Rattlesnake Ridge      

 
         BFF   

“Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote “yes” or “no” do not, in fact, express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as they are not allowed to say more than “yes” or “no”. Such a system is oppressive and tyrannical. Those who vote “no” should express their reasons and why they did not say “yes”, and those who say “yes” should verify such agreement and why they did not vote “no”. Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their “yes” or “no” vote…………”

“Not allowed to say more than “yes” or “no”…“ I guess he suggests a resounding “maybe” as a third option.
More seriously, the late Colonel Qaddafi here aims directly at the heart of the Arab phony election system. From North Africa through Egypt to Syria and Ba’athist Iraq and Yemen, they all forced the people to vote in referendums, plebiscites, rather than elections. One candidate only: and a voter was supposed to vote “yes or no”. Suppose a majority voted no? Would they have to start a new vote with a new single candidate?
 
Qaddafi never allowed referendums on his rule (as far as I know), which might somehow make him more honest than his fellow Arab leaders. He was as honest as the Saudi princes, who never pretend that they have elections or freedom or a civil society. Unlike the late Qaddafi, the princes never agonized over it in a Green Book either, which might make them slightly more honest than the colonel.

(I wonder what Qaddafi would have thought of these Republican caucuses and primaries. They are not real elections: they never ‘elect’ anyone for any position or office. Mr. Obama, being a sitting president will not contest elections to be renominated: he will be renominated in a referendum. That is something Colonel Qaddafi would have never condoned).
Cheers
mhg


[email protected]