THE EDITOR, Sir:
WHEN I recently read Jermaine Spencer's lengthy defence of Aristide's recent removal from Haiti as a 'democratic' action, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief.
Here was a well-written, supposedly learned argument, putting forward the notion there were other forms of democracy than that of the ballot box the idea being that the ballot box and elections were only one form of selection of government. OK, I said to myself, that is certainly an acceptable idea.
Beyond that however, there was the inference that there was both something inherently wrong with 'true democracy' and that, as such, other forms, apparently without qualification, were also acceptable. As Mr. Spencer put it, "The reality is that other forms are also far bloodier, expensive and inefficient, but (also) democratic." At that, Mr. Spencer, I draw the line.
Let us all remember that although the electoral system currently in use by Western governments may be imperfect, often corrupted, just as there are those who, through making use of that corruption, would corrupt it further to their own ends, it is also the best system that the civilised world has so far devised to be easily freed from the inherent injustices of intimidation, cruelty, and death. That fact, I think, is worth far more than Mr. Spencer's argument.
Look around yourself today, Mr. Spencer, there on your beautiful island, look hard at the realities of the world that the current 'Reign of the Dons' has created for you and your people. It conforms nicely to your definition of 'democracy', doesn't it?
But is it the one you want for yourself, your children, and their future? Or is it far more true that for a nation and a world to be democratic, and for that democracy to be worth anything at all, that it first be freed from lies, hatred, fear, and violence?
I am, etc.,
ED McCOY
mmhobo48@juno.com
Bokeelia, Florida
Via Go-Jamaica
