http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html
This concluding list summarises the arguments given in all the other sections. Implicitly, they form a program to abolish democracy. Why do that? To start with, because it is time for a change. The western democracies have been democratic, depending on the definition, for 50 to 150 years, and most people there have no experience of non-democracy. Democracy should disappear, to facilitate the end of global inequality, famine and avoidable disease, by the introduction of global transfer taxes. The end of democracy would end the legitimisation of the nation state from democratic principles, and allow innovative types of state to be formed. It would facilitate social innovation, end conformist suit-and-tie societies, and prevent the emergence of a uniform global society. The construction of utopias and ideal cities (without the consent of the people) requires the end of democracy. Its abolition would also allow construction and implementation of projects - especially infrastructural projects - which are unpopular and uneconomic.
Abolition of democracy would prevent, or reverse, morally wrong decisions of democratic governments. This applies especially to policies targeted at unpopular minorities (witch hunts), which are a regular feature of democratic regimes. It would end the political and social marginalisation of anti-democrats, and the 'democracy-only' mentality of democratic societies, and allow a society with multiple attitudes to democracy. In short, the end of democracy would create at least the possibility of a different world, and a different world order.
And last but not least, the end of democracy would mean the removal from office of Jörg Haider - democratically elected Landeshauptmann (governor) of Carinthia, and the negative inspiration for this critique of democracy.
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] 'Democrazy'
>Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:32:52 -0400
>
>Joseph Wanzala wrote:
>
>>To present a critique of democracy is not necessarily to be proposing
>>fascism, indeed part of his critique of Democracy is that it can result in
>>the election of a 'Fuhrerprinzip' like Jurg Haider. Obviously Treanor is
>>interested in the development of more effective systems of governance of
>>the kinds I assume we would all support in a general sense. Chomsky and
>>others also critique Democracy - does that make them implicitly supportive
>>of fascism? Is there anything in Treanor's writing or background that you
>>base you query on?
>
>I listed three options - Naziism, Leninism, and the debased kind of
>anarchy. I didn't say he was a partisan of any of them. I was just offering
>three alternatives to liberal democracy. I'm sure there are many more.
>Which is Treanor's?
>
>Doug
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Send instant messages to anyone on your contact list with MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com