as i skimmed the bbc's website this morning, i saw several articles that highlight the difficulties that exist in changing a repressive system to democracy.
south africa, twelve years out of apartheid, struggles with so much. crushing poverty, an increasing gap between rich and poor, aids, and racial strife are tremendous hurdles for this nation. nobel peace prize winner desmond tutu warns that this "powder keg" of unrest could soon explode.
in russia, contract killers are the latest sign that the transistion from communism to capitalism is a long, hard struggle. perhaps i shouldn't say latest, as they have been a problem since the fall of communism and rise of organized crime and easily available weaponry. the killers, which can be hired for as little as $100, are suspected in the recent high profile murder of a journalist.
and finally, in iraq, it remains apparent that the war is far from over. 51 tortured bodies have recently been found. the u.s. military, alongside the iraqi defense forces, are engaged in battle with militants.
the first two situations really make it difficult for me to have much hope for the third. they transitioned from difficult situations, but not through violent upheaval and war. both have had plenty of opportunity to change and develop, but haven't been able to excell. heck, they're barely making it work at all. of course, i'm not sure how idealic the u.s. was to live in during it's first 15 years. i think we can all see that it will be a long, hard road in iraq.
5 comments:
Back in the day, the US may not have been that great of a place to live, but I don't think it came close to what those countries you mentioned are going through. Why do you think it was so much easier for the US? Less foreign influence? Less historical/ethinic problems and rivalries? Everyone started out the same? Just curious.
By the way, that last comment was me.
i'd agree that the u.s. back in the day isn't really a similar comparison.
i think our transition was different, but it was a different time. there were foreign influences (france especially) but they weren't as dramatic as say iraq.
or, maybe people were poor, but we were still living in mainly an agrarian society, so poverty was difffernt than say s.africa or russia.
i was more comparing the u.s. in the sense of some instability, and things get worked out, and now we have rose colored lenses about how it all came about. we're living through the instability of these other nations, and there's no way we could see them through such a rosy view. but maybe in 150 years, the people of iraq will have a long, stabile history in democracy, and think back to those first few years as tumultous, but not that bad.
or, it's more likely that our beginning were a little nicer.
Well, if Houghton-Mifflin writes their history books, everyone will think their democratic birth was perfect, with no complications.
:) I skimmed "Ten Lies Your History Teacher Taught You" last year, I had to laught at the utopic vision they put out there on everything. America good, world bad!
I'm a litt more skeptical on the possibility of democracy or even stability in Iraq, being apocalyptic and all, but it would be nice. I just think their divisions are too deep and too long-standing to truly find a peaceful society.
Post a Comment