of his actions, those who attack the people who do question, rather than addressing the criticism. The oligarchs want to lay off the burdens of government on the poor, the neocons want to rule the world with military technology, the religious fanatics demand that their particular brand of Christianity be the State Religion. All these conspirators, and their followers, choose to keep their mouths shut when they're discomfited, knowing that unless they maintain, the results will be like Nuremberg, and all of them will be destroyed.

bushstencil.jpg

Are you part of the conspiracy? You might be. Do you still think this President has a Clue? Do you still think Iraq is related to September 11, or that tax cuts always spur economic growth, or that America is a Christian Nation? Then indeed you might be part of the conspiracy, because you have a cause that blinds you, not only to the evil done in your name, but to the evil done in the name of causes you're aligned with.

At the climax of the Army-McCarthy hearings, over 50 years ago now, Joseph Welch is reported to have said something like, "Have you no shame, sir, at long last?" Well, have you?

And as to the rest of us. How deep must your outrage grow before you're willing to get off your apathetic rear ends and start fighting this tyranny in your community? Will you wait until you're forced into someone else's Church, as the victims of New Orleans are being forced at the Astrodome? Will you wait until the market bubbles burst and you're left with nothing? Will you wait until your own son or daughter lies dead on a foreign battlefield, for no just cause?

If America allows itself to fall, if we don't start listening, as we must, to the Better Angels of our Nature, who will take up freedom's banner, democracy's cause, transparency's demands? Are we to be left like those of Easter Island, who cut down all the trees until their homes became uninhabitable, or the Norsemen of Greenland, whose cattle nibbled away the grass until they starved?

The Earth doesn't care. The Earth will go on. God has all the time in the world. You can blow it up in atomic fire and, after a few million years, new creatures will rise to dominance. You can poison it with greenhouse gases, yet some species will adapt. The marble will keep spinning, long after you and your kind have been thrown off it.

But if you want to leave something behind, you better start fighting for it now. And you better start fighting for it here. Because here and now is all God's giving you. Don't let your neighbors or your prejudices turn this into Zimbabwe. Demand accountability.

Comments (4) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Politics


COMMENTS

1. Mike Sierra on September 16, 2005 12:39 PM writes...

Great, another political rant. It's not that I don't like it when people leave their relatively narrow realm of expertise to expound on much wider political issues, it's the incoherence and risible parallels that bother me. Permit me to rant a bit in response.

Comparing the Bush administration to the Mugabe regime or Bolshevism puts me in the mind of a child who tries to come up with as many bad words as he can with little idea what they mean. The Bolsheviks had their political enemies (and friends) taken into a basement and shot, for crying out loud. Mugabe had them jailed, led into starvation, or hounded out of cities with bulldozers. Last I checked, Senator Kerry's Beacon Hill townhouse is still standing. If Bush were, as you say, so "ruthless" about New Orleans, why is he committing a bajillion dollars to rebuilding it? If he were like Mugabe, wouldn't he level it further, filled as it is with Democrats? If the Bush administration were as "disciplined" as you fear, what then accounts for the appalling lack of discipline at FEMA? And c'mon now, are evacuees really being "forced into someone else's Church" at the Astrodome?

I'm particularly amused that in your earlier post and in your email to me, you insisted that you were just reflecting on the "dry drunk" meme as discourse, speculating how it might play out as politics. But now you are repeating the slander. Talk about having no freakin' shame...

Permalink to Comment

2. cerebrocrat on September 17, 2005 12:26 PM writes...

Your choice of examples from Diamond's Collapse is apt and chilling: sometimes a culture can choose to preserve itself at the expense of the meatware (us) that supports it. Will ours do us in too?

For conservatives... well, not conservatives really; I don't know anymore WHAT to call people who support the Bush administration... who get angry when they hear comparisons of Bush to Mugabe, I ask that you consider this before indulging your anger:

We know from numerous historical precendents that perfectly decent, organized societies can go awry, and the consequences can be catastrophic. Choose your own favorite example. We know too that in the days that lead up to these catastrophes, there must be uncertainty among that society's more thoughtful members: is this just another swing of history's pendulum? Or the beginning of something tragic? How long do we wait before giving in to our fears and screaming the warning call? That moment of no return will come and pass and we won't be able to perceive it, and thus we're left only to guess whether our cries of alarm are foolish hysteria or crucial warning. Every example of an annoying crank squealing about imagined cataclysms can be answered with a sad story of tragedy that might have been avoided. For every society that has dug itself clear through to hell, we wonder afterword, what was everybody doing while this happened?

Would you really prefer that there was no one willing to look at Bush and see a Mugabe, even if they're wrong? Are you sure you can comfortably dismiss all of their fears, if you actually take the time to listen to them?

I like the political stuff, Dana. It's a relief to know that smart people whose primary motivations are outside politics are alarmed at what's going on. Keep it coming.

Permalink to Comment

3. Mike Sierra on September 18, 2005 01:31 AM writes...

cerebrocrat: you give me nothing, and I do mean nothing to believe Dana's argument, such that it is, is sound. You say: "we're left only to guess whether our cries of alarm are foolish hysteria or crucial warning." And you ask: "Would you really prefer that there was no one willing to look at Bush and see a Mugabe, even if they're wrong?" In a word, what you are defending and upholding here is pure ignorance. But unlike the classic appeal to ignorance, you're not even claiming such unsupported statements are true, only that they are heartfelt. Yes, of course civilizations perish, but not on the word of fools.

And by the way: let me note added amusement that Dana would repeatedly accuse Bush's defenders of forming a nefarious "conspiracy" (Are you part of it? Huh? Are you?), followed immediately by a mention of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in disapproving tones. Rich!

Permalink to Comment

4. Meri on September 21, 2005 04:18 PM writes...

Just as a quick note re Mugabe, in South Africa (where I come from), it's widely believed that he is suffering from Syphilis. If you look back historically, his behaviour has changed drastically and in a relatively small period of time. It's all a bit Henry the Eighth really.

Personally I completely disagree with Mbeki's silence -- so does Mandela -- but then the man has committed worse crimes against South Africa and the rest of Africa. Like telling everyone that HIV and AIDS are not linked.... ::rolleyes::

Permalink to Comment

TrackBack URL:
http://www.corante.com/cgi-bin/mt/backtar.cgi/7549

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
The Legend of Dennis Hayes
Evolution Changes Its Mind (Again)
Welcome to 1966
What Must Craigslist Do?
No Such Thing as Free WiFi
The Internet As A Political Issue
Google Images Ruled Illegal
Fall of Radio Shack