Socialism and Democracy at the Crossroads in Venzeula

Socialism: (Noun) An economic system based on state ownership of capital and industry

Democracy: (Noun) The political orientation of those who favour government by the people or by their elected representatives

Socialism and democracy don't make good bedfellows. While in theory there appears to be no inconsistency between the two, after all both are meant to protect interests of the masses, on closer observation one would notice that both are simply incompatible due to their fundamentally different prerequisites and operating styles.

Socialism, especially the Simon Bolivar kind that is in vogue in Venezeula, Cuba and Bolivia, demands quick State reforms for the betterment of the masses. To achieve this end, nationalization of large industries, redistribution of land, waving of loans, restructuring of local administrative bodies, and State sponsored universal health care and education are the primary ingredients of the bolivarian cure. These changes are not easy and need swift government action keeping in mind the best interests of the people, and here is where the inconsistencies with democracy begin.

As Lincoln put it, "Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people". But then the question arises, “Who are these people?” Are they truly the poor marginalized class that forms the majority populace? Most often, they are not. Invariably the political class in question is an elite entity by itself – a concoction of wealth, power and caprice. Hence, the very composition of the political rulers ensures that democratic governments in developing nations fail the first test of socialism, which is to carry the best interests of the masses while making and implementing policy decisions.

The second and more serious failing of democracy is built in its roots itself – ineluctable delay in securing the majority vote. Since democracy serves as a framework within which diverse fragments of the society bring forth their voices, the legislative process invariably degenerates into ceaseless debates, arguments and politicking that impede speedy decision making. Hence, the slow pace of democracy frustrates idealistic and dynamic leaders who envisage revolutionary changes within short time frames. In such circumstances, it is no surprise that many aggressive leaders like Castro and Chavez in their haste to establish idealistic socialist states often transgress democratic principles and tread down the path of totalitarianism. A recent article in "The Hindu" (p18, Jan 31, 2007) about the Venezualan parliament passing a bill to grant President Chavez special powers to rule by decree is a disturbing illustration of the same.

In Chavez's case there is no doubting the fact that most of his reforms so far have been socially productive and have provided succor to the masses of Venezuela. But what is worrying is his seeming hurry to go down the totalitarian path. His demands such as the one to alter the Constitution to let him seek re-election for infinite terms are worrisome. The fact that he nonchalantly operates a dummy parliament which is bereft of opposition members, because they boycotted the previous elections lends serious credibility to his detractors who call him a “dictator”.

The real question to be asked here is whether the price of diluting democracy is worth the benefits reaped through extreme socialism. History is strewn with innumerable examples that demonstrate how the initial fruits of socialism often turn sour when its leaders transmute from being benign trustees of democracy to power hungry despots who would go to any lengths to extend their regimes. Stalin, Gadaffi, Castro and good old Saddam Hussain are but a few famous occupants of this pantheon of shame. After all it is not for nothing that the old adage, “Total power corrupts totally”, has survived till this day.

It is in this context that I hope and pray that Mr. Chavez doesn’t head down the totalitarian dictatorship route and lead his country to distress. So far, he has been a great leader of his people; however, he is a leader in a hurry and at this juncture it would be interesting to see if he can reconcile his socialist ideology with the principles of democracy. My bet is that he won’t be able to. I hope I am wrong.

"The Kite Runner", Khaled Hosseini

The blurb on the cover says it all, "All the great themes of literature and of life are the fabric of this extraordinary novel: love, honor, guilt, fear, redemption."

That's what the book is about really - human relationships, their frailties and their redemption. It is a very touching father and son story that leaves an impression for a long time. For the more discerning reader, however, the book holds more than a mere emotional saga - it also tells the story of modern day Afghanistan - a land ripped apart by civil war.

The story begins in Kabul, the vibrant hometown of twelve year old Amir Jan, and Hassan Ali, his unflinching loyal friend and servant. As our shy and romantic protagonist, Amir, clambers through a bittersweet childhood, his life is gradually torn apart by conflicts from both within and without. Days before his thirteenth birthday, Amir's inner peace is disturbed forever when he betrays his friend Hassan. Soon later, his external peace too is shattered when the Russian invasion forces the father and son to flee from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Overnight, the war reduces them from rich aristocratic Afghans leading a comfortable life to scampering refugees with nothing to live for but their pride. Amir and his dad eventually migrate to America and start a new life as struggling immigrants on the periphery of subsistence.

The second half of the book traces Amir's arduous trek back to normalcy and respectability in his new homeland. Much later in life, a sequence of events forces Amir to return to Afghanistan in a quest for redemption for his past sins. What follows is a haunting description of how extreme fundamentalism, apathy and a senseless war have reduced a once proud and flourishing nation into a heap of rubble. It's not just the land that is broken, but also its people. They've lost their pride and with it their hope.

The entire narrative provides glimpses of the physical, emotional and psychological traumas of being a refugee. It also seeks to sensitize the world to the harsh ground realities of Afghanistan. As the author says in one of the passages, the war has made Massar-e-sharief, Kabul and Bamiyan household names across the world, yet no one really knows anything about these places and its people beyond the images beamed on TV. "The Kite Runner" breathes life into these cities and its people. It narrates the tale of how war has maimed these once bustling centers of culture and life, and converted them into graveyards filled with deprivation, death and hopelessness.

Note on the Author: Khaled Hosseini is a pracitising doctor in the US. His family left Afghanistan in 1976, just before the outbreak of the civil war. Khaled was 11 years old then. Though the novel derives strongly from his experiences, it is not strictly autobiographical. For more on the author you may refer to the following link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Hosseini.