tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8191547503172128085.post4122407691485224223..comments2023-10-30T02:30:11.161-07:00Comments on THE HAMMER OF EVIL: 4:2 Narrow the range of your advisors.Alan Macfarlanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03193419366726528442noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8191547503172128085.post-72393723593843429362007-02-10T05:27:00.000-08:002007-02-10T05:27:00.000-08:00Imperfect as it may be, it seems to me American de...Imperfect as it may be, it seems to me American democracy is still in good shape. The American Parliament is now controlled by a Democrat majority that opposes the war (or at least Bush's strategy). Even if America is not pulling out of Iraq, the Parlamentary opposition mitigates Bush's excesses.<BR/>I'm sad to say that in Venezuela the case is different. Very much as the Inquisitors' advise, Chavez has asked Parliament for full powers; so Executive and Legislative powers are no longer separated.<BR/>Montesquieu's elementary formula for the separation of powers is usually seen as fragmenting a country's 'unity'. That is why I'm usually suspicious of leaders who advocate "unity", because frequently, "unity" comes to be confused with "totalitarianism"; after all, "totality" and "union", on the surface, do seem to be the same thing.<BR/>In the Latin American context, Simon Bolivar (the general who freed South America from Spain in the XIX Cent) put forward a "dream" where Latin America would all be "united". This "dream" is the banner of Chavez and many other leaders in the region. Did this mean one great nation from Mexico to Argentina freed from internal quarels? Indeed, that is part of the Bolivarian dream. But, that is not all of it. Bolivar had clear totalitarian tendencies; he followed the Inquisitor's advice with great detail.<BR/>Is it possible to hold a large political entity "united" in the territorial-administrative sense without having to force its "unity" in the political sense? Large countries and Empires have had trouble separating one thing from the other. China is the best example that comes to my mind. No one doubts that China's relative homogeneity is one of its greatest strengths. I can't think of a huge land and population mass more "united" than China. This "unity" has made it a power. Has it come at a price? I would say so. Even if reforms may be going on, China has firm roots in totalitarian tendencies, and do not seem to go away easily.<BR/>So, again, is it possible to have a descentralized Empire with balanced powers? I guess the Brittish Empire has come to be the closest. In the same manner that, in a comment to a previous post I argued Pauline Christianity is a great model for a balance on cultural relativism, I think now some balance must be sought between feudal extreme descentralization and Ancien Regime extreme centralization. I think English history provides the best model. Indeed, I think Alan has written extensively on this issue, on his comments on Maitland.<BR/>How to be "united" without suppressing a democracy's balance and separation of powers? Societies that find such a balance will be the most successfull.Gabriel Andradehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15563119796817573637noreply@blogger.com