Democracy IS tyranny. The tyranny of the majority. A republic is what we should be talking about.
Democracies lead to the seductive wasteland of socialism.
"The recent election of Hamas is the fruit of a policy that focused on the form of democracy (elections) rather than its substance (building and protecting a free society)."
"Obviously, any regime that supports terrorism is hostile to the most fundamental principles of a free society and should therefore be treated as an enemy."
Sharansky certainly didn't write the headline to this op-ed. The LAT seems to be hoping no one reads past the second paragraph and presumes the remaining content based on the title.
"Despite my faith in "democracy," I was under no illusion that elections should be held immediately. Over the previous decade, Palestinian society had become one of the most poisoned and fanatical on Earth. Day after day, on television and radio, in newspapers and schools, a generation of Palestinians had been subjected to the most vicious incitement by their own leaders. The only "right" that seemed to be upheld within Palestinian areas was the right of everyone to bear arms.
In such conditions of fear, intimidation and indoctrination, holding snap elections would have been an act of the utmost irresponsibility. That is why I proposed a plan calling for elections to be held no earlier than three years after the implementation of a series of democratic reforms. Three years, I believed, was the absolute minimum for democratic reforms to begin to change the atmosphere in which free elections could be held. Unfortunately, the plan was never implemented."
How long did our Republic take to evolve into what it did? Didn't we go through a civil war?! I hate ludacrus articles like this. I mean we expect these countries to foster 2006 U.S. democracy under a Republic in months.
Response: No. It merely replaces the tyranny of one with the tyranny of the mob.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
"to open these societies to dissent..." well, then he would have to start with rewriting the Koran.
One needs to distinguish democratic society and the actual practice of democracy (that is popular elections). Democratic society involves individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of information, and the rule of law. All of these things are essential to the healthy function of a democracy. Without these foundations, popular elections can lead to Hitler and Mullahs. There are many democracies in the world (India is a democracy too), but only a handful you can consider truly functional, precisely because they have a well established democratic foundation.
Sharansky consistently distinguishes between freedom and democracy. Democracy without freedom is meaningless.
His test for freedom in a society is the town square test -
""Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm?"