As you recal, my note was instigated by your reference to Justice as part
of your credo. Knowing full well of the various meanings of the word, I
was not certain in what context you were using it. Was it Justice as in
impartiality, a mechanical application of existing laws, or were you
thinking of Justice as an attempt to make one whole, to give redress, and
to make amends , consistent with societal values.
You identified several gems in Saleh Gadi's insightful note on the perils
of political polarization. Yet you glossed over what I thought was the
biggest gem of all--Saleh's observation that without social justice ,
democracy is a meaningless concept. So my point was, how about that Sal ?
Does your concept of Justice incorporate what we usually call social justice,
broadly defined as the search for equality in all aspects of social life
consistent with society's core values ?
I thought with the exception of a precious few, several of the
discussions on democracy were narrowly specified. Multi partyism, for
example, is a necessary condition, but by no means the only condition
necessary for democracy to thrive. Working from a check list is fine when
you are engaged in a quality control of a product recently manufactured, but to
judge from a pre prepared check list whether a country is democratic or
not is not terribly illuminating. Context is important. I thought most of
the pieces lacked context. This is not to argue that bread comes before
democracy. It is simply to point out the complexity of attempting to
reconcile competing societal values, and the inevitable tensions that arise.
For me the most perplexing question is how one goes about resolving the
tension between the quest for equality in its broadest definition and the
demand for individual political liberty. I know both are not mutually
exclusive, but if we believe the time may never come when we have to
choose one or the other, or some of one for some of the other, we are
deluding ourselves. If we have to trade some of the former for some of
the later, what would be the basis of the trade off ?
If I can rephrase my previous question, What is the proper duty of a
young State such as ours in making sure that the proper balance between
social justice and "political" democracy is maintained ? Given my
ideological predisposition I have no problem seeing the State as a potential
catalyst for promoting social justice. My second and related question is,
Can a Minimalist state in Eritrea bring democracy that incorporates
social justice and political liberty ? Minimalism, my dear brother Sal,
has a distinguished intellectual pedigree. It's as elegant, and perhaps
as abstract as Ghidewon's equations. The question that keeps coming back to
me rpeatedly, however, is, Would it work for us.. And if so, How ? If you
can convince me how, I promise my readiness to be converted. At least I
will listen respectfully, and promise never to smirk !...This is more
than what Kebire did when I tried to make a statist out of him....
tekie
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, SAL AA%lcQJh/}9CtieigM&QN YOUNIS wrote:
>
> **** To contact Dehai-Admin, send mail to: dehai@universe.digex.net ****
>
> Fools rush in where angels fear to tread...
>
> I suppose since no one (including all the Mihuran Akal) has responded
> to the provocative posting of Dr. Tekie with regards to Justice, The
> Reagan Doctrine, Liberitarianism, individualism, economic democracy,
> and other big-think items, I should. Or, rather, I should speak
> through my guru. (Incidentally, when I say "Mihuran Akal" I mean it as
> a compliment. Although it is quite "fashionable" to beat up on the
> educated elite, and the Mihuran Akal do love self-flaggelation, and I
> am aware that there is a lot of reverse-snobbery where the uneducated
> sneer at the educated, I don't think they should apologize for their
> achievements. Notice I keep saying "they" and this is no false
> modesty.)
>
> First of all, Tekie, I am not a conservative. Nor am I a libertarian:
> libertarians are simply anarchists who packaged their philosophy in a
> more palatable way (much as the Communists call themselves Socialists,
> the Socialists call themselves Liberals and the Liberals call
> themselves Progressives and the Progressives call themselves
> Environmentalists). I would call my philosophy that of a Minimalist.
> A minimalist in the power of the Central government. A minimalist in
> all things except one: National Defense. The world is a bad place and
> East Africa is a terrible neighborhood and it is the responsibility of
> our government to acquire as many arsenals as we can afford. In fact, I
> wish we had a Dr Teller in our Mihuran Akal.
>
> Is this part of the Reagan Doctrine? No. Long before I ever heard of
> Ronald Reagan, I met my political guru: a guy whose book I read in the
> late 70's when books by Kim Il Sung, Mao, Marx, Engels, Mickey Spillane
> (ok, Harold Robbins, too) were practically required reading in the
> environment I was in. I think some of you may be surprised by who it
> is so I will disclose the name of the philosopher at the end of this
> posting. This is what the "philosopher" had to say (my comments in
> brackets):
>
> On Mixing Religion With Politics
>
> " I can say without the slightest hesitation and yet in all
> humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with
> politics do not know what religion means. [here I would add that
> "they" don't know politics, either. Of course, I maintain that
> secularism is a religion but that is a different argument.]
>
> On The Role of Government:
>
> " A government that is ideal governs the least...I look upon an
> increase of the power of the State with the greatest fear because,
> although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it
> does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which
> lies at the root of all progress." [so, all ye craving "economic
> justice" or, in the words of Ghidewon, "economic democracy" and other
> pie-in-the-sky illusions: forget it. It has been tried and it has
> failed miserably. Remember the 80/20 rule: regardless of the field or
> endeavor, 20% of the people will always dominate the 80%. Dehai is no
> exception. Ditto in economic matters. And I say this although I am a
> charter member of the 80 percenters]
>
> On The Power of the Individual:
>
> "The power of suggestion is such that a man at last becomes what
> he believes himself to be." [I believe our president, Isias Afwerki,
> said much the same thing in his revealing "Hwyet" interview. So,
> anything that deters the development of the individual from seeking
> growth (statism, communal mumbo-jumbo and other collectivist theory
> sounds good but, in the end, is impractical. I am all for voluntary
> associations which is what we had back home. These voluntary
> associations had the sole power to accept/deny members and if they
> wanted to, say, an All-Male club, the coercive power of the government
> shouldn't force them to accept women.]
>
> Majority/Minority:
>
> "They [minorities] cannot-must not-lose faith in themselves or in
> their mission because they may be a minority. Indeed, all reform has
> been brought about by the action of minorities in all countries and
> under all climes. Majorities simply follow minorities." [take heart,
> affirmative-action lovers. We don't need the government to "save us";
> we will do--and we are doing--just fine without them.]
>
> On the Welfare State:
>
> " One drowning man will never save another...The rule should be
> "No labor, no meal." [Exhibit A: look at any ghetto in the USA]
>
> Loyalty:
>
> "To be loyal to an organization must not mean subordination of
> one's settled convictions....The only tyrant I accept in this world is
> the 'still small voice' within me." [believe this and you don't have
> to check with anyone or any authority to determine if you should
> believe whatever you believe. In the 70's, the ELF followers used to
> criticize mercilessly the EPLF for forcibly recruiting members. When,
> a few months later, the ELF leadership followed suit and enforced
> conscription, the ELF cadres, when asked what they thought, responded:
> "Let me check with the ELF leadership!]
>
> Tolerance:
>
> "...nor should we even secretly pray that anyone should be
> converted but our inmost prayer should be that...a Moslem be a better
> Moslem and a Christian a better Christian. [Amen]
>
> Crime & Punishment
>
> "He who injures others, is jealous of others, is not fit to live
> in the world." [I used to think that the author supports the death
> penalty; however, he does say, " God alone can take life because He
> alone gives it." I
> suppose even the great ones can be mistaken!
>
> So, who is this heartless, mean, cruel, man? Hint: the guy was a
> lawyer. Give up? It was Mahatma Gandhi.
>
>
> ** To UNSUBSCRIBE from dehai, send mail to: majordomo@primenet.com **
> ** with the following text in the body of your mail: **
> ** unsubscribe dehai your-email-address **
>
** To UNSUBSCRIBE from dehai, send mail to: majordomo@primenet.com **
** with the following text in the body of your mail: **
** unsubscribe dehai your-email-address **