As a former "left-anarchist" I'm familiar with this sort of story. We had similar stories of left-anarchist utopias from (1) pirates (2) partisans in the Spanish civil war and (3) various "workers collectives" throughout history. None of them lasted and most collapsed due to internal problems not being crushed by the nation state.
What has been shown to work in the long run, is Western democracy.
That is a very skewed view of history. The Roman Empire lasted around 400 years. The British Empire controlled the world for almost 300 years (and the monarchy is still in place after almost 1000 years), and those are only two examples. The US was founded in 1776, The French Revolution, that gave birth to the modern Western Democracy concept happened around 1790, that is at most 240 years, and it only became predominant after WWI, so around 100 years. Although in my opinion superior (or maybe i'm just biased), western democracy is not assured to work in the long run, many countries after adopting it have gone back to monarchies or dictatorships. And after all, all forms of government that preceded it have been replaced.
Democracies are demanding the political leaders to limit their power both in mandate time-span and share of it by seeking consensus among parties with different views. This forces the governance to be moderate by design compared to chosen moderation of other forms of government. However, this presents itself as an attack surface from external powers. Political interference is way easier. Also, to be in democracy leadership role, considering its power limitations, may be quite frustrating if you want to get results quickly. This alone is enough to explain a few of relapses to dictatorships through power encroachment by ambitious political leaders. Add in here other political context deficiencies like weak political opposition and dirty (as in crime-like) measures of rivalry, and you get the idea. The populace may live "content" by various degrees in many forms of governance, but this is not what is supposed to comprise a defining differentiation. The real difference lies in the inherent ability to cope with various challenges (that have to be dealt with on political levels), my favorite of which is change in all of its forms. All forms of governance have benefits and drawbacks and employing the right one is tricky, it's an ongoing experiment that humans are yet to learn from.
In few years time, we will read about Cheran mafia's ascend to power. These utopian dreams almost always result in oppressed becoming oppressors. This quote sums it up quite nicely.
“But here's some advice, boy. Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions.”
― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
> What has been shown to work in the long run, is Western democracy.
How "long" has "Western democracy" been around for?
In any case, I don't think it matters which -cracy/-archy/-ism it is. What ulitimately works is that the people be allowed to do what they want to do. ...within universal moral standards (:Murder is Bad.)
As long as people are allowed to buy what they want, watch, read and play what they want, build what they want, go where they want, work where they want — if they have enough money — and say what they want and have relationships with whomever they want, then on the whole they will be complacent if not content or happy. They won't care what type of government it is or who is running it.
Take a contemporary issue for example. Do you think you can even vote out the NSA and dismantle all domestic surveillance mechanisms at this point in America? But the majority of people don't care because they're more or less content.
I reside in a third-world country that isn't exactly a bastion of Western Democracy, yet the people here more-or-less live their daily lives out as one might in a Western country, so they don't really pay their government much mind.
I think you are missing the bigger picture. This is a story of a town dealing with the problems that arise in a failed state. The Mexican state and federal governments have failed to provide the basic services that they are responsible for, most importantly security.
Even when every single person complains, the result of democracy is not to make each and every person happy.
Case in point: You can change things, even radically, in the western democracies. All it takes is to create a new party (the law and the constitutions place only very broad limits) - the you can get elected.
The point that new parties have not actually been elected is not a sign that democracy doesn't work, it is a sign that people in summary don't actually think any of them would be an improvement.
Just because you don't like some of the outcome doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
redial|9 years ago
restalis|9 years ago
walshemj|9 years ago
foota|9 years ago
drieddust|9 years ago
“But here's some advice, boy. Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions.” ― Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
redial|9 years ago
dghf|9 years ago
Weren't the Spanish anarchists betrayed by their Republican and Stalinist allies?
amelius|9 years ago
Western democracy works?
dredmorbius|9 years ago
Razengan|9 years ago
How "long" has "Western democracy" been around for?
In any case, I don't think it matters which -cracy/-archy/-ism it is. What ulitimately works is that the people be allowed to do what they want to do. ...within universal moral standards (:Murder is Bad.)
As long as people are allowed to buy what they want, watch, read and play what they want, build what they want, go where they want, work where they want — if they have enough money — and say what they want and have relationships with whomever they want, then on the whole they will be complacent if not content or happy. They won't care what type of government it is or who is running it.
Take a contemporary issue for example. Do you think you can even vote out the NSA and dismantle all domestic surveillance mechanisms at this point in America? But the majority of people don't care because they're more or less content.
I reside in a third-world country that isn't exactly a bastion of Western Democracy, yet the people here more-or-less live their daily lives out as one might in a Western country, so they don't really pay their government much mind.
In the end, what works is consumerism.
epitomix|9 years ago
carapace|9 years ago
> "its autonomy as an indigenous Purepecha community is recognised and underwritten by the Mexican government."
My guess would be that this is a whole culture.
cel1ne|9 years ago
yarou|9 years ago
Noseshine|9 years ago
Case in point: You can change things, even radically, in the western democracies. All it takes is to create a new party (the law and the constitutions place only very broad limits) - the you can get elected.
The point that new parties have not actually been elected is not a sign that democracy doesn't work, it is a sign that people in summary don't actually think any of them would be an improvement.
Just because you don't like some of the outcome doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
saiya-jin|9 years ago