Hem > Ryssland > Riggade val ger ”legitimitet” åt det talade ordet

Riggade val ger ”legitimitet” åt det talade ordet

Nättidningen Stockholm Observer skrev:

In 1851, Aleksander Herzen wrote that if Russia experienced “another century of despotism,” there was a very real chance that “all the good qualities of the Russian people would disappear and” that the people would be unable to maintain “their nationality and the educated classes “their enlightenment.” […]

reflects Russia’s lack of “the critical mass” of free intellectuals needed to play “the decisive role in the establishment of civil society and democracy” in Russia much as they did in Europe. And this “intellectual and moral crisis,” about which few speak, “is no less dangerous than the economic one” about which all are talking.

Pavlova, one of Moscow’s most thoughtful intellectual writers on a wide variety of political and social issues, says that her conclusion does not mean “that in Russia people who see further and understand more than others have disappeared.” Such people, she points out, “exist, despite decades of negative selection” by the powers that be. […]

In a discussion on why Russia did not make a breakthrough to liberal democracy after the collapse of communism, Mezhuyev argued that the absence of a large and independent intellectual class made that impossible given the opposition to democracy among those in power and those in the population at large.

In Europe, he said, “intellectuals played a decisive role in the creation of civil society and democracy. This process was an extremely long one – [the continent] had to pass through three ‘doors’ which separated modernity from the Middle Ages – the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment.” […]

European intellectuals, the Russian philosopher pointed out, rejected “any tradition if it was based only on faith and not on reason” because an intellectual is someone capable of acting in the name of freedom and not feeling the need to seek the defense of tradition or more often of those in power. […]

And the lack of such free intellectuals is why 1991 did not develop as many had hoped. Instead, as other Russian critics like Igor Klyamkin have noted, the “democratic intelligentsia” quickly again became “a hostage of political elites who were struggling not for democracy but for a monopoly on power by means of using democratic procedures.”

Ryssland är med andra ord precis som så många andra arabländer och afrikanska länder, de försöker bara rättfärdiga sitt handlande, som är av Gud ogillat, genom att hålla allmänna men riggade val. På så sätt försöker de vinna legitimitet åt sina ord. Tendenser till det finns även i väst, men i en mycket mildare grad. T.ex. så är det i Spanien förbjudet att förolämpa monarkin eller prata illa om kung Juan Carlos I. I Sverige så har vi inga sådana restriktioner av friheten, och vi borde inte ha det heller! Möjligen kan man säga att lagen om hets mot folkgrupp är en inskränkning av individens frihet? Men inte min frihet att göra något för mig själv, bränna flaggan, spotta på kungens porträtt, eller framställa Jesus som homosexuell samt dränka korset i urin, och observera att jag inte är ironisk här!

Roger Klang, Lund den 21/3/2009

  1. Inga kommentarer ännu.
  1. No trackbacks yet.


Vänligen logga in med någon av dessa metoder för att lägga till din kommentar:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: