|
this book is a must read for every American, it gives you a broad perspective of world politics and the role of the USA in todays world.
It is amazing how someone can write a book in 2003 and it match what is happening in 2008. Excellent.
Minority rights can be trampled by direct democracy where people make the laws. Is this true. It made me think about democracy and freedom and had many interesting and important observations about the state of freedom in the world. The premise of the book is that democracy and freedom is not the same thing. But be forewarned, the author does not necessarily understand and/or take into account all issues of freedom and human rights. He points out that under the Indonesian dictator Suharto, Indonesia was economically richer and more secular than the democracy that replaced it.
A few polls have even shown that many United States citizens think that The Bill of Rights is too radical. I think Zakaria should not be praising a mass murderer.I found the book interesting and thought provoking. Indonesians invasion of East Timor killed around 200,000 people in East Timor out of a population of about 700,000. Conversely, a republican democracy is better able to protect minority rights and give freedom to more people. Then ask what the people of East Timor thought.
Zakaria bemoans that too much direct democracy is a bad and the indirect republican form of democracy is the best form of governance that leads to more freedom than direct democracy does.I agree with the author that freedom and democracy are not the same thing. Ask the hundreds of thousands killed when Suharto forces killed in from 1965-1966. I part with the author most importantly is his sometimes praise of dictatorships where the author contends that there is more freedom than in what he calls so-called democracy. Just witness the results Proposition 8 in California. The Civil Rights Act in the 60s probably never would have passed under a direct democracy.
His analysis incorporates many disciplines such as history, religion, philosophy and of course geography. The public "votes" in a sense how healthcare dollars get spent. I didn't like everything about this book but yet I cannot resist giving it a perfect 5 stars. As a physician, I witness democratization in medicine constantly. Zakaria is a brilliant mind.
We spend over 15% of our GDP on healthcare and yet our outcomes as judged by the country's morbidity and mortality is worse than Chile and Greece where they spend less than 7%. His book reminded me of Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel". Democratization in medicine plays a big role in these poor numbers. Patients (ie: consumers) often dictate what studies and procedures should be performed.I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in looking at the world in a new way. Diamond's emphasis was mainly on geography. Zakaria acknowledges that increased democracy is a work in progress and may not necessarily be all bad.Domestically, he delves into the new trends in "democratization and marketization".
I was first introduced to him by some of his writings in Newsweek. Both these books tackle the topic of why certain countries and regions are more prosperous. He cleverly expands this theme beyond politics to other topics such as law, medicine, and journalism. His one page articles are often insightful and offer readers new perspectives. Zakaria does not pretend that he knows all the answers and most importantly offers readers issues to consider and think about. Unlike Diamond's book, Zakaria acknowledges many factors including luck.
Zakaria offers readers a new model of looking at societies. For example, why are governments in Europe and USA so much more effective than those in the Middle East.
It is one of those books that has the power to change your outlook on major issues. I believe Zakaria is striking at the central issue that will determine whether America can retain (or maybe even reclaim) its current and former glory, or whether it will slip off into history. That said, it isn't perfect. I applaud his efforts. We've been raised to believe that Democracy is unquestionably good and that more of it is always better. Here is a critical (but not flawless) book. In it, Fareed Zakaria reminds Americans of an idea that was obvious and fundamental to the founders of our nation, but is now anathema to most: That Democracy and freedom are not one and the same, and that too much Democracy can quickly become the enemy of freedom. At the time of this country's founding, Democracy was viewed very skeptically.
Politicians most focus increasingly on the short-term approval of voters in order to get re-elected and are kept from using their judgment and long-term outlook.The book is filled with eye-opening insights and makes you aware of problems you may never have considered before. Zakaria doesn't sound an optimistic note, but at least he's done his part to sound the alarm. He obviously is a fan of the free market in most cases, but then says that too much of the free market can act in the same way as too much democratization (he uses the downfall as the Book of the Month Club as an a example of cultural diminution brought about by too much free market). Read this book and give it to your friends as well. He needs a clear rule to say, "Use more until "X", then stop." There are a couple cases where Zakaria seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, and that rarely works out.None of that stops this book from being a very important read for modern Americans. The Founders knew that left unchecked, the majority could be an even worse tyrant than an individual because it would have the illusion of morality on its side. It's an interesting point, but the reader is left wondering where Zakaria thinks the free market is good, and where he thinks it should be cut back. That probably sounds strange to most Americans, which is why Zakaria wrote this book.
Zakaria needs to fully form his ideas just a little more. A Republic allows the people to choose from pre-screened applicants for leadership roles and then delegates leadership to them.Zakaria argues that the gradual breakdown of the protections against the Tyranny of the Majority as we've moved further and further towards democratization has had a vast negative effect. In reality, that's a pretty new attitude. For that reason, our nation's government was set up as Republic, not a Democracy (think of the Pledge of Allegiance).
|
