The Ambiguity: The Case Of Democracy

The Great Financial Crisis, the Occupy Wall Street rising, Wikileaks and Snowden exposure, imperialist interventions in Iraq-Libya-Syria, the economic-political developments in Greece, and the on-going string of revelations in the US politics take away all ambiguities related to democracy, development and state. With broad and fundamental connections and character the incidents and processes – parts of democracy and development – being witnessed by the contemporary world are significant with far-reaching implications, and helpful to comprehend issues of democracy, development and state.

No ambiguity: Ambiguous and confusing narratives of democracy and development are vigorously sold in markets despite the reality of repeated exposures by the merciless incidents and processes mentioned above. However, the time is still dominated by the forces that try to benefit from confusion they create. Now-a-days even the conservatives like to “challenge the status quo”. Carly Fiorina, a runner for the Republican presidential nomination in the US, expressed similar views while she was discussing her foreign policy expertise in the first debate in early-August. (The Washington Post, August 9, 2015, “Distinguished pol of the week”) Isn’t the tact uncovered?

With the same tact, a part of academia and media massively and persistently propagate (1) democracy and capitalism are synonymous, (2) democracy is the normal and natural political form of capitalism, (3) democracy can’t be conceived without capitalism, (4) democracy is an integral part of capitalism, and (5) the issue of development conceived within capitalism can ensure people’s interests, their entitlements, their empowerment, their freedom of choice. Their propaganda tries to show:

(1) democracy is class-neutral;

(2) its universal form fits all societies, economies and interests of all classes: and

(3) the issue of development can be perceived and implemented without taking into consideration the issues related to class and class conflicts within a political system including democracy.

But variations in democracy don’t support the propaganda. The bourgeois democracy is fully exposed today with the political developments in the advanced bourgeois democracies. Former US president Jimmy Carter’s response to a question about his opinion on the US Supreme Court’s decisions in the 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon that allows pouring of unlimited secret money including foreign money into US political and judicial campaigns tells a lot about the type and character of the democracy.

The former US president said: “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and US Senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell.” (The Thom Hartmann Program, Jimmy Carter’s interview, July 28, 2015) Any careful reader in any peripheral society will see the same image around.

The US “story” was started long ago. Charles Austin Beard’s illustrious book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States says: “The economic corollary of this system is as follows: Property interests may, through their superior weight in power and intelligence, secure advantageous legislation whenever necessary, and they may at the same time obtain immunity from control by parliamentary majorities.” (ch. VI, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1921) Beard’s survey of the “distribution of economic power in the US in 1787 and property holdings of every delegate to the Constitutional Convention of that year led him to conclude that at least five-sixths of the delegates stood to gain personally from the adoption of the constitution, mainly because it would protect the public credit and raise the value of the public securities they held.” (“Beard, Charles A.,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968) Chapter V, “The Economic Interests of the Members of the Convention”, of the book presents the survey in detail and says: “The overwhelming majority of members, at least fifth-sixths, were immediately, directly, and personally interested in the outcome of their labors at Philadelphia, and were to a greater or less extent economic beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution.”

The next chapter “The Constitution as an Economic Document” says: “[T]he concept of the Constitution as a piece of abstract legislation reflecting no group interests and recognizing no economic antagonisms is entirely false. It was an economic document drawn with superb skill by men whose property interests were immediately at stake …”

“At the close of [the] long and arid survey” that he conducted his conclusions include:

“No popular vote was taken directly or indirectly on the proposition to call the Convention which drafted the Constitution.

“A large propertyless mass was, under the prevailing suffrage qualifications, excluded at the outset from participation (through representatives) in the work of framing the Constitution.

“The members of the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the Constitution were, with a few exceptions, immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantages from, the establishment of the new system.

“In the ratification of the Constitution, about three-fourths of the adult males failed to vote on the question … either on account of their indifference or their disfranchisement by property qualifications.

“The Constitution was ratified by a vote of probably not more than one-sixth of the adult males.

“The Constitution was not created by ‘the whole people’ as the jurists have said …”

Now, there’s the famous study in the US: “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” by Martin Gilens, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, and Benjamin I. Page, Gordon S. Fulcher Professor of Decision Making at Northwestern University, in Perspectives on Politics, the journal of the American Political Science Association [Vol. 12, Issue 03, September 2014 doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.]. Their multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impact on policy of US government while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

The study results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination (EED) and for theories of Biased Pluralism (BP), but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy (MED) or Majoritarian Pluralism (MP). The empirical study, first of its kind in social sciences in the US, found: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” The study said: “The preferences of economic elites (as measured by the [study] proxy, the preferences of ‘affluent’ citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.”

The scientists tested, first of this type, each of the four theoretical traditions – EED, BP, MED and MP – in the study of US politics. Until recently it was not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. They used a unique data set that included measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues during the study period 1981-2002.

The study findings indicate: “In the United States … the majority does not rule – at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.” [emphasis in the original] The research essay concluded with the following sentence: “[W]e believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.” [Are peripheral societies free of this observation?]

Recent findings and incidents show the advanced democracy today is much in favor of the propertied minority classes than those days. A close look at the US politics, especially elections in the political system takes away all confusion, and supports the above claim.

Advanced capitalist democracies are appropriate cases for debate on the issue of democracy today as democracies in variations in the periphery actually are under-developed that make the debate on bourgeois democracy inconclusive. Moreover, democracy or similar systems and arrangements in peripheral societies without experiencing bourgeois revolution or its type, and without developing their political arrangements and institutions are not comparable to advanced bourgeois democracy.

Hotchpotch business: There is lumpenocracy or lumpen-democracy, democracy for lumpen interests, characterized by immaturity, inefficiency, near-to-absolute dependency, unaware about self-interest, incapable of even carrying out its businesses with bourgeois tact, utterly unstable – sometimes behaving to a standard below medieval level including carrying out medieval style assassinations, murders and palace-conspiracies, sometimes taking moves that “strangely” touch the level of maturity but always lurk near the border of failure, always engaged with suicidal factional fights, always fighting for legitimacy but de-legitimating ruling machine, failing to secure institutions/machine for class rule, sporadically resorting to populist measures. Lumpenocracies also are not the samples to study bourgeois democracy. Deliberations within lumpenocracies, especially within its legislative and other branches of its government most of the time provide a picture of a reality which is worse than a hotchpotch business, worse than to be despised.

Many tags: Donor-driven/designed democracy (DDD), which is funded by the so-called donors, and is part of low-intensity conflict, and intervention-democracy (ID), and non-neutral position of these arrangements are starkly evident in countries that are experiencing or have already experienced these. American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies and Impacts (Michael Cox, G John Ikenberry and Takashi Inoguchi (ed.), Oxford University Press, 2002) discusses the DDD. These two types of democracies, DDD and ID, a lot other tags these carry, are not only for the peripheral countries. These have been/are being implemented in near-center countries also.

A group of theoreticians try to classify democracies into liberal and illiberal types, which don’t show the class character of these systems. Democracies considered liberal behave in illiberal way in actual terms whenever it feels the demand. In countries, political system considered liberal didn’t/don’t hesitate for a moment to resort to brutal repression and encroachment of minimum available, if any, democratic space for people, an illiberal act, whenever the interests felt threatened. These “liberal” systems don’t shy away from illiberal acts or being characterized as tyrannical. Recent exposures, and a careful examination of the systems claimed to be liberal democracy show the illiberal character of these systems. No democracy claimed to be liberal has behaved in liberal way whenever it has faced a situation that it considered to be threatening to its power, authority and interests. Each of these democracies supports respective interests, constituencies, classes and factions within these classes/interests. Citing cases from Latin America Andre Gunder Frank writes: “[T]hese very liberals were the first to resort to repressive measures and even to military dictatorship to serve their economic interests. Such was the course of events in Porfirian Mexico, in the ‘banana republics’ of Central America, and in the sugar producing countries of the Caribbean.” (Lumpenbourgeoisie: Lumpendevelopment, 1974) In Asia, similar cases are many. Europe and North America are not free from the style.

Transitional: Peoples’ struggles in countries have helped emerge types of democracies which are transitional and experimental in character, and are defined in different ways. These include, as Leslie Sklair mentions in “The Transition from Capitalist Globalization to Socialist Globalization” (Journal of Democratic Socialism, 1 (1), 2011), and Nadia Johanisova and Stephan Wolf mention in “Economic democracy: A path for the future” (Futures, vol. 44, issue 6, August 2012), economic democracy that brings private firms, or “the economy” under democratic public control, producer-consumer cooperatives playing a role in the generation, allocation and mobilization of resources, regulation of market mechanisms and corporate activities, support for social enterprises, democratic money creation processes, reclaiming the commons, redistribution of income and capital assets; social democracy, as Atilio A Boron discusses in “The Truth About Capitalist Democracy” (Socialist Register, 52, 2006) and Kathi Weeks discusses in The Problem with Work (Duke University Press, London, 2011), which along with regular election and popular participation in decision making process ensures universal access to employment, basic income, housing, health and educational services, and better living standard. The economic democracy, as Boron cites Gøsta Esping Andersen’s argument, “strengthens the worker and debilitates the absolute authority of the employers”. There’s political democracy, as Patrick Heller discusses in “Moving the State: The Politics of Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre” (Politics and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, March 2001) that tries to find out effective ways for popular participation in decision making process, political representation and division of powers. Ben Selwyn refers a number of these in The Global Development Crisis. Ben Selwyn also mentions electoral democracy that regularly holds elections “but only acts to fill the posts of executive and legislative functions of the state who then serve ‘market forces’.” Noam Chomsky in Deterring Democracy (Verso, London 1991) describes the arrangement as “Low Intensity Democracy”.

All these and other systems and arrangements, with whatever nomenclature these are identified, show a single fact: Democracy as all other political systems is neither free from class contradictions nor class-neutral as all these move along respective class-line, as all these are/were designed to serve class interests and ensure class dominance.

Historical period & institutions: The system – democracy – does not transcend specific characteristics of historical periods. “[I]n order to be meaningful, discussions of democratic [and developmental] prospects … require a real grasp of the historically generated and limited situation.”(Bill Freund, “The weight of history: Prospects for democratisation in South Africa”, in Jonathan Hyslop (ed.) African Democracy in the Era of Globalisation, University of the Witwatersrand Press, Johannesburg, 1999, cited in David Moore, “Zimbabwe 1997-2007: A democracy of diminished expectations or
- Toward a political economy of renewal?”, October 24, 2007; also in David Moore, “The Weight of History, a Broad Sense of the Possible: Economic History, Development Studies, Political Economy and Bill Freund”, African Studies, Lance van Siddert and David Moover, eds., spl. issue, “Festschrift for Bill Freund”, 65, 1, July 2006)

There’s no single, universal design of democracy that fits all societies, countries and all regions of the world with their respective historical phases, levels/stages of development, all classes and class alignments in the societies. This fact invalidates (1) intervention- and donor-driven/designed democracies in societies, and (2) perception or thesis that a particular type of democracy in a particular society is the standard or yardstick for all societies.

Institutions embedded in interests of non-people sector of society neither serve democracy of people nor development for people; but the institutions don façade of equity, equality and democracy, which are mostly misunderstood, confused by a part in society, and are sold among people by another part. The later part’s stupidity and shallow statements come to light gradually. Moreover, institutions carry mark, characteristics, limitations of historical period. At times, institutions starkly show their incapability to carry forward, materialize and safeguard people’s rights, interests, struggles for a humane life. This nullifies the institutions, and the time delivers historical verdict: ignore the institutions incapable to carry forward people’s interests, set aside the incapable institutions, replace the institutions with appropriate institutions, and thus a rationale for radical change is constructed.

These – the historical phase and institutions – are integral part of the questions of democracy and development in all societies. Mere slogans, and absence of critical analysis of these – institutions, historical perspective, etc. – don’t facilitate charting path to democracy and humane development as humane development requires humane institutions at all levels.

Political system crops up from economy, and economic system can’t operate without social relations. “[T]here is not an economic system that operates without being under any social relations. Thus, it makes no sense if we talk about the rationality and viability of an economic system without considering the context of social relations. For example, given the capitalist social relations, productive forces can be developed only if the capitalists are allowed to exploit the workers, and consequently only the economic system that allows the capitalists to exploit the workers can be ‘rational and viable’. This certainly does not suggest that what is ‘rational and viable’ for capitalism is also ‘rational and viable’ for any other society. On the contrary, capitalist exploitation, by repressing the creativity of working people, is a great obstacle to the development of productive forces.” (Li Minqi, Capitalist Development and Class Struggles in China, Amherst, US)

Democracy isn’t a system, which is free from an economic system, is not a system, which can roam freely without taking into account its masters’ desires, and no economic system is not without social relations; and these in turn, shape the character of a democracy – who’s served, who’s safeguarded, whose rule prevails. This contention is not limited at national level only. Rather, this should be applied at regional, local and community levels, and in all types and forms of institutions and organizations including cooperatives, educational institutions, project implementation committees or bodies, water control structure management/maintenance bodies, NGO-organized and microcredit-driven groups, etc. also. This all encompassing view provides a more realistic, full picture of democracy in a society. The full picture helps perceive the type, character and ownership of democracy, and its role – effective or ineffective – in the area for development in the society.

Absence of an all encompassing view, focusing on only a particular area, narrowing down on only top and ignoring the ground or base is nothing but hypocrisy, nothing but turning into ally of the system, and nothing but exposing self-identity – cohort of the system. Absence of specific programs for all these – democracy and democratization at all levels and in all institutions and organizations – make demand for democracy a script for a comedy. All discussions on democracy turn into idiotic slogans and statements, and fail to design a system capable of delivering a humane development if these aspects are not considered while trying to build up a system named democracy or extending support to a system claiming to be democracy.

Blackmailing Bankers Now Stage A Coup In Greece

Strangulated Greece now experiences a coup by blackmailing bankers. It’s a show of bankers’ democracy, a worst form of democracy in the Age of Crises. It’s an invasion by bankers.

Honorable bankers have imposed their demands on the people in Greece. It’s their reciprocal democratic measure to the Greek people’s practice with democracy. They love to humiliate people, they love to wreck countries, they love to pauperize people. These acts make them rich and powerful.

The conditions imposed on Greece are already public. It’s a regime of measures aimed at punishing the Greek people, hurting their honor. The bankers are laughing with the pride of powerful: We can do whatever we want.

Casting away all veils of shame and hypocrisy they demanded Greek public property worth billions of dollars to be placed outside of Greece. There was a suggestion that $56 billion (about 50 billion euros) of Greek public assets be placed in an independent trust based in Luxembourg, which would be out of reach of Greek politicians, the proceeds of which from privatizations would go directly to pay off debts. An appropriate bankers’ proposal! The arrogant bankers don’t bother the way their demand actually takes shape: A robbery. Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, has said: We averted the transfer of public property abroad, we averted the plan to cause a credit crunch and the collapse of the financial system.”

The 17-hour Brussels-bargaining shows very significant parts of a part of the world capitalism and a few facts:

1. Division within the bankers’ camp.
2. Weakness and vulnerabilities within the camp.
3. Vulnerability of the eurozone project.
4. The bankers’ brutal character.
5. The bankers’ intolerance with people’s verdict.
6. Democracy is not universal. There are bankers’ democracy and people’s democracy. Bankers’ democracy is dictatorial in case of people. Bankers’ democracy now dictates the legislative assembly of Greece. A flagrant violation. But the bourgeois democratic world doesn’t find there any trampling of democracy.
7. Limit of bourgeois democracy is narrowing down in the Age of Crisis.
8. Sovereignty of countries is defined and demarcated by bankers. Sovereign power of legislative assembly? Bankers don’t bother with it. They need money.
9. There are limit to powers of bankers. They can’t demolish all resistances. They can’t stand slightest resistance. Resistance with a politically aware, organized people under the guidance of a matured leadership and with united front is invincible.
10. Its geopolitical aspect is very significant.

The bankers had to make compromise. It was difficult for them to reach a compromise. They also had to cede a space: A 95 billion dollars (86 billion euros) aid to Greece in the next three years to keep the eurozone intact, to keep Greece within the eurozone.

The hashtag #ThisIsACoup, says an AFP report, is now trending widely among users of internet in Greece, France, Germany and Britain. They claim: “Greece was effectively being stripped of fiscal sovereignty.”

According to the AFP report KostasKainakis, a marketing lecturer in Athens comments: “Germany is destroying Europe once again”. From Britain, AllanSkerratt, a non-partisan retired soldier and ex-teacher opines: “The Germans could not do it with tanks so now they try it with banks [and are] trying to STEAL Greek assets BrITS MUST vote to get out”. Barbara Lochbihler, a member of the European Parliament for Germany’s Greens party, tweets: “They talk about trust. Only to draft a proposal that is pure humiliation. Brilliant idea.” Paul Krugman, the Nobel-winning economist, writes: “The trending hashtag #ThisIsACoup is exactly right. This goes beyond harsh into pure vindictiveness, complete destruction of national sovereignty, and no hope of relief.” “It is, presumably, meant to be an offer Greece can’t accept; but even so, it’s a grotesque betrayal of everything the European project was supposed to stand for.”

It was a bitter struggle in Brussels. There were extreme conservative forces bent on humiliating and punishing Greece for the weak economy’s stand with dignity. Tsipras said: “We found ourselves before difficult decisions, tough dilemmas. We took the responsibility of the decision in order to avert the implementation of the more extreme aims of conservative circles in the European Union.” Nikos Filis, the parliamentary spokesman for the Syriza, said on ANT1 TV Monday: Greece is being “waterboarded” by eurozone leaders. He accused Germany of “tearing Europe apart” for the third time in the past century. The observation tells the weakness within the eurozone. It’s not the German strength; it’s the strength of bankers as they fear their weakness that they like to hide with their show of strength.

A part of the Greek people’s struggle has come to a point. The episode – fight the bankers’ blackmailing and coup – is political. Its financial and economic aspects will appear in a meaningful way if its political aspect is not missed. It’s bankers’ politics. It’s bankers reign. The bankers’ politics is to be faced with people’s politics. People’s solidarity movement in countries should be widened. Bankers reign should be exposed. The most valuable lesson of the incident is political, the question of democracy. The relation between democracy and economy, and control on economy and politics are to be highlighted among the citizens.

It was a steadfast fight waged by the people in Greece although a part of mainstream media is propagating the deal as capitulation. But they deny admitting that the extreme conservative forces within the EU failed to move with their design: Grexit. They know their weak spot. Next time, the people will stand again with the lessons learned. There is possibility that the awakening will be in countries in Europe. Spain is already experiencing the trend.

Blackmailing By Bankers: People In Greece Are Going For Referendum

People in Greece are going to referendum on July 5 to deliver their verdict on the question: Shall bankers be allowed to blackmail or no?

Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, has proposed the referendum on the Eurogroup’s austerity proposals.

In an address to the nation, Tsipras referred to the Eurogroup’s proposals with an ultimatum as blackmail-ultimatum, and said: “To this blackmail-ultimatum, for the acceptance on our part of a strict and humiliating austerity (proposal), and with no end to it in sight nor with the prospect of allowing us to ever stand on our feet economically or socially, I call upon you to decide sovereignly and proudly, as the history of Greeks dictates.”

Tsipras’ address presented in brief the background of the creditors’ acts:

“For the past six months the Greek government has been giving battle in conditions of unprecedented economic asphyxiation, to implement your mandate, of Jan. 25. It was a mandate to negotiate with our partners to end austerity and to restore prosperity and social justice to our country.

“(It was) for a viable agreement which would respect both democracy, common European rules and would lead to a definitive exit from the crisis.

“Throughout this negotiation period, we were asked to adopt bailout agreements which were agreed with previous governments, even though these were categorically condemned by the Greek people in the recent elections.

“But we did not, even for a moment, contemplate yielding. That is, to effectively betray your own trust.

“After five months of tough negotiations our partners, unfortunately, concluded at the Eurogroup the day before last with a proposal, an ultimatum, to the Hellenic Republic and the Greek people.

“An ultimatum which contravenes the founding principles and values of Europe. The value of our common European structure.”

Rumors of surrender by and skepticism about Tsipras’ and the Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis’ position were spread over the last few months. There was planned propaganda to ridicule them. A part of mainstream media showed its taste as it tried to mock and vilify Varoufakis.

But it appears, unprincipled compromise has still not been made. On the contrary, theirs is a position of upholding the interests of the people of Greece.

Tsipras’ address details the bankers’ blackmailing proposals:

“The Greek government was asked to accept a proposal which accumulates unbearable new burdens on the Greek people and undermines the recovery of Greek society and its economy, not only maintaining uncertainty, but by amplifying social imbalances even further.

“The proposals of the institutions include measures which lead to a further detribalization of the labor market, pension cutbacks, new reductions in public sector salaries and an increase in VAT on food, eateries and tourism, with an elimination of tax breaks on the islands.”

A statement by Varoufakis makes it clear. “Over the past days and weeks”, said Varoufakis in an interview, “the Greek government has been making concessions continuously. Unfortunately, every time we make a concession and we get three quarters of the way, the institutions do the exact opposite, they toughen their stance.” On another occasion, he said Greece has bent over backwards in order to accommodate strange demands of the creditors. He was talking to Irish radio station RTE.

The situation led the Church of Greece to appeal to all concerned: “[W]ith enlightenment by Our Lord Jesus that it is possible to find a mutually accepted solution.”

But the creditors’ hearts are enlightened only by money, not by the Lord Jesus. Creditors not only want flesh; blood, heart and the whole body and soul are their demand. Panos Skourletis, the Greek minister for labor, said: Every time we are about to reach a solution they come and say bring some more pensioners to execute.

The Greek prime minister, in his address, identified the creditors’ proposal:

“These proposals clearly violate European social rules and fundamental rights to work, equality and to dignity, proving that the aim of some partners and institutions was not a viable and beneficial agreement for all sides, but the humiliation of the entire Greek people.

“These proposals prove the fixation, primarily of the International Monetary Fund, to tough and punitive austerity.”

So, the all-powerful IMF is there with its cruelty, with its indifference to life and dignity of people.

But Tsipras’ position is the opposite of the IMF as he addressed the people:

“My fellow Greeks, we are now burdened with the historic responsibility, (in homage to) to the struggles of the Hellenic people, to enshrine democracy and our national sovereignty.

“It is a responsibility to the future of our country. And that responsibility compels us to answer to this ultimatum based on the will of the Greek people.”

After concluding the inconclusive negotiation with the Euro bosses the Greek prime minister returned home, convened meeting of the Greek cabinet, and suggested the “referendum for the Greek people to decide in sovereignty.” The suggestion was unanimously accepted by the cabinet. Within a short time, he addressed the nation. The cabinet decided to ratify the July 5 referendum proposal in the plenary of the Greek parliament.

The referendum will pose the question of the acceptance or rejection of the proposal by the institutions. Even, before addressing the people, Tsipras communicated the Greek cabinet’s decision to the French president, the German chancellor and the ECB president. The Greek prime minister informed: “[T]omorrow in correspondence to the EU leaders and institutions I will formally request a few days extension of the (bailout) program so the Greek people can decide, free of pressure or coercion, as is dictated by the Constitution of our country and the democratic tradition of Europe.”

So, the move is clean, transparent and fair. There’s no ambiguity, no backdoor deal, no attempt to keep people in dark. Tsipras’ address to the nation emphasizes a number of issues relevant not only to Greece, but also to other countries facing the world masters, bank bosses. He said:

“My fellow Greeks,

“To this autocratic and harsh austerity, we should respond with democracy, with composure and decisiveness.

“Greece, the cradle of democracy, should send a strong democratic answer to Europe and the world community.

“I am absolutely certain your choice will honor the history of our country, and send a message of dignity to the whole world.”

It’s the message of democracy and dignity, which is sold out by leadership, lackey in character, in countries although democracy and dignity are the “tools” to fight command, dictation, and authoritarian rule of the world bosses.

Emphasis on people, sovereignty and dignity is clearly spelled out as Tsipras addressed the Greek people:

“I call upon you all to take the decisions worthy of us.

“For us, future generations, for the history of Greeks.

“For the sovereignty and dignity of our people.”

In the struggle for building up a prosperous life, for asserting rights over public properties and defending those, dignity and democracy are the cornerstones. For building up a prosperous life for the people, claiming public properties are essential as essential is asserting the rights with the sense of dignity. In today’s world, two trends are visible: undignified acts by a group of political leadership in a group of countries, and strivings for a dignified life by another group. Today’s Greece teaches dignity. It shames those political leaders without any sense of shame. Sense of dignity tells not to capitulate. It tells not to surrender people’s sovereign space. It’s one of the essential elements in the struggle against usurpers of public resources. Greece is showing this still.

In the case of Greece, Tsipras’, Varoufakis’ and their comrades’ stand is significant in two ways:

(1) In this Greece, bankers dictated and successfully made a regime change. In this Greece, bankers imposed whatever they liked. And, in this Greece, Tsipras, Varoufakis, the Spartan finance minister, and their comrades are standing on people’s mandate; they are bargaining on the strength of people’s mandate; they are going back to people to review their mandate through the proposed referendum. Bankers have not succeeded in toppling Tsipras and his comrades still.
(2) In the countries with austerity-bitten people, the struggle Greece is waging today will have implications. One of the implications will be political. Another will be in mass-psyche. The rest implications include lesson for a part of political leadership in those countries.

Bankers will also learn from a political leadership’s practice with democracy and dignity. Their first attempt will be to subvert similar leadership and politics in the austerity-battered countries.

Greece, it’s hoped, will be studied by political scientists as incidents in and related to the country are connected to a number of aspects of bourgeois democracy, state and people. A few limits, connections, roles are starkly visible. The incidents are not limited within its borders. This perspective generates serious questions.

The compromise question needs emphasis. Possibilities of compromises are always there. Compromises vary on the basis of principled stand, and its opposite. Limitations of circumstance compel, at times, to compromise. Sweeping comments regarding compromise, as adventurism resorts to, leads to a wrong place: isolation from friends, all sorts of inactivity but slogan-mongering, misleading people, and handing over opportunity to foe. In today’s Greece, both examples are present.

Moves by Tsipras, Varoufakis and their comrades are an example of political fight. The people are also participating in the fight. It’s an example of political fight against bankers. It’s meaningful. It’s meaningful as it’s Greece. Its past, history, present, its types of relation with bankers over times, its geopolitical position, size of the economy, Greece, and power of the parties on the other side of negotiation table make the ongoing Greek incidents meaningful.

The developments show it’s not possible by masters to intervene all the time or any time, and it’s not always possible to confuse people. Still the Greek people have not sent their trust to masters’ vault. It’s a lesson for people of other countries.

In an interview to the German radio station Deutschlandfunk the European commissioner for energy Gunther Oettinger warned: Greece may be forced out of the Eurozone, unless the Greek government and its creditors can reach an agreement by the end of the month.

But, from his end, the Greek prime minister clearly conveyed his message on the Euro position:

“In these crucial hours, we must all remember Europe is the common home of its people. There are no owners or guests in Europe.

“Greece is, and will remain an indispensable part of Europe and Europe an indispensable part of Greece. But Greece without democracy is a Europe without identity or a compass.”

Euro bosses will not lend their ears to this assertion: “Greece without democracy is a Europe without identity or a compass”. But the people of Europe should stand to defend democracy in Greece as it will be a part of defending democracy in home. And, brutal austerity-dictation by authoritarian bank bosses can be fought out with democracy only.

With the message, Tsipras is standing for Europe, a democratic Europe, the Europe bankers fear as democratic practice always stands as a bulwark against authoritarian rule. Bankers’ choice is a docile, fragmented Europe, a Europe to be ruled only by bankers. Tsipras has signaled: Leaving Europe is not the choice of Greece. The crisis that bankers have created is, as Tsipras said, “threatening the future of European unification.”

More interesting incidents are going to happen in Europe, and in Greece, the economy 2 percent of the eurozone and smaller than a number of cosmopolitan cities in the world metropolis. There’s a deadline now: June 30, payment of euro 1.6 billion to IMF.

The Pro And Anti-India Question In Bangladesh Politics

Bangladesh politics can’t escape India question. It was always there. For a long time, it can be assumed for obvious reasons, the issue will remain live in the politics. No one, if the person or the factor means politics in Bangladesh, owns any sense to ignore the issue.

History and geography, culture and society, psyche and practice, and economy and interests have made the question an important one in Bangladesh. All of these are entangled while each one influences the others. One can’t deny the way history shaped the related geographical and economic issues, the issues of culture and society. And, culture covers practices, custom, ideas while ideas are part of ideology, which is influenced by dominant interests. The interests play with the ideological issue.

In all spheres, whether one likes or not, people are central. But people are hoodwinked, confused, pushed aside by dominant interests. However, whatever is done, people remain the central. The acts – bamboozling and creating confusion, excluding and making mum – are proof of people power as those “noble” acts would not have been required if people were powerless.

People, silent at times under certain circumstances and vocal at moments of historical juncture, influence everything and everybody. None – dictators, comical characters on socio-cultural-political stage, men with murderer’s “spirit”, shrewd horse traders in political houses, insignificant persons in all historical phases, powerful personalities doing and undoing a lot, chatterers with their politically obnoxious words, man-slaughterers with mundane mind, obedient political pied pipers seeking petty perks – have the power to deny existence of people, most of whom are poor, most of whom are working hands, most of whom live at the lower tier of the long ladder of dramatically increasing inequality. This – the people – have a central role on the issue, the India question.

The India question was played like an ace by a part of Pakistan politicians, a band representing a historically-immature ruling elites, since this part of the sub-continent was turned a neo-colony in mid-August of 1947. The issue was virtually turned into one of the pillars of the ideology the state was selling to survive.

But that political-caricature collapsed. The 1971, the period of our Great War for Liberation, saw a tide opposite to the politics the Pakistan rulers strove to create. Actions of brutal “heroism” and “purification” that began on the midnight of March 25, 1971 in Bangladesh created an opposite reaction, which was more than an exact. An episode concluded.

And, India appeared as an ally to the people searching a survival-ground in the face of beastly aggression on the Bangladesh people’s peaceful life and land. Actions of the Pakistan ruling elites accelerated the job. In those days of our War for Liberation, tales of Pak army’s “bravery” in the Sialkot and Khemkaran sectors during the 1965 Indo-Pak war stood as skeletons. The undaunted Bangladesh people were writing an epic of their courage, pain and supreme sacrifice. India, depending on wishes of none, got a place in the hearts of millions. It was not only the ruling elites of India, the ordinary citizens, the persons on streets in the country were extending care and love within their capacity. Sources, or reasons of the two, of the ruling elites and of the commoners, were different. But a factor was emerging deep in the Bangladesh mass psyche while the neo-colonial Pak rulers failed to perceive the contradictions. The Pak rulers resorted to a military machination of a political problem. It was their limit. It was impossible for them to act in a different way at that junction of history. Failure to perceive that limit is a failure in studying society with its class content. It’s equivalent to purchasing or eliminating individuals with the hope of brushing out contradictions between social classes as money or fire power can’t bury contradictions within society.

The India question during the days since the historic December 16, 1971 victory of the Bangladesh people experienced high tide and ebb. Facts and fictions, real and fabricated stories, deals and diplomacies, water withdrawals and sharing, border-killings and border bazaars, gradually increasing trade and decreasing protectionist measures, Bangladesh ordinary person’s educational and medical requirements, and, most important of all, capitalist alliance between part of capitals in Bangladesh and India played role in shaping the issue. Factions within the dominant part of gradually growing up Bangladesh capital were also reckoning the issue: Where lies the better interest?

Geopolitics joined those. Aspects of geostrategy and geotactics obviously are not absent. Naked imperialism, outright imperialist acts of intervention, spread its Eagle-wings over the sky of all the continents, especially Asia-Africa-Latin America. The world now bears signs of dwindling influence of an old imperialist power. The phenomenon has coupled with a few other phenomena: increasing global competition, emerging economic powers and trade blocks, advancements achieved in the initiative to replace the old world-money – the US Dollar, new theaters of military mobilization, the Pacific-Indian Oceans are one of those, maze-like equations simultaneously taking shape in regions. The increasing military competition doesn’t recede with the change in terminology: “Pivot to” or “Rebalancing to” Asia. A few of these equations are yet to take full shape.

This perspective now compels all to recognize the fact: Bangladesh is strategically important. Bangladesh is a basket case, a Kissingerspeak, is now only a “gem” in the rugged modern political-history, a show of a lack of political far-sightedness of political scholars from a particular school. It’s the Bangladesh people that demolished the political assessment made immediately-after Bangladesh emerged victorious in one of its phases of struggle towards liberation. That – basket case – was Kissinger’s assessment. That Bangladesh was war ravaged, victim of scorched-earth, literally, policy of the occupying Pakistan military. Relevant commission report of Pakistan tells a part of the fact.

But the Bangladesh people busted the propagated myth – a hopeless people, an idle people, a dumb people, a worthless people.

All these, the history, the present perspective and the people, make the India question an urgent reality, a reality all in Bangladesh politics, trade and finance have to deal with. These, the circles in economy and politics, will define the rest. And, the residue, whatever will be left there, will turn insignificant.

Expecting an overnight change of policy of a state, especially of a state like India, is nothing but an exercise in utopia, or a child-like perception of state machine. A state commanded by a ruling class matured over centuries through economic and political struggles, and having command over a huge capital that passed its days of infancy long ago doesn’t change policy overnight other than a dramatic life-and-death issue. Similar change, if any, is a sign of decay within the ruling machine. Even, management or procurement plan of a single manufacturing plant owned by a group of matured capitalists is not changed overnight.

An election result doesn’t make a fundamental change in policy of a matured state if the class commanding the state doesn’t face crisis within. A dramatic change in state policy is found in states yet to get organized as a state with essential institutions for dominance. Banking on election result within a matured class is an utter failure in perception of politics and state craft, and a self-reflection on mirror, an image of self-immaturity. Encountering the India question, whether pro- or anti- , requires the lesson.

Very naturally, a political organization’s abrupt policy shift shows not only its heart, but also its brain. It shows many aspects: (1) a long, vigorous, intensive exercise with policy; or (2) an exigency; or (3) a desperate situation; or (4) attempt to abandon a few allies and court new friends. There are other aspects also. Meanings – interests – are there whatever of these or all of these play as reason or cause of the shift.

Interests are first of all related to economy, and that reaches class(es) or factions of one or many classes. A shift thus impacts class- or faction-allies. Thus any shift turns sensitive in politics with far-reaching impact. Pro- or anti-India position in Bangladesh is thus related to domestic politics.

It’s not only a question of an external ally or appeasing or befriending an external power for the sake of political power. Its first consideration is allies or adversaries within home. In simple term, it’s a cost-benefit analysis.

On the other hand, it’s a strategic question, not a tactical move. To deal a strategic question in a tactical style is the first condition of befooling self. The befooling will be done for the second time if a tactician considers that a matured state can be fooled by mere moves tactical in nature.

Turning pro- or anti-India has some other issues to be solved. One of these is: Credibility, internally and externally, will be lost if it ultimately turns out that the position is not real and meaningful, but a simple opportunistic vocalization.

Not fake, but a real position – pro- or anti-Indian – signifies shift in interests of factions of capital or classes involved. It’s a real show or an indicator in the entire politics.

A sudden tact or quick policy shift has the other side: the target of the shift – India. Does the state take decisions within a short time-span? Is the machine involved with policy formulation that immature? Are not elaborate exercises and detail analyses done by institutions of the state over a long period? Is memory of the machine so short that mere utterances can make it move in another direction? Doesn’t the targeted state machine look at connections of the tactician? Moreover, doesn’t maturity tell that an abrupt shift is unreliable as today’s abrupt shift can abruptly make an about turn tomorrow?

At least two recent announcements by two Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leaders on India are thus significant. They said: BNP is not anti-India, BNP was not anti-India, BNP shall not be anti-India. It’s significant if it’s real. It’s significant if it’s not real. It’s significant if it’s tactical. It’s significant if it’s a tactical move to face a strategic issue. It shows the inner-condition of the party, its relations with its constituents, the interests it prefers to serve, and some other conditions.

It’s thus a major question to others, left and right, in the Bangladesh political arena also as still the party – BNP – is considered one of the two major political parties. Thus it turns out a foolish yearning as one leader claiming to be people-oriented and left recently chided the party – BNP – for its inactions on a number of political and social issues. An utter failure in political learning with a theatrical posture!

Enough Of Erdogan: Verdict In Turkey Election

Tayyip Erdogan’s dream of turning an all powerful president has been stalled by the Turkish voters. The just concluded parliamentary election experienced the voters’ negation of a dreaming sultan. To many, it’s a victory over political corruption. Erdogan was seeking a two-thirds majority to turn the country into a presidential governing system.

The voters’ voiced, as the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) co-chair Selahattin Demirtas told journalists in his first post-election speech: All people who are for freedoms, all the oppressed, all workers, all women and all minorities, had won together. He said: “It’s a joint victory of the left.” HDP’s crossing of election threshold – 10% – was a major victory for the left-leaning party.

The Turkish president Erdogan’s plan of assuming all encompassing powers received a major blow in the election as his conservative Justice and Development Party (AK Party) failed to win a clean majority in the election. The electoral hurricane has destroyed the AKP’s authoritarian rule for 13 years. The party was hopeful of a smooth win, and impose a stronger strangle on the Turkish life. But the party failed to secure 276 seats, the requirement for single-majority in the parliament.

The election, hopefully, is going to begin a new phase in Turkey-politics as it jolts the draconian domination. The main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP)’s leader Kemal Kılıcdaroglu told his supporters: The election results mark the end of an era in Turkey. “We ended an era of oppression through democratic means. Democracy has won. Turkey has won,” said the CHP leader. The same expression was made by the CHP spokesperson Haluk Koc: “Erdogan was the real loser of the election. The real winner of this election is democracy. Turkey has won, Erdogan has lost.”

The AKP with its single-party majority in parliament was imposing its repressive and divisive policy. It was tearing down fundamental values the society nurtured for long. Its arrogance was throwing out every consideration.

The election was not fully peaceful and fair. HDP was made target of violence since campaign days. Its workers and supporters were victims of scores of physical attacks during campaign days. One of its campaign bus drivers was murdered. A bomb attack killed the party’s three supporters in Diyarbakır.

The ruling party – AKP – used, it was alleged by HDP, all state powers. Ann-Margarethe Livh, Sweden’s housing and democracy commissioner said there were “blatant instances of fraud” and international election observers had been threatened before the election. Election observation team from Sweden was threatened at gunpoint by “soldiers with automatic weapons” in the southeastern province of Bingol. According to Livh, the Swedish election observation team was told they had two minutes to leave the area. Livh said having international observers threatened was also a huge threat to democracy.

During counting of votes coming from abroad, a group claimed that some ballots were thrown into the garbage at the Ankara Chamber of Commerce. Police had to intervene to stop a resulting fist-fight between party officials. Cars without license plates were found waiting. Police said the cars belonged to them. But Istanbul Governor Vasip Sahin confirmed the cars without license plates cannot belong to police. The opposition camp claimed that there was fraud in the vote counting process.

The country’s Human Rights Association has issued a preliminary report on incidents of electoral fraud during the election. To some observers, Turkey’s election system is “the world’s most unfair election system”.

Reports of widespread fraud across have emerged. Observers detected many attempts to commit electoral fraud. There were allegations of unfair means in a number of provinces including Istanbul, Izmir, Diyarbakır and Bursa. An official in charge of a polling station in İstanbul was caught for placing pre-sealed votes for the AKP in a ballot box. A police officer in Ankara was caught while allegedly attempting to vote for the third time. A group of people carrying pre-sealed ballots for the AKP were detained in Izmir. HDP supporters and polling agents were detained. No lawyer and reporter were allowed into a number of polling stations, and ballots having no official seal were recovered.

But the assaults, threats and other unfair means failed to stop the voters’ rejection. Issues of economy and ideology cast their shadows on the election. Playing religious card in politics is an old AKP-game. But that didn’t paid back dividend.

Funny issues also cropped up. There was allegation that Erdogan had golden toilet seats at his new lavish presidential palace. However, the Turkish president denied the claims and angrily asked the main opposition leader whether he had been cleaning the palace’s toilets. Mehmet Gormez, head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs had to return the 1 million Turkish Lira ($435,000) official car, which was purchased for him. Public and opposition parties strongly criticized the religious leader’s car-affair. Erdogan sent him another Mercedes from the his fleet. Erdogan slammed his political opponents during campaign although the presidency is a non-partisan position.

At a number of public events Erdogan used religious book as campaign material. He routinely slammed national and international media outlets, and threatened journalists. He recently attacked The Guardian and The New York Times and German newspaper Die Zeit. He said Die Zeit “went berserk”. He misquoted The Guardian. To him The New York Times is ruled by “the Jewish capital.”
Erdogan once threatened a journalist that the journalist would have to pay a “heavy price” for a news story. A number of reporters were sent to prison. Hundreds of persons including cartoonists, students and even a model were prosecuted for “insulting” Erdogan since he was elected president in August 2014.

But economy was playing against Erdogan. Massive infrastructure projects, roads and airports failed to save the Turkish leader. The world’s 17th largest economy was worsening. The economy expanded at an average annual growth rate of 4.5%. The 2008 and 2009 were bad years. In 2010, the annual growth rate was 9%. But it slowed down to less than 3% last year. Unemployment has increased. It’s now more than 10%.

The working people in Turkey are facing harsh condition. There is demand for raising minimum wages. There is need for increasing employment and export in the worsening economy. And, there is demand for freedom of expression.

The election results may push for an early election. The ruling party may go through a leadership change.

Two important questions are to be dealt with: the Kurdish question, and the foreign policy. The Kurdish issue is undeniable.

The AKP’s 7 election manifesto said: “Turkey’s foreign policy has been successful in an incomparable way with those of previous governments.” But there is debate on the policy. The AKP’s policy has not made Turkey a determining power in the region although it tried to that direction. The country experienced isolation.

The journey began in the Taksim Square. It began with the question of a few hundred trees, an environmental issue. Repression, and use of force beyond proportion failed to deter the forces of democracy in Turkey. But still there is a long way to go as the election is an intermediate stage in the politics of Turkey.

Hil[l]arious US Politics: What We Now Know?

A lot about US politics is unknown to ordinary citizens. It’s difficult to understand by commoners. A lot of connections, custom, cast inside and outside of the political arena there make the politics complex to comprehend.

However, a bit of it is known as years passed by. Scandals, and whistle blowing courage helped widen ordinary citizens’ knowledge about the old democracy. The famous gates – Watergate, Irangate, the WMD in Iraq or, it may be named, WIraqD (weapon for Iraq-destruction), the ballot paper-case have added a few more information to the small area of commoners’ knowledge about politics in the economy.

In the Wikileakage or Snowdenage, it’s difficult to hide all facts. Facts unveil faces of mystery.

It’s known, as Sean Braswell writes in “The 10 Most Successful White House Staffers”, (OZY, December 6, 2013), one high official was advised to exact revenge upon Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter, for a story he wrote on classified US Navy missions in Soviet waters. That was in 1975. By that time, Hersh made him a “bad” guy for exposure of the infamous My Lai massacre, the genocide-like act in Vietnam. No reader should feel disturbed with the revenge-plan as this is part of a sort of politics in the developed democracy.

It’s also known, Sean Braswell writes (op. cit.), one official rebuked three GOP Congress female members “pushing ‘equal pay for equal work’” for women. To the official, the notion of “equal pay for equal work” for women was synonymous to socialism: “a radical redistributive concept. Their slogan may as well be, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.’” The official expressed his mind in a February 20, 1984-memo. This type of officials is part of the political mechanism in the democracy.

Another official advised Nixon to burn the White House tapes during Watergate. (ibid.) Was that a notorious advice? That was part of politics there. Nixon’s political-destiny was decided.

These facts should “not” make one smile about politics in the land or one should not get scared with the acts, advices and assumptions. Despite all these acts the democracy possesses the power to advise others. The democracy is a powerful political system with a lot of crook plans. Moreover, shouldn’t those old, unloved facts of revenge and burning “lie” in grave? That’s the “civilized” way. Life is always fresh and vibrant. Political life is no exception. Isn’t it?

There are claims that during the ‘90s, the most powerful house in that country, and the executive branch of that state were “turned into a giant yard sale”. Claims have also been made that sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, joining foreign trade trips, permission to export of classified missile technology to China were sold out. The buyers provided cash for election campaign. There are allegations of bribery.

The race to US presidential election is provoking fresh facts to raise their heads. As the race to enter the most powerful building in the democracy is gaining speed exposure of strange-looking facts are also moving fast. These are widening commoners’ knowledge about politics in the old democracy. That’s the problem as these facts are making the democracy a laughingstock.

Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash presents a few facts of payments by dignitaries from other countries to an influential foundation, favors from a government department, exorbitant speaking fees. That was “a pattern of financial transactions involving” members of a family. The family members were powerful enough to influence a state policy, which could favorably benefit “those providing the funds”. The donors ensured deals in Canada, Colombia, Haiti. These informal deals shouldn’t annoy anyone as these are provisions of bourgeois politics.

There are “stories”:

Multimillion-dollar gift by a politician from a Third World country to a charity foundation that coincided with a senator’s reversal on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; a secretary of state involved in allowing the transfer of nearly 50 percent of US domestic uranium output to one of its competitors, benefiting donors to the charity foundation; multimillion-dollar contracts for Haiti disaster relief awarded to donors and friends of the charity foundation; a former president receiving large payments for speeches from foreign businesses and governments with matters pending before a government department; a power couple’s visit to Colombia, which was followed by the grant of logging rights to a Canadian billionaire, also a top donor to the charity; a former president receiving $2 million for speeches from the largest shareholder in the Keystone Pipeline project while another powerful politician playing a role in approving the project. The stories are spread over continents: from Germany to Bangladesh to Colombia to India to Indonesia to Kazakhstan to Canada.

One story tells:

A former president flies to a Third World country, spends time in company of a businessman, a “close personal friend”, a deal —usually to exploit natural resources including uranium, oil, or timber, on a large and highly profitable scale – is made, and this is followed by contributions, by the beneficiaries of the deal, to a charity foundation, and the former president is commissioned to deliver a series of highly paid speeches.

Bangladesh finds a place in the deal-map. A report said: A diplomat to Bangladesh pushed one Bangladesh high official to allow open pit mining including in the Phulbari Mines. Incidents preceded the push, and there was a high stake.

There is at least a story of telling lie. A former president lied about hosting a meeting at his home, and the meeting was attended by nuclear officials from another country.

Many stories crowd politics in the democracy. Well-known are the facts of meetings between human-rights abusers and leaders of the democracy although the democracy preaches human rights.

Another story tells:

Two persons pleaded guilty to making millions of dollars in illegal campaign donations to one candidate’s presidential campaigns in '92 and '96. The donations were followed by favorable trade deals for the persons’ Jakarta-based business group.

The third story tells:

A CEO of a company engaged with space and communications business was a big donor. After election, the CEO got the president sign a waiver letting the company use Chinese rockets to launch US satellites. The deal transferred secret missile technology to China, and helped the emerging military power improve accuracy of its Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.

There’s another story:

One convicted donor to a presidential campaign made more than 50 visits to the most powerful house in the democracy. During one of the visits in 1995, the campaign donor handed a high official a check for $50,000 in her office.

A possible gold mine in Haiti has exposed a few connections to power. That was also a power of connection – a highly-placed kin, a deal, dinner. Corruption? “No”. Destruction of environment? “No”. Was “not” that a simple business deal? Does a few Haitians’ demonstration protesting the gold mine deal “matter” in big business? Is not there a golden prospect?

Undisclosed accounts, transfer of money from one account to another – an amazing, if not mischievous, act, a secret shell company, connections between donations to charity and armaments sales are getting exposed. Sponsors of the lectures included armament producer/supplier/buyer. There was private email account for official correspondence. There were persons raising money for politicians, businesses and charities, connections to billionaire investor and a close friend of a politician. There is a shadow of lining of private pocket by using public office.

Do these sound a poor-world patronage- or corruption-story? What’s the problem with business-politics, corruption-politics and trade-power connections in the poor-world? Doesn’t at least a group of poor-world politicians need money? They need money to survive and to plunder more. So they trade political power. And, ultimately, they are simply satraps in the world system.

In both the worlds – the rich-world and the poor-world – political power trades business, contracts, procurements, projects. And, there’s “no” problem with preaching of democracy while the trades go on as democracy-preaching “don’t” require moral standing. It “only” requires power.

Libya-debacle-debate in the election race is exposing a few more delicacies in the democracy. There were foreign influence-peddling or adventure to cash in on post-war Libyan spoils, corruption, non-official person preparing dozens of “intelligence” memos.

There were, in brief, “intelligence” coming from associates seeking business contracts from the Libyan transitional government, involvement of friends that included a private military contractor and a former spy “seeking to get in on the ground floor of the new Libyan economy”, planned business venture in Libya, a retired major general joining a newly formed New York firm to pursue business in Libya, a company planning to put “boots on the ground to see if there was an opportunity to do business”, “Qaddafi is dead, or about to be, and there’s opportunities” – dreams, a trader signing a memorandum of understanding with two senior officials in the LTG to provide “humanitarian assistance, medical services and disaster mitigation,” along with helping to train a new national police force, seeking projects in Libya including a proposal to create the floating hospitals, intrigues by foreign governments and rebel factions. These are not jotted down points for a novel. These are exposed parts of the Libya-“Democracy”-Plan.

Now the Libya-issue is turning transparent: The Libya policy was influenced by lucrative projects in that oil-rich country.

Probably, Transparency International at central level will come out with a report as the conscience-like organization has to keep its conscience clean. At least the US office of the guardian of conscience will issue a report. Isn’t it a moral question? Otherwise, the organization teaching right and wrong will stand as a stooge.

Explanations behind R2P in Libya, humanitarian aid there, democracy in the country, tense diplomacy and Security Council motion, no-fly zone, use of combatants and non-combatants, boots on the ground or only bombing debate, secret deployment of special service forces, the trans-Atlantic military entente, use of European military airfields to bomb the land, and deaths of Libyans and destruction of the country are not needed now as those are the toll the poor-world always pays. Doesn’t history support the assertion?

Does someone stand like a fool with the exposure of the acts – the libations of imperialist power? Are not those gentlemen supporting destruction-for-democracy in Libya respected fellows? They always swiftly re-wear their honorable mask, and the commoners salute them and listen to their sermons. The dignified personalities are not liars despite all the lies exposed. They are great teachers.

And, none will question them. The souls of the dead Libyans? They’ll not come back to question. The posterity? Mechanism is there to purchase them, or to keep them busy with trifling business or games, or to spoil them. The world-people? Have not they been depoliticized, demobilized, de-theorized? Have not their leadership been kept busy with other tasks?

All after these the old democracy preaches “democracy” to the countries in the resource-rich poor-world. But exposed facts are exposing the shameless “democracy” preachers, and commoners are learning a few facts of the bourgeois politics. It’s, in ultimate analysis, money: contract, deal, business, supply, procurement, project, trade, and with that money purchase property, be a member of the billionaires’ club. This lesson of bourgeois politics is undeniable. The perpetrators of property-politics teach this lesson, and commoners learn gradually.

Cuba-“Confusion”

Cuba appears “confusing”. Contradictory claims, blames, assertions, imaginations, opinions are making a cloud of confusion.

Claims are being made: Cuba has compromised, Cuba has capitulated. Hopes are thrown in the air: Cuba is going to be sold out. Assertions are being made: the Castros are bad brothers, we told; revolution is being betrayed.

Even Barack Obama, the US president, is being blamed and being praised. It seems the Castro brothers and Obama have conspired together either to cease Cuba’s struggle for establishing a prosperous and sustainable socialism or to strengthen the Castro brothers’ “brutal” rule.

A look into a camp in the Empire gives an amazing view as the camp finds Cuban ayatollahs in Havana.

Right-camp in the US is divided over the Cuba question. It’s now busy with argument and counter-argument: Which is hurting the Cuban people most: the embargo the Empire imposed or the lack of the Empire defined democracy? Hot debates, even war of words are flying around as US law makers were heard saying: “I won’t shy away from battle”, and “I’m happy to finish a fight.”

Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, two leading Republicans, in a joint statement denounced Obama’s Cuba-move: “Unfortunately, today’s chapter … is one of America and the values it stands for in retreat and decline. It is about … diminishing America’s influence in the world.” Senator Roy Blunt considered the move as the latest in a string of poor policy decisions by the US president, and greater trade with Cuba would help Castro stay in power. “I don’t think you can effectively do that as long as the Castro brothers are in charge of Cuba”, he said. “By seeking to normalize relations,” Senator Kelly Ayotte said, “the administration is rewarding the very behavior we want to end”. Senator Robert Menendez, a top Democrat, slammed: “President Obama’s actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government”. Senator Ted Cruz and former Florida governor Jeb Bush were also critical of Obama’s Cuba-move.

Most dissatisfied was Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American. He considered the Obama-move as a victory for the Cuban government. His criticism was wider. He criticized Senator Rand Paul as Paul supported Obama’s move. Rand “has no idea what he’s talking about”, said Rubio.

Rand Paul countered: “The 50-year embargo hasn’t worked. If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn’t seem to be working”. He expressed hope: “I think trade might loosen things up and might help to topple the Castros.”

Two religious organizations – the Baptist World Alliance, a 42-million member international alliance of Baptist churches and groups, and the Catholic League, an American civil rights organization – praised the Obama-move. A leader of the Catholic League said: “Economic liberty does not guarantee political liberty, but it does work to undermine the forces of repression,” he said. “More important than markets is the exchange of ideas that this rapprochement will bring.”
Some Cuban exiles, fogey anti-Castro elements, in Miami stand against Obama’s Cuba-plan. Some Cuban-Americans are deeply disappointed with the move. To the elements, Obama’s announcement gives recognition to the illegitimate Castro regime, a dictatorship. Many of these elements took part in attempts to assassinate Castro.

These elements pledged to oppose Obama’s plan. They feel let down by Obama. “When the Bay of Pigs was abandoned, we were sad. And now we feel abandoned again, betrayed by the president”, said the head of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association, a group of diehards.

These are the CIA-backed mercenaries pressed into the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion to foil Fidel-led revolution. With death of about 100 mercenaries the CIA-organized invasion turned into a disaster. Revolutionary forces captured about a thousand mercenaries trained by the CIA in Nicaragua and Guatemala. “Americans have a habit of betraying friends and then letting them drop. We’ve all faced it, we’re used to it by now”, said a pilot, who participated in three missions to foil the Cuba revolution. It seems these elements engaged in criminal activities have now turned “anti”-imperialist.

There are dozens of anti-Castro organizations, media companies, terror gangs, drug and arms rings, lobbying organizations, aid groups floated and run with tax payers’ millions of dollars. There are the US-run Radio Marti and TV Marti. The business is being run for decades. Their target: Overthrow Castro. The anti-Castro groups include the Cuban American National Foundation, a lobbying group engaged with the job of toppling the Cuban government, and the Cuban Democratic Directorate that runs a Miami-based shortwave radio program targeting the Cuban people, and supports Cuban anti-people forces. These anti-Castro elements keep their hope on the US Congress to push back Obama’s promise to lift the Cuba-embargo.

Obama hopes his new plan gives the US a chance to influence events in Cuba as 50-years’ of non-stop attempts to topple the Castro government haven’t worked. “If we engage, we have the opportunity to influence the course of events at a time when there’s going to be some generational change in that country”, Obama told a CNN interview.
A motive is clearly spelled out: Foil the Cuban people’s revolution.

On the other hand, there is criticism from a part of “left”: Castro has capitulated. All is going to be sold.
Thus confusion is being created. Castro brothers – Fidel and Raul – are everywhere irrespective of controversy, claim and blame. The two individuals, according to “left” adventurist analysis, create and mould society. “Really two powerful” guys! “Left” adventurists consider individuals only and deny contradictions and class forces in society.
In between the two camps, right and adventurist “left”, Raul Castro outlined a future and a hope.

President Raul Castro said in the Cuban National Assembly: Cuba wouldn’t renounce its socialist system despite the normalization of ties with the US. Detente with the US won’t change the system the Cuban people are building up. “We must not expect that in order for relations with the United States to improve, Cuba will abandon the ideas that it has struggled for.”

Raul insisted Cuba would not give up its socialist principles. “In the same way that we have never demanded that the United States change its political system, we will demand respect for ours”, Raul told the National Assembly.

The Cuban leader said: “We always have been willing to engage in respectful dialogue on equal terms to address any issues without a shadow over our independence and without renouncing a single one of our principles.” “We reiterate our willingness for respectful and reciprocal dialogue concerning disagreements”, said Raul. He added: Cuba “accepted dialogue... on any topic about all things here but also in the United States.” It’s an assertion of position.
Another assertion came. It was from Mariela Castro, daughter of Raul.

Mariela asserted: Cuba will defend its socialist principles and will not return to capitalism just because it has agreed a detente with the US. She told: “The people of Cuba don’t want to return to capitalism.” She dispelled any notion that US companies would be free to roll into Cuba.

Other parts of Mariela’s statement are significant also: “We’ve been at this 56 years and ... we love saying that we are a country in revolution, trying to create socialism, and we form part of a single party called the Communist Party.” She added: “Sometimes people say Fidel is hard-headed, that the Cuban leaders are hard-headed, but experience has taught us something important, that we should never give in on our principles.”

Mariela said moves by the US president won’t lead to the downfall of the system in Cuba. “If the US thinks these changes will bring Cuba back to capitalism and return it to being a servile country to hegemonic interests of the most powerful financial groups in the US, they must be dreaming.”

With the cited statements the effort, the path ahead, and the struggle waiting keep no room for imagination. It’s, hasta la victoria siempre.

It’s easier to make sweeping remarks, formulate theories isolated from reality, ask for adventurist actions without bearing any responsibility for results and implications of the actions, have no accountability to people, and have no electorate. Adventurism thus wins a moment of present time.

But adventurism has no place in the life of people, who struggle, sustain, build up, face hardship and make sacrifice. The reality Cuba now faces, and faced for years has to be taken into consideration. Cuba’s reality doesn’t allow adventurism.
The Cuban people face sabotage. It’s part of their daily life, part of a “long and difficult struggle”. The Empire-imposed embargo is in place. There is international financial transaction limits imposed on Cuba. Cuba’s access to credit and international investment is blocked. At the same time, the Cuban people need respite, space for sustainably building up their way of life.

The Cuban people are struggling to properly handle contradictions within their society, in the spheres of agriculture, industry, trade, urban and rural life, political participation, etc., and in between these. The people are reckoning balance of forces within their society, and in the spheres of the continent and the world. They are to take into account the space available for maneuvering.

A straight path would have been nice. But class reality doesn’t always allow the desired straight path. The path moves in a zigzag way. All are to traverse a path repeatedly turning and bending, a compromise. Engels and Lenin discussed the meaning of zigzag path, which doesn’t allow adventurism. “Every zigzag turn in history is a compromise, a compromise between the old, which is no longer strong enough to completely negate the new, and the new, which is not yet strong enough to completely overthrow the old. Marxism does not altogether reject compromise. Marxism considers it necessary to make use of them …” (Lenin, “Against Boycott”)

One can blame the Castro brothers; one can brush off Cuba’s struggle, its journey through a zigzag path. The journey would have been better had the adventurists organized widespread Cuba-solidarity campaign among people in respective societies so that political pressure mounts on to import Cuba’s medical knowledge and medicines, so that political pressure is created to defy the embargo and enter into wider trade relations with Cuba, so that educational exchanges with Cuba are increased. It would have been nice had the adventurists organized boycott of loading fuel into warships, had they organized a ship load of cement or an oil tanker destined for Havana. It would have been nice had they made their people aware of Cuba’s efforts to heal its soil, its urban agriculture efforts, its revolutionary doctors, its achievements in the area of medical science. These would have widened Cuba’s breathing space, the country’s friends-circle, strengthened the society’s struggle, provided moral ground to criticism of the Castro brothers’ “capitulation”, and would have taken away a bit of “confusion”.

Cuba-Question: A Major US Retreat

A major US retreat on Cuba-question is evident in the US president Barack Obama's December 17, 2014 announcement: “In the most significant changes in our policy in more than 50 years, we will end an outdated approach that, for decades, has failed to advance our interests …”

The “failed”, “outdated approach” has compelled the US to announce taking steps for “changing its relationship with the people of Cuba.” Announcement is not everything required for any change as actual politics is determined by forces far away from announcement, and economy and politics spells out announcement.

It's an announcement of failure in an Empire's power. With the announcement it has been proved empires can't do and undo all the “things” in all the times in all the places as there is another power – people power, the power of people's political awareness, unity, sense of dignity that makes many powers crumble down. It's virtually Cuba's, the Cuban people's victory in their long steadfast struggle for creating a dignified life. 

Raul Castro, the president of Cuba, reiterated this in his reciprocal statement made from Havana on December 17, 2014: “I have reiterated in many occasions our willingness to hold a respectful dialogue with the United States on the basis of sovereign equality, in order to deal reciprocally … without detriment to the national Independence and self-determination of our people.”

Nostalgia was not overpowering the US president as he was briefly referring to the history of futile US policy on Cuba: “I was born in 1961, just over two years after Fidel Castro took power in Cuba, and just a few months after the Bay of Pigs invasion, which tried to overthrow his regime. Over the next several decades, the relationship between our countries played out against the backdrop of the Cold War, and America's steadfast opposition to communism.”

It was his effort to construct logic for making a shift. And, it was conceding a fact: Steadfast opposition. And, with the word “communism” he meant the political-economic system the Cuban people are struggling to build up, which is still far away from communism. It's, to quote Raul, “to build a prosperous and sustainable Socialism.”

The US president admits the US policy was “aimed to isolate the island,” Cuba. And he admits: “[N]o other nation joins us in imposing these sanctions”. It's – “no other nation joins us” – conceding an empire's utter failure. With the mightiest military machine in the world, with an efficient and experienced political and diplomatic machine, with wide economic and financial power, an empire failed to pull along any other nation against an “island”, actually, a nation. So, the US president said: “Today, Cuba is still governed by … the Communist Party that came to power half a century ago.”

It was not only a failure. The Empire was increasingly getting isolated in the world. Voting results over the years in the UN General Assembly on Cuba issue is the example.

The empire's failure comes as there are the Cuban people. Raul says in his statement: “The heroic Cuban people, in the wake of serious dangers, aggressions, adversities and sacrifices has proven to be faithful and will continue to be faithful to our ideals of independence and social justice. Strongly united throughout these 56 years of Revolution, we have kept our unswerving loyalty to those who died in defense of our principles since the beginning of our independence wars in 1868.” A people's soul comes to light: Faithful to ideals of independence and social justice, strongly united, unswerving loyalty to those who died in defense of principles.

The US president's announcement tells an irrational policy implemented for decades: “[F]or more than 35 years, we've had relations with China, a far larger country also governed by a Communist Party. Nearly two decades ago, we re-established relations with Vietnam, where we fought a war that claimed more Americans than any Cold War confrontation.”

If this is the fact, why the Empire kept on going with its policy on Cuba? The policy was followed for decades. It's not only the Cuban people; people in other lands also had to pay for the policy. The Bangladesh case may be cited. Bangladesh exported jute products to Cuba. The Bangladesh people had to pay a high price: thousands of death in an empire-made famine.

The Cuba policy had its parts spread over the entire hemisphere, and even in Africa. One can recollect organizing the Contra mercenaries, and burning of crop fields, forests, destruction of schools, hospitals, food storages in Nicaragua. One can recollect blood bath by death squads in El Salvador. One can recollect the Grenada invasion. One can recollect incidents engineered in Haiti. One can recollect deaths and interferences in Panama, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia. Chile and Bolivia are among other examples. In all the cases, peoples in those lands paid with blood. And, all the cases were charged with the Empire's Cuba policy: Wipe out Castro's Cuba and all its vestiges.    

Is the policy failure rational with the intellectual capacity the Empire commands? What's the reason for failure to identify and rectify the policy failure?

It was not a policy failure. It was not also a failure in intellectual capacity as intellectual capacity was dictated by interests. It was part of safeguarding an interest vested in large property and unquestionable privilege. It was property and privilege of individuals tied together spanning countries and companies. They all make elites, dominant classes. Cuba stood as an example of depowering those classes within its border.

The US president said: “Cuba has sent hundreds of health care workers to Africa to fight Ebola, and I believe American and Cuban health care workers should work side by side to stop the spread of this deadly disease.” The position, it seems, has shifted. Once, dirty tricks were played to oppose health workers from Cuba in countries. And, people had to pay for those tricks played by vested quarters tied to the Empire.

President Obama has instructed the US secretary of state John Kerry to review Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. He said: “Terrorism has changed in the last several decades.”

It seems the Empire is standing in front of a mirror to have a clear view of self. It knows best the roots, the collaboration, the fund, the training, the arms, the ideological, propaganda and diplomatic support extended to today's terrorism; but it's not that, to which he was referring, that “has changed in the last several decades.”     

Cuba is fighting terrorism for 50 years. There were bombings, killings of Cuban citizens including children, violations of Cuban air space, air dropping of leaflets provoking people to resort to unlawful acts, bombing of the Cuba Flight 455 over the Caribbean in 1976 that killed 73 passengers including teenage members of the Cuban national fencing team, a series of hotel bombings in Havana in 1997 that killed an Italian businessman and disrupted Cuba's tourist industry. These were organized and carried out by terrorist groups sheltered and patronized across the Cuban frontier. Is there any state that doesn't defend itself against terrorist acts? The US is the burning example.

Important question is the embargo. Raul says: “We have … agreed to renew diplomatic relations. This in no way means that the heart of the matter has been solved. The economic, commercial, and financial blockade, which causes enormous human and economic damages to our country, must cease.”

Obama also raises the embargo issue: “The embargo that's been imposed for decades is now codified in legislation.” He adds: “[W]e should not allow US sanctions to add to the burden of Cuban citizens that we seek to help.” He said: “[I]t does not serve America's interests, or the Cuban people, to try to push Cuba toward collapse.” And, he assures: “I look forward to engaging Congress in an honest and serious debate about lifting the embargo.”

Raul's statement makes specific proposal on the issue: “Though the blockade has been codified into law, the President of the United States has the executive authority to modify its implementation.” Raul moves further: “We propose to the Government of the United States the adoption of mutual steps to improve the bilateral atmosphere and advance towards normalization of relations between our two countries, based on the principles of International Law and the United Nations Charter.” President Raul said in his statement: “Obama's decision deserves the respect and acknowledgement of our people.” A posture is revealed. And, reciprocity is expected. 

A crucial test is in the wings with the changed numbers-power in the US Congress. There are strong opponents to Obama's Cuba move. To Republican House Speaker John Boehner, Obama's move is “another in a long line of mindless concessions to a dictatorship that brutalizes its people and schemes with our enemies.” Senator Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, and the Florida Republican, now considers Obama as the “worst negotiator” of Rubio's “lifetime.” To anti-Castro hard-liners, “the deal is a betrayal and capitulation to communist tyranny.” The strong tone tells something.

The occasion was historic as Obama spoke with Raul Castro over telephone to finalize Alan Gross's release and the exchange of prisoners, and other related issues.  Raul echoed the positive tone: “As a result of a dialogue at the highest level, which included a phone conversation I had yesterday [December 16, 2014] with President Obama, we have been able to make headway in the solution of some topics of mutual interest for both nations.” The conversation, now part of history, was the first such contact since the Cuban revolution.   

Interests including business in the US are willing to deal with Cuba. This is Obama's one area of support. There's a run for Cuba-oil. Already a few countries have gained better position about the prospective oil. The US can't ignore this.  Discussions on maritime boundaries with Cuba and Mexico in the Gulf of Mexico will be ensued.

Release of the three Cuban prisoners is a major victory for Cuba. Raul's statement reminds: “Fidel promised on June 2001…: ‘They shall return!' Gerardo, Ramon, and Antonio [the rest three of the five Cubans] have arrived … to our homeland.”

Raul's statement carries a significant indication:

“While acknowledging our profound differences, particularly on issues related to national sovereignty, democracy, human rights and foreign policy, I reaffirm our willingness to dialogue on all these issues.

“As we have reiterated, we must learn the art of coexisting with our differences in a civilized manner.”

Now, it's for the US to decide: whether or not to coexist in a civilized manner with Cuba, an example of a positive alternative socio-economic-political system only 90 miles from the US mainland. The fear of the example led the super power to put Cuba on the chessboard of the Cold War that experienced near-hot days with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Cuba exists as an example to the downtrodden people of the world whatever the Empire decides. It's an example of courage with dignity for the ideals of peace and prosperity. It's an example of a geographically small country's struggle to live with honor, which is possible with a politically aware and united people imbued with sense of dignity.