Democracy,patriotism and ideology

PATRIOTISM

By Kajabago-Ka-Rusoke

KAMPALA - Democracy is a Greek word, split into two parts, Demos + Krateein, meaning rule by the people.

At that time Greece was divided between masters, slaves, slave-maids and women in special categories. Masters were the owners of land and all that wealth on it. They did not work.

Slaves and slave-maids work and are never paid except the food they eat and the water they drink.

The breath of their master is their law. Women have no say at all concerning the running of society.

People are only the masters and that is democracy, meaning rule by the people where the term people (demos) are only the masters while the rest are not people. That is the nature and mechanism of a slave-owning society.

Next to this in history is a society where land, referred to as feud, was owned by a few against the majority referred to as tenants.

The feudal lords did not work while tenants worked on the land and part of what they produced would by law be offered as rent to the landlords.

Again, the demos were the few landlords above the majority of tenants, and that again was democracy, such as rule by the people. That is the nature and mechanism of feudalism as a democracy.

Next came a system where land was taken over by large-scale production where a few people owned factories, plants, mines and plantations against the rest who were turned into employees for those big owners of wealth.

The majority work for the minority owners of business and are paid very little for their labour power and that is democracy as the minority owners of wealth are the demos and the majority employees are not. 

That also is rule by the people, the rich minority. That is the nature and mechanism of capitalism as a democracy.

On July 4, 1776 thirteen British colonies in Philadelphia proclaimed independence from British rule.

There were 55 delegates from the 13 colonies as follows: twenty six merchants, 15 slave-owners and 14 financists. Their proclamation ran as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with such inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Imagine and compare the nature of the delegation with the nature of the proclamation! How can slaves be thought to have been created equal with their masters?

In all these cases it is absolutely clear and self-explanatory that the word people is characteristic of class  and determined by the nature of the class owning the means of production and subsequently in whose hands is the state apparatus and law. Furthermore, it is very clear that it is the economic system that determines the nature of the superstructure as a whole giving rise to a socio-economic formation again as determined by the nature of the economic system.

Subsequently types of democracy differ one from another according to the nature of a given economic system at a given time in history.

There has never been such a thing as standard democracy. Furthermore human beings can be referred to as people in general only within the context of anthropology but never from the point of view of economic systems of slave-owning, feudalism and capitalism. Only the ruling classes are people.

When it comes to patriotism the term means love for one’s country. Here it is difficult to imagine how a slave or a slave-maid can love his or her country under conditions of slavery.

Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine how a slave-slave-maid master is loving his country through turning men and women into just speaking labour tools.

When it comes to feudalism again it is difficult to imagine how a tenant can love his or her country when he or she does not own personal land for survival from hand to mouth and is even made to pay for where he or she happens to establish a dwelling.

Then how can a landlord or land lady be considered loving his or her country when he or she has grabbed land from fellow citizens, making them pay him or her rent rather than make sure that they also need a living like him or her in this world.

How can a capitalist love his or her country when he or she is just interested in gaining a surplus above what he or she invested in an enterprise where the source of that surplus is the labour power of the man or woman he or she is employing in that business or enterprise and not really from his or her land or machines in the enterprise or business.

The more profits he or she makes, the happier he or she becomes when he or she is exploiting the labour of fellow citizens leading them to constant irreversable discontent.

 Come to ideology. An ideology is determined by the nature of an economic system. No leader should preach or appeal for mutual love and harmony hoping they will be achieved under the slave-owning, feudal and capitalist systems.

Such a leader is trying to fit or fix a square peg in a round hole because it is precisely impossible.

For the interests of each ruling class in each economic system is diametrically opposed to the interests of the ruled classes. Appealing for democracy, patriotism and a pro-people ideology under economic systems with diametrically opposed classes is empty talk, fantasy and demagogy.

Answers for all these lie in land with all its wealth plus all branches of economic production in society being organized and conducted in such a way that they serve the interests of all people in urban areas and the entire countryside of a country.

There should be state sectors in both town and country. In case of foreign investments to substantiate the national economy, negotiations should be carried out in such a way that the national labour force to be employed under such sectors is considered for welfare but not to surrender to foreign investors in such a way that they subjugate the country to their purely capitalist and imperialist interests. However, this demands a pro-people patriotic elite in national leadership which is prepared to defend the interests of the national population.

The problem here is neo-colonialism whereby leaders do collaborate with foreign investors for commissions and banking personal incomes abroad for personal gains.

It is not possible to have patriotism with such leaders who are even grabbing land from poor peasants in the countryside and even leading them to death.

No leader can be patriotic when he or she is grabbing land from peasants whom he or she is supposed to lead and guide them against poverty. No one can be either a patriot or a correct ideologue when he or she is characteristic of money and property insatiability and fetishism.

The answer lies in the establishment of a pro-people welfare state.  

The writer is a Senior Presidential Adviser on Ideology.