Once there was a fearful thing, for the Western World: the so-called ‘export of revolution’; it was a theme, which was pursued, in a mutually antagonistic and highly competitive spirits, by the communist nations, in their various hues.

Now the world speaks of the export of Americanism. And the US itself speaks of installing American values in other nations. What does it portend?

When I went reading American writings, in this regard, I found a certain level of shallowness in understanding, as well as a sense of certitude, in them.

Everyone seems to glorify the persons who came to the US, and one gets the feeling that persons of some particular mental superiority only went over there. It is a very grave error.

Even the Pilgrim Fathers are assigned this fancy feature. Yet, I would contend that the real spirit that moulded the enthusiasm was in their language.

Now, let me move on. Generally US speaks of democracy. UK also speaks of democracy.

Yet, is democracy a thing that can be inserted in a place by just building up the formal machineries of democracy?

I am inputting from my writings:

QUOTE

Democracy: When we talk about social equality, we must talk about democracy, which is really a sprout of the equality of communication in society. Without this basic factor, whatever formal form of democracy comes about, it would only be a façade.

Democracy is a British concept. Here democracy is not confined to just periodic elections, universal adult franchise, secret ballot, parliamentary system of government, bi-party systems, cabinet rule etc. British democracy is not working just because of all this. British democracy is embedded in the English language. The language assures that every individual, at an individual level is equal. Any official can be addressed by his surname. Other words do not discriminate any citizen on the basis of his station. No political leader or bureaucrat, is holy or unapproachable, or beyond an ordinary citizens purview of critical analysis. The language psychology does not awe an ordinary man due to the magnificence of anybody or any institution.

Actually this was written in 1989)

Now, even when Britain does have institutional feudalism, the language incessantly and in every word, and gesture, quarantines it.

Now, without this understanding, how can the US hope to implant democracy in the various nations?

In this world situation, there is another danger, actually a very severe danger that can crop up, when the miniscule lot of English nations harp on international democracy. I hope it is discernable.

Continued

Quote: tonyblairseviltwin

QUOTE

but it seems to me that if there are democracies amoungst peoples of other tounges, which of course there are, then wouldn’t this contradict your argument?

plus democracy as a concept, and as a form of social organisation, has been around longer than the English language,

There are many concepts one finds in English language; and most probably the same concepts you would find in many other languages, possibly in a more virulent form. But, it is possible that the real understanding of what it means may differ according to the language, as the local speaker senses the meaning.

If you go by the history books, you will find democracy in ancient India, Greece and many other nations. Yet, is there any direct connection to what developed in England? For example, the Magna Carta; was it designed by the thoughts in the ancient Greece and Rome? Or was it just the ability the aristocrats developed in England to debate with their monarch? In many other nations, such an eventuality would have literally forced the monarch to commit suicide.

I do not see any reason that the democracy practised by the ancient Greeks and the Roman, should in any sense be compared to the logical development of political process in England. I would contend that what happened in England, was purely propelled by the liberating force that slowly came in the English language, as it slowly shed its European strings.

It is possible that what existed in ancient Roman, Greece and many other nations including India could best have been a common, mutual interest protecting, debating forums, of the superior classes with no commitment even in theory for the interest of the common folk (who also might have been existing in obnoxious social mental moods). But, I have to be careful here, for I am not much learned in the exact situations in these ancient cities’ political and social mental structure.