#3135: Re: #2114: WHAT! TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT TO VOTE. Poincy replies

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Jean Poincy <caineve@idt.net>

I understand your attachment to democracy because I do value a great
deal the good that it can bring to people. However, I also understand
that democracy is a very delicate and complicated social tool to work
with to bring collective well-being and that of individuals. 

	Please understand this: knowing how to read and write does not
determine if a society is to host democracy. The crucial factor is the
rational capacity of a people to choose. By which I mean a decision that
one will make respectively to ultimately to maximize his/her well-being.

	We can agree that not all good things are good for one's well-being. It
all depends on the circumstances and how they use them. A rational mind
takes into account not just the goodness of a tool, but also indicia
that might turn a good tool to a bad one. Provided some elements are
known, a good evaluation will reveal to the rational mind the degree of
costs or benefits in using such a tool.  

	In this process, knowing how to read is a negligible factor. Weighing
the pros and cons will help the rational mind determine if the tool is
to be discounted despite its good nature. Believe me, most ordinary
minds in every society go through this process when making major
decisions affecting their lives.  

	I think you misread what was said. The lack of good judgment of the
Ayitian masses is not due to the fact that they are illiterate. Take a
close look at Ayitians' behavior. 1) they have a resigned attitude with
their misery by taking a wait and see approach 2) they are very
complacent when things are somewhat good and 3) their political
decisions are based on sheer emotions.

	My argument stems entirely from their third characteristic. They don't
choose, because it is good, but because they just like it. The choice of
their representatives does not depend on the ability of the candidate to
change things around for them. In fact, their emotional affinity with
the candidate is what guides their decisions. 

	Even if they know that the candidate will not do jack for them and
rather enslave them, they'll vote for him/her, as long as the affinity
variable is there. What makes matter worse; they would do it over and
over despite negative results. One reason makes it that way: most voters
hope to establish a personal bond (how? I don't know) with the candidate
in order to receive private benefits. Their hopes can range from jobs,
"zombie paychecks" or regular handouts etc.

	Candidates themselves rather than showing to the people how and what
they are capable of doing to change their lives, they play with the
people "sorry mentality". They embrace a "donation skim" to gain these
voters' sympathy. Giving them a couple of dollars here and there on a
regular basis, will make one a potential winner for public offices.  Do
you truly believe that democracy can burgeon in these circumstances? I
don't think so. Trying to make it work will do just harms to the
collectivity and to the individual. What I am suggesting is to put a
halt in the process for at least a generation until they change this
mentality. 

	As far as South Africa is concerned, the black leaders, apart from
being competent, came and found a well-structured government.
Negotiations were taken place to end apartheid; do you have any idea
what the contents were? The white machine in South Africa is running
smoothly; if it were not, I don't know if you would be able to make this
assessment today. The black population, the masses you are referring to
have been kept in check. The black leaders know they have to keep the
masses in check not because they have to show to the whites that they
are competent, but because they know what running a society is all about
and what collective well-being means.


Ayiti has lived, lives and will live
Mozeb