ON DEMOCRATIZING THE WORLD

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

While we are busy in the Philippines trying to secure a peaceful 2010 elections and to have a truly democratic participation of the people from nomination to candidacy, campaigning, votation and actual seating in their positions, elsewhere in the world we read of various approaches to democratic elections.

In Iran, authorities have backed up the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and declared him the winner despite the charges of irregularities in his re-election as president by the defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. Lives have been lost in the process and restrictions in movements of media are now being followed. In Honduras, a seating president. Mr. Manuel Zelaya had "attempted to hold a non-binding public consultation to ask people whether they supported moves to change the constitution. Opponents said that could have led to the removal of the current one-term limit on serving as president and so paved the way for Mr Zelaya's possible re-election." (BBC News) Mr. Roberto Micheletti who unseated him with the help of the military, has been president ever since forcing out Mr. Zelaya last month.

So there seems to be different interpretations of democracy in different parts of the world as some country leaders attempt to prolong their stay, or to insure that their wielding of powers over their people is not interrupted.

What is great about the Latin American experience is that Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is mediating between the two so that Mr. Zelaya can reassume his position as he was the duly - elected president by the people. The Organization of Americas also has suspended Honduras thus showing that in this particular region of the world, a strong democratic link exists among the different countries with leaders knowing when to mediate, when to step in, and when to take action even as the matter concerns a top-level problem.

Meanwhile Iran seems like a monolithic power in the Middle East without any of the countries there denouncing or supporting the moves to investigate election irregularities. It is as if anything that the Iranian powers do is a private matter nor can they be questioned on the goings-on there whatsoever. The threat on media and on communication even has become very real, thus destroying the very institutions that make up a democratic country.

What accounts for these differences in approaches of neighboring countries in the said regions? Here in Asia, Myanmar has been in a quagmire as the most ideal symbol of democracy, Aung Suu Kyi, has been held without any date for termination of her arrest. The pro-responses to her by the different countries here has not been as solid as in that of the OAS for Mr. Zelaya, which just goes to show their hold or belief in democratic processes. The actions of the People's Republic of China which is backing up the military junta in Myanmar has not received any sanction for all its actions against Ms. Suu Kyi.

All of these just goes to show that democracy is still in its nascent stage in the world. Only the big countries in the west can really claim that they are democratic, as they are free and liberal in recognizing the rights of individuals from womb to tomb, so called, from the family to the larger society.

Therefore, the United Nations tasked with spreading the ideals of democracy and seeing to it that every country adheres to all its principles, covenants and other agreements forged among all the members, is a target for that weak position in all of these. Somehow, the UN has failed to emphasize the need, the principled basis, and the rationale for embracing that democratic belief and the implementation of all practices that would reflect respect for, regard and valuation of human rights on a global scale. Its bureaucracy is too rigid to even impose any change that would reflect a correction of an abnormality in economic or political relations among nations.

To cite one example, apart from the above, hundreds of migrant domestic helpers are being arrested, imprisoned, being murdered, and executed, among others for having run away from or killed their foreign employers whom they have charged with maltreatment, rape, etcetera. Yet the deployment of these helpers in the homes of their employers -- on a 24-hour basis -- has not been criticized nor stopped. Why so? A bill has been filed the Philippine Senate under Senator J. Estrada to make the domestic helpers be billeted outside the homes of their employers after an 8-hour work, as a way of safeguarding their lives and to follow the UN ILO provisions for work. When approached to replicate this in other countries, the UN here in Manila said that this is difficult to be imposed as a rule all over the world.

So how many more workers will suffer from the maltreatment of their employers who come from another culture and whose view of migrant women is as objects of sexual desire and as modern slaves to be used for their personal interests?

If there should be peace in this world, then the UN has to have more guts to challenge the status quo, to raid countries that are destroying the democratic ties that bind the member-nations and are violating all the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights. As the officials of the UN hesitate, they are giving time to the violators to think of other means of perpetuating the status quo, of continuing their illegal political and economic powers over the hapless, the marginalized, and the powerless. A worst scenario could even occur here in the Philippines as the 2010 elections is nearing.

Should the UN still hesitate, then the member-countries can recall all the staff and officials and put in place those who have the will to implement or even work for the implementation of the provisions of the UN, encouraging, persuading the powers-that-be to act accordingly.

In this second millenium, and with its 69 years of existence, the UN should now be acting swiftly, without hesitation against all forces that violate human rights, that destroy a life, lives, the earth, no more no less.


-- Picasso Art Print