ON WHOSE AUTHORITY?

The factor underlying the media & political war between what can still loosely be called ‘The West’ (+ allies) against all other leaders and nations is the question of who governs with validity, the question of authority.

This is a question that unites many on both right and left in the West, from both the unlikely bedfellows from within both the liberal and activist communities.

From the perspective of liberals, authority should only ever come via what they consider to be the democratic processes agreed upon in the West as best and no other form of authority can be recognized as valid. To what degree the democratic process they refer to is truly democratic and not simply the rule of the liberal and/or regressive elites plus their colleagues within mass media I will examine in more detail later.

On the left there exists an equally negative view that authoritarian governments are not valid and should be opposed, championing those who protest such structures, sometimes naming such activists as ‘pro-democracy protestors’. This brings about an unsought for and uneasy alliance with extreme right-wing neoconservative elites and NGOs who work constantly to destabilize and instigate regime change within the nations in question.

There can be no denying that the socialist-informed system of governance in Venezuela has a greater degree of state authority being wielded than say Belgium. However, Venezuela is seen as something of an exception to those having a left of center view putting them at odds in this instance with regime changers regarding Hong Kong for example. So therefore we can see that there are differing degrees of opinion regarding how much authority is good, how much bad and for a variety of political/cultural reasons.

China and Russia are generally looked at askance by both the right and left in the West. There is a certain unity in ascribing extreme negativity to the motivations of the Chinese and Russian authorities. This rises to very strong accusations of repressive acts and policies of cruel and oppressive policies that bear a strong resemblance to previous memes that combined for periods to flood mainstream news and social media. During these cyclical periods of focus, whether the concerted activity is directed at Venezuela, Syria, China, Russia or others, the argument generally focuses on abuses of power, authoritarian acts.

So, we can see that two aspects of a certain view on a perceived abuse of authority can combine and act together from both left and right on this issue. This has a parallel aspect in regard to Human Rights. Human Rights, whether they are upheld or abused/withheld have been a focal point and an integral  part of all regime change policies for decades. It is unarguable that there ought to be human rights. The question is only just how far should they extend? This is clearly where the question of authority impinges. For instance, does maintaining good order and suppressing rampant public disorder impinge on the human rights of those minorities affected, or does the human right of the majority to live within a stable, well-ordered society override the free expression of such rights and if so or not, to what degree?

Let’s take the recent disturbances in Hong Kong as an example.

If you watched the coverage of these on CNN or Democracy Now you will have found the type and tone of the coverage has not been drastically different. Both emphasized a certain narrative and either downplayed, or more often omitted, any other aspect, point of view or imagery. These were (in the earliest stages) framed as ‘pro-democracy protesters’ who were angry that a law had been passed making it possible to extradite someone living in Hong Kong to mainland China or Taiwan for trial. The origins of this law, the reasons why it had been enacted was never discussed to my knowledge and was this: It involved a young man named Chan Tong-kai who murdered his girlfriend Poon Hiu-wing during their holiday in Taiwan. He then fled to Hong Kong where there is no extradition law with Taiwan. The law enacted was to change this circumstance and allow extradition to Taiwan from Hong Kong. Arguably the China aspect was added unwisely and was later suspended, arguably far too long after the protests erupted.

There was no attempt on either CNN (or on other mainstream media new outlets) or Democracy Now to give this background information. Instead the entire period was framed as a nasty, authoritarian regime trying to impose itself on Hong Kong for the worst of all reasons, to subjugate them to tyrannical rule from Beijing.

The ‘pro-democracy protestors’ were generally featured as being peaceful on both right and left outlets in the West. However, anyone who was sufficiently interested in what was going on in depth in Hong Kong and made even a cursory search of YouTube could find plenty of evidence to the contrary. The acts of violence and provocation were many. You could see wanton destruction perpetrated regularly in attempts to make protests more newsworthy and assaults on elderly workers merely attempting to get home. These aspects of what went on in Hong Kong at that time were simply not reported by either side united on their view of what constituted ‘good authority’ and what it didn’t.

Reporting that not a single person died during the entirety of the time these protests were taking place that could be attributed to acts of the security forces was notably absent in the West. (During this time one student fell to his death from the third floor of a car park while four activists committed suicide.) This absence of deaths caused by the Hong Kong security services is in stark contrast to all recent deaths at the hands of the police in the USA in recent months and years.

(As of October 2019:

‘Chan is currently serving a short jail sentence in Hong Kong after he was convicted earlier this year of stealing his girlfriend's possessions during a trial in which he did not dispute murdering Poon Hiu-wing’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7588785/Man-sparked-Hong-Kong-protests-murdered-girlfriend-Taiwan-says-return.html)

While mainstream news channels (plus Democracy Now) broadcast a constant narrative of democratic rights being abused in Hong Kong and giving the distinct impression that an authoritarian regime was being cruelly oppressive and undemocratic those such as the National Endowment for Democracy that had been active in the similar Ukrainian situation in the Winter of 2013-14 and any number of Christian groups active in Hong Kong along with, undoubtedly, the CIA used the situation for their own purposes and backing the protestors with more than just moral support.

This is the dilemma of the left in regard to the very obvious regime change targets that have become extremely obvious since 9/11. (It may have been thought by some that after the humiliation involved for the neocons in no weapons of destruction being found in Iraq and all the subsequent counter-productive events, that regime change would have gotten a bad name. Not so. It simply changed its tactics. Regime change continues to be the foremost U.S. foreign policy though not now via military attacks and invasions. More subtle means are now deployed.

Trump is credited with not starting a new war. After the serial failures of past regime change wars there was nothing in starting a new one by Trump. Just the reverse. People ascribe idealistic motives to Trump for this. The same man who once stated he would “outdo” waterboarding. The regime change policies continued, most notably against Venezuela, Syria, Iran and China. The means had changed, but the motives and intention certainly had not.

So, what do the elites of western nations predicate their superior levels of democracy upon?

We are to believe that every decent citizen of western nations has a vote and that this vote guarantees a high level of democracy in each and every nation within this superior sphere.

How true is this assumption?

What view does the average westerner have of the democracy he or she is supposed to benefit so much from?

How well does he or she feel this lauded ‘democratic system’ works for them?

Let us take the United States as an example.

Elections in the USA are theoretically open to most U.S. citizens if they meet certain basic criteria. But how does the system work in practice? How many millions of dollars plus active donors with specific agendas does it take to get elected to any important office in the USA? In what percentage are those getting elected backed by vested interests compared to those simply backed by ordinary voters who simply want a good man or woman elected to represent their interests well? Is that even possible other than as a theory? (The closest anyone has come to achieving this in regard to the highest office in the land was Bernie Sanders (twice) and we know exactly what happened both times. His crowdfunded challenge simply did not suit the primary donors to the Democratic Party and his campaign was effectively brought to an end.)

There are degrees of democracy across the West. Sometimes it is skewed toward the massive power and influence of the giant corporations by their donations, lobbyists and revolving door of jobs on the board of directors carrot dangling in front of the foremost political elitists. Most times in Europe it is an elite coterie of either privately schooled elites who moved directly into politics as their birthright or ex-lawyers/high-level administrators who know how to play the system for their maximum benefit. Sometimes they are simply ambitious, well-heeled, smooth-talkers who see the potential for influence in high places wherein they can make gains in power, wealth or status. Once in a time perhaps an idealist will make his or her way through the myriad levels of venality, selfish ambition, cynicism and back-stabbing to attract a decent number of voters to raise him or her to high public office. But what percentage of the current crop of politicians in the West fits this latter description do you think?

What I have tried to describe here in jaundiced but I hope not totally unfair language is the system that tends to be described as the best possible system after all others have been tried.

So, what do you think? Is the western concept of “democracy” so superior to the way of governance seen in other nations that are the focus of constant disapproval such as China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and elsewhere?

How did western “democracy” do in comparison with China’s system of governance on the Covid-19 pandemic for instance. Score out of ten? Perhaps two?

During the Biden administration I predict you will hear about authoritarianism time and time again. You will hear of how the West is the bastion of democracy and the guardian of the ‘Free World’ against all those who are undemocratic, who abuse their authority by suppressing human rights in their countries. And you will hear virtually zero concerning any aspects of those governments that wok to benefit their populations. Be assured these do exist. They existed even during the time of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But as with those aspects back then you will hear nothing of any such aspects present now in nations targeted for regime change.

In the West certain elites have authority. Sorry, but this is the bald truth. The everyday individual has virtually none. The man and woman in the street have a symbolic vote that can be cast every now and then for a very much restricted number that less and less bother to use as they see what little difference it makes.

Biden and co. will espouse the concept that the world will be so much better if all nations correspond to the western concept of democracy and the valid authority that is gained thereby and that all others nations and leaders are therefore fair game to be undermined using whatever means is deemed necessary.

They will say these other leaders and nations are extremely dangerous, virtually terrorists and terrorist breeding grounds, plotters against the noble “democratic” nations who simply want freedom and ‘power to the people’. believe him and his liberal supporters at your peril folks.

They want sole authority that’s all. They want to maintain their patrician control, their ability to monitor and manipulate without any counter view, resistant attitude or competitive influence to thwart that authority.

When they continue time after time to make the assertions needed to maintain their position over those they demonize do ask yourself and others... keeping in mind the select coterie of those who win power and keep it in the West described above:

“On whose authority?”