A Semi-Presidential System That Is Constantly Dysfunctional: The Example of France

10 04 2015

adnan_oktar

by Adnan Oktar

There is a mistaken conviction stating that new laws would swiftly and easily be passed from the legislative assembly with a presidential system. Actually this is not the case at all.

The only difference between the parliamentary system and the presidential system is that instead of an executive system worked by a Prime Minister and a Council of Ministers, the latter works with a President that cannot be audited or unseated by anyone during the term for which he is elected. The voters who elect a president in the executive system also elect an assembly for the legislative system.  Consequently, without a culture of compromise, both in the presidential system and in the parliamentary system the new laws will pass through in the same manner.

For instance, Brazil, one of the Latin American countries, is a country of coalitions. On average four parties constitute a coalition and sometimes this number even reaches eight. It is very difficult for new laws to pass through the assembly in this way. Some countries even give the President the authority to bypass the assembly with statutory decrees. Such excessive authority of course causes antidemocratic management and drags the country into a dictatorship.

There is no exemplary democracy among the African, Asian and Latin American countries governed with the presidential system due to the lack of a conciliatory culture in the society and to the excessive authorities bestowed upon the presidents.

THE SYSTEM IN FRANCE AND IN THE USA IS CONSTANTLY BLOCKED 

There are only two countries in the world that do not deviate much from democracy with the presidential system: The U.S and France. However in both of those countries, when the opposition preponderates, the political systems go into gridlock.

In the U.S., the government has shut down twice in the last 20 years and the American nation became inoperable for weeks.  The U.S. suffered at least 50 billion dollars in damage during these two incidents. These processes also had a very negative effect on millions of citizens in need of social help.  People lost their confidence in the state and the government.

In the last 45 years during the term of seven different American presidents, the opposition had the upper hand in both wings of the Congress. During these periods, none of the bills of law proposed by the party in power have passed the assembly.

In France, with its semi-presidential system, a very crucial condition is required for the system to function properly and that is for the President and the Prime Minister to be from the same party. Otherwise, just like it is in the US, the system is gridlocked in France as well. 

PRESIDENT- PRIME MINISTER INCOMPABILITY IN FRANCE : COHABITATION 

The period in which the President and the Prime Minister are from different political groups in France is called “Cohabitation.” During these times, French politics witness intense incompabilities and the system becomes inoperative.  In cohabitation periods, the authority of the President remains limited simply to foreign relations and defense.  Although the President in France’s semi-presidential system has broad responsibilities such as assigning the Prime Minister and dissolving the government, during cohabitation periods not even the shadow of such power remains.  Presidents fail to keep their reform promises and they fail in their executive functions in the true sense.  As a result of power and authority disputes, everything is jammed and a two- headed system holds sway over the country.

This political vicious circle repeated itself many times in France during the last 30 years.

Mitterrand-Chirac Period (1986-1988): This period is the first cohabitation government of the French Fifth Republic. With socialist Mitterrand as the President, the right wing RPR Party – with Chirac as their leader – held a majority in the assembly. Mitterrand had to assign Chirac and Chirac became a powerful Prime Minister in the coalition.

With Mitterrand being focused in foreign politics at the beginning, it seemed like there were no big problems, the conflicts that started in domestic politics caused grave political tensions in the country later on. The first thing Chirac did as soon as he became prime minister was to stop important reports and documents issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from reaching the president.  Mitterrand, on the other hand, threatened Chirac with approving his decisions in the parliament.  Moreover, Mitterrand went even further to call out high school students to protest Chirac.

Roland Dumas, one of the former French ministers of foreign affairs, discussed the disputes between Mitterrand and Chirac widely in his memoirs.  One of those is a memoir of foreign Chancellor of Federal Germany Kohl. Mitterrand and Chirac interpreted the rulings of the constitution quite differently.  Mitterrand maintained that he carried the capacity of the Commander Chief of the Army and thus had the authority to deploy and use nuclear weapons, and consequently he claimed that he was the one who had the most say in the foreign and security policies of the country. Chirac on the other hand claimed that he had that authority by taking the clause in the constitution which states “the government determines and executes the policy of the nation,” into consideration. There was complete gridlock in the country. 

This dispute showed itself in EU summits as well. In the press conferences Mitterrand prevented Chirac’s speaking after him. During his visit to Moscow, Chirac insisted that the protocol followed for Mitterrand be followed for him as well. Mitterand, on the other hand, prevented this by making indirect attempts before the Soviet leaders.

Actually the relations between Chirac and Mitterand went back to 1981. Rightist Chirac offered Mitterand who was the successor of socialist President Giscard and his foe to get rid of Giscard. (Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Pouvoir et la Vie, v. III, Cie 12, Paris 2006) http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=212541

Such an offer of alliance in France – in which left and right parties are in a cutthroat competition – is only one of those incidents that shows the state of French political system.

Mitterrand-Balladur Period (1993-1995): When rightist parties received 80% of votes in the elections, Mitterand had to assign Balladur as Prime Minister. Gridlock continued in the country until Chirac won the next presidential election and replaced Mitterand.

Chirac-Jospin Period (1997-2002): In 1997, Chirac went to elections after dissolving the parliament. However, the socialists gained the majority in the parliament and thus he had to assign Jospin  as the Prime Minister. The French call this period which lasted five years as the “Paralysis”.

Similar deadlocks appear in Romania, which also has a semi-presidential system. In 2012, a situation even worse than in France appeared between President of Romania Traian Basescu and Prime Minister Victor Ponta. The tension grew until the parliament suspended the authories of the President. After the President was relieved of his duties, a referendum was  held. The supporters of Basescu boycotted the referendum.  The referendum resulted in a decision to relieve the President of his duties. Romania’s Constitutional Court declared the referendum null and void.   Incidents reached the level of country- wide street uprisings. This period of commotion continued for six months.

FRANCE IS IN SEARCH OF A NEW SYSTEM 

France has been in the Fifth Republic since 1958. The semi- presidential system in France is a model in which the executive power is shared by the President ad the Prime Minister. The President is able to influence the government but Prime Minister holds sway over the state bureaucracy. The search for reforms have constantly been voiced since the 1970s. In fact, over the last 67 years, there have been changes to the French constitution for ten times. After the cohabitation period these demands for change are increasing. Moreover in 1997 some intellectuals even voiced through Le Monde Daily suggestions for a new republic.

As a result of cohabitation, the French have decreased the presidential term to five years from seven years as a temporary precaution.  When the term of office for the parliament and the President is the same, it is hoped that voters will vote for the same general candidates (ie, left or right wing).  However everyone understand that this  would only shorten the time of conflicts rather than preventing such conflicts; that is because French people have a culture that evaluates parliament and the president individually. On the other hand the President is elected in a runoff election. Even if the right wing parties have a majority in the parliament, a socialist President can easily be elected.  Besides, secret alliances between rightist and socialist candidates are quite often seen before the elections in France. As a result, the country can  easily fall into a new cohabitation period.

In the parliamentary system currently seen in Turkey, it is very difficult to experience a cohabitation crisis.  In our system, the President only has the authority to dissolve the Parliament in cases of no confidence votes or if the Turkish Grand National Assembly Executive board could not be found in 45 days. Improvements could always be done regarding such articles and improve our parliamentary system. Consequently, it is not possible to have an environment similar to that of France under the current constitutional conditions of Turkey.

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Presidential Systems Sound the Alarm All Over the World

1 04 2015

Dictators

by Adnan Oktar

“The government entered a shutdown.”

“The government has stopped paying the salaries of hundreds of thousands of civil servants and furloughed them.”

“The government is unable to pay the salaries of civil servants.”

“A bill proposing the annulment of the Affordable Care Act has passed.”

“The federal government has entered a shutdown to a large extent.”

When you see the above headlines, you may well have thought that these happened in some Third World country: Actually all these developments have taken place in the United States of America, a superpower and a country that often boasts about its system of governance. The US government was literally paralyzed when a new budget proposal did not pass Congress in October 2013. The U.S. government announced that it entered a shutdown. Many unfunded government offices had to stop providing services, and staff salaries could not be paid. Many federal employees were indefinitely furloughed. America was in a state of crisis. Previously in 1995-96, the US experienced a similar political crisis and the government again announced that it was shutdown.

In the U.S., all bills, including the budget, have to pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate. Bills that fail to pass through Congress do not go in effect. This is regarded as an insurance policy of the presidential system. Once a president is elected, it is all but impossible to remove him until new elections are held. Congress was established as a balance mechanism to prevent presidents from misusing their power. Presidential elections and the elections for the House of Representatives are held at different times in order to prevent any one branch of government from achieving complete power over the administration as a requisite of balance. In the U.S. the president is elected every four years, senators are elected every six years and members of House of Representatives are elected once every two years. If the government and the president lose strength after the elections, they are regarded as having lost popular support and it becomes possible for the opposition to obtain a majority in the House of Representatives and that leads to the opposition blocking the system. In brief, WHILE PARALYSIS OF THE STATE CAN EASILY BE PREVENTED THROUGH A MOTION OF NO-CONFIDENCE OR THROUGH THE ANNULMENT OF THE PARLIAMENT BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM!

The U.S.A. is built on a union of states. A civil war broke out less than a century after its foundation; there were vast differences of opinion. The presidential system, established to preserve the rights of all states, great and small, has today turned into a system that obstructs the rights of the people. Instead of finding a middle way through agreements and negotiations for the division of powers, a system has emerged in which right tends to lie with whoever puts on the greatest display of power.

The American democracy, accepted and aspired to as a role model for the world, has turned into a “culture of conflict” as the phrase goes; the culture of compromise has all but disappeared. This situation now reveals that the current system calls for revision. The aim behind the presidential system is to place politics onto balances. However that balance has now been overturned in America. The failure of the House to pass a new budget brought down the system. Politics, which should be separate from the economy, has come to employ power capable of even bankrupting the Treasury.

As a matter of fact, as in the rest of the world, political division and polarization is quite normal in America as well. This is simply the nature of politics. Differences of opinion between the government and the opposition, as well as criticisms, are the wealth of any democracy. However if this polarization prevents politicians from compromising, even when it comes to national interests, the alarm bells start ringing. Especially in the U.S. presidential system, if the two parties of the House cannot agree on a subject, everything becomes paralyzed. The country is currently governed by a Democratic President while the Republicans have a majority in Congress. The Tea Party, a minority among the Republicans, is also highly influential among Republicans. The Tea Party Caucus controls 10% of the national vote but 20% of the Congress. This blocks the political system by opposing whatever a Democrat President says or does.

The following words of Obama’s summarize the position very well: “When you have a situation in which a faction is willing to potentially default on U.S. government obligations, then we are in trouble.” (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/obama-exasperated-over-government-shutdown-warns-were-trouble-f8C11323098)

These words of Obama’s also very well describe the situation to which the presidential system has led: Unfortunately, Congress has not fulfilled its responsibility and failed to pass a budget.  As a result, much of our government must now shut down until Congress funds it again. The threats to our national security have not changed, and we need you to be ready for any contingency.”http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120890

The situation was no different this year either. The U.S. House of Representatives only passed a controversial budget proposal some two and a half hours before the government would have officially entered a shutdown. In other words, the government would have shutdown in 2014 as well, and this was only prevented by last minute negotiations. Nobody knows what will happen this year.

In U.S. political literature, a President who loses the support of the majority in Congress is known as a ‘lame duck’, though it often refers to last few years of a President as he reaches the end of his Constitutionally-alloted two term maximum. The Democrats continued to lose votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate in the elections held in November 2014 and the Republicans have effectively gained the upper hand. Obama, who is due to remain in office until January 2017, is therefore looking at a difficult two years. If the political gridlock continues unabated, it will be the American people who will suffer the consequences. Financial losses in the latest crisis reached $24 billion and public confidence in political institutions was badly shaken.

Latin American countries, which have sought to copy America and introduce presidential systems, reveal a very painful picture. There are regimes in those countries that ignore the principle of division of powers and turn into virtual dictatorships solely to prevent gridlock in the system. Similarly the presidential systems in the MENA region turned into dictatorships and were eventually overthrown by popular uprisings and civil wars; they also reveal the scale of the disaster caused by presidential systems.

In conclusion, it is seen that the presidential system causes problems everywhere. Consequently the most rational option is therefore to revise the system in order to fix those aspects that do not function properly.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


De-Zionization of America 2015

30 03 2015

Together we can change the political landscape and end the Zionization of America

by Sami Jamil Jadallah

America is suffering from a severe addiction and the dealers in our government, in our academic, financial and social institutions, are not your average crack drug dealers — but Zionists, providing the needed “fix”. It is time for a much-needed rehabilitation in America, and for us to get on the road to recovery from this toxic and fatal addiction.

The recent speech Netanyahu gave to a standing ovation in a joint session of the House and the Senate, along with the public humiliation he dished out to America’s elected president and the American people should be a wake up call to line up in the voting stations and vote out of office ALL those who attended Netanyahu’s speech — those being members of the American Knesset.

Adding insult to injury, Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Stephen Rosen formerly with AIPAC, wrote this about Netanyahu’s visit, “a half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table… ‘you see this napkin, in twenty-four hours we could have the signature of seventy senators on this napkin’.”

At least Rosen used a napkin, not toilet paper to hypothetically secure the signatures of his seventy “American” senators.

Up to 1914, many if not all, American Jews were not supportive, but were even hostile to the Zionist cause. This was the case until a Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis took charge of the Zionist cause in America. He is credited with taking Zionism, previously lacking support within the American Jewry, to a mainstream movement within America’s government, business, media and social institutions. Much debate took place within America’s Jewish communities, with many, especially the Jewish Reform Movement, viewing not Israel but America as the “Promised Land”. All that has changed.

Zionism is an ideology no different from Communism, with Israel and loyalty to Israel, its central core value. From this springs the frequent accusation of dual loyalty and endangerment of America as a “sovereign nation”.

Two major events shaped the mission and vision of Zionism here in the US and around the world. The first is WWII and the legends of the “Holocaust”, which put the establishment of Israel on a fast track — especially after major Zionist leaders lobbied the American government to close its doors to the Jews fleeing Nazi-occupied Europe.

European Jews faced two choices — either emigrate to Palestine or face imminent death. To America’s Zionist leaders, establishing the State of Israel was a more noble cause than saving the lives of European Jews.

The second major event was the 1967 War, initiated by Israel, in which the Lyndon Johnson administration played a key role. This war boosted an already powerful Zionist community of multiple organizations, especially AIPAC within the United States. With key Zionist advisors the likes of Abe Fortas, Arthur Goldberg, and Walter W. Rostow, the Johnson administration (1963-1969) aided the “United States becoming Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier”.

Although Johnson was a committed Zionist, he was a horse trader. Zionists not only “blackmailed” him because of his alleged relationship with his “Jewish mistress”, but offered him support in media and Congress for his failing Vietnam policies, and in return gained total and unconditional support for their Israeli agenda.

The arrival of Henry Kissinger as National Security Advisor and later as Secretary of State allowed him to purge “Arabists” inside the State Department, and National Security Zionists consolidated their chokehold over the Departments of State, Defense, and more recently Homeland Security and CIA.

AIPAC with a policy of “take no prisoners” and afforded ever-increasing support within active and rich American Jewry, and though it does not contribute directly to political campaigns, it influences and, in many instances, decides elections — with tens of millions of dollars injected into national and local political campaigns.

With a budget exceeding $250 million annually, AIPAC, through the many “Israeli-oriented and -sponsored “think tanks”, provides members of Congress with skewed “position papers” on a range of policies, especially those relating to Israel and America’s Middle East policy — not to mention the hundreds of “interns” serving throughout the House and Senate.

Money and power play a key role in the success of AIPAC and other organizations like ADL on shaping America’s domestic and international policies, even America’s social agenda. (Please review the many excellent articles and well documents essays published here at Veterans Today by Jonas E. Alexis.)

Since the early 1960s, Zionists have exercised power and influence unmatched by any other group or organization in government, in media, in movies, on college campuses, and on Wall Street — not to mention power over the economic and fiscal policies of the United States by managing the Federal Reserve, a private and not a governmental organization.

While many know and are aware of Zionist influence over Congress and media, few know about the toxic influence Zionist hard-ball plays on college campuses, limiting through denying academic freedoms and free debate to the point of having an army of “academic Gestapo” in almost all US campuses, even classrooms. If they can not stop free debate on Israel, then they resort to public safety issues preventing an open debate. Many professors have lost their tenure track positions because of these Gestapo-like threats of withholding alumni funds from programs. Many campuses across the Nation succumbed to this blackmail.

The American people have lost power and influence on Capitol Hill (in America’s Knesset) and in all national elections. This loss was enshrined in the infamous Supreme Court case, “Citizens United V. FEC”, where the Supreme Court opened the doors to money to replace the power of the only thing remaining to American citizens — “voting” — with big time pac, corporate, and foreign money in local and national elections. In essence, money has replaced votes in our local and national elections.

It is time for us, the American people, and citizens to change all of that. “United Citizens” can overturn “Citizens United” at the voting booth, and we can undo the power and authority Zionism plays in America’s domestic and international policies.

Due to the bi-partisan support given Bibi Netanyahu, both Republican and Democratic parties lost the right to represent the American people — hence the need for a Third Party “United Citizens” to field its own candidates and change the American political landscape.

As I see it and envision it, the Occupy Wall Street model does not and will not work, and the only actions that will make a difference are at the voting booth. “United Citizens” will be an America-First political party and organization. With paid membership all across the United States, this new party needs to field and fund its own candidates, taking NO money from lobbies, AIPAC nor any other PAC organizations. United Citizens must rewrite the rules of elections in this country.

United Citizens’ national peaceful rallies in all major cities can take place, having at least one big turnout every three months across the nation, with a national gathering in the millions in Washington DC. This would give notice to members of the American Knesset, those Israeli-Firsters, that their tenure is over. In the words of Harvey Weinstein, “Kick those guys in the ass”.

“United Citizens” candidates must pledge and sign a binding Pledge of Allegiance to America first — not to take any funds from any organizations that represent foreign governments (AIPAC), not to take money from groups or organizations from outside the districts they plan to represent, and to rely solely on members of “United Citizens” to go out and vote for their own candidates.

With gradual replacement of members of Congress over the next 6 years, we can take back our government, and we can make all the necessary changes needed, as follows:

especially those related to the Federal Reserve,
regulations of Wall Street,
domestic and international relations,
limit time and money in local and national elections,
fix our national debt and putting limits on it,
fix our deteriorating and falling apart infrastructure,
bring jobs back to America,
put limits on compensations for executives of public companies,
fix once and for all our dysfunctional welfare system,
fix and addressing our criminal justice system that shames us being number one in the world in terms of prisoners incarcerations,
fix our schools,
fix the way we fund local and national education,
overturn decisions by the Supreme Court of “Citizens United”, and
institute terms limits making our Congress a Citizens Congress, not one of lifelong professional politicians.

Let us never underestimate the power of the “vote”. Time for an American government of the people by the people and for the people. Keeping in mind that only a minority, less that 25% of cast elects presidents and members of Congress.

It is time for the lazy and silent majority to get off its collective ass and go out, become members of United Citizens, and make it the party of the people, and vote. Together we can change the political landscape, and end the Zionization of America.


The American Presidential System Cannot Represent a Model for Turkey

26 03 2015

09_Adnan-Oktar

by Adnan Oktar

The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic consisting of 50 states.

amerikan baskanlik_sistemi_turkiyeye_model_olmaz1

Some of these American states were semi-independent before unification. They had their own flags, their own laws and assemblies. Texas and California were independent states.

Several states have talked about leaving the union and declaring independence. It has therefore only been possible to unite federated states with diverse views under a presidential system. It would not have been possible for a second, alternative system to form the  United States.

If we have a brief look at U.S. political history;

Following the discovery on the continent in 1492, a wave of migration began from Europe, particularly from Spain, Portugal, France and England. The internal and southern regions were under the control of the French and the Spanish, and of course, there was a Native American presence. Those regions under English control represented the basis of the USA. Those regions under French control joined this union only later. The regions under Spanish control on the other hand represented the basis of the state of Mexico.

Settlements on the Atlantic coast of North America that began in 1607continued until the completion of the foundation of 13 colonies in 1733.

amerikan baskanlik_sistemi_turkiyeye_model_olmaz2

The “Albany Congress” met in 1754 under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin. One of the main subjects discussed at this congress was the French threat. Efforts were made to determine a common approach to southern states under French control, such as Mississippi, Kentucky and Louisiana. The matter of the Native Americans and common defense measures were also discussed. Efforts were made to build a stronger union between the states, but these failed.

The 13 colonies on the North Atlantic coast were regions completely affiliated to the British Crown and paid taxes to it. After 1774, a formation known as the  ‘Continental Congress’ was established among these colonies that had their own internal administrations. With this congress, they began to demand greater privileges and freedoms from the British Crown.

amerikan baskanlik_sistemi_turkiyeye_model_olmaz3

In the meantime, the British Crown, in need of more revenues to finance the wars that were going on in Europe and Asia, began imposing heavier taxes on the American colonies. In 1776, the American Declaration of Independence was published by the “Second Continental Congress” and independence from Great Britain was declared. After this, war broke out between Great Britain and the 13 colonies. Meanwhile, in 1781, the ‘Congress of the Confederation’  was established instead of the ‘Continental Congress’. Defeated after six years of war, British forces abandoned the continent and the independence of the 13 colonies was declared with the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

amerikan baskanlik_sistemi_turkiyeye_model_olmaz4

Turmoil persisted in the United States of America even after 1787. New disagreements constantly emerged between the states. The drafting of a new Constitution was completed, and the first “United States Congress” was established in 1789. George Washington was subsequently elected the first president of the “United States of America.”

AMERICA SUFFERED A CIVIL WAR UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM 

By the 1850s, the U.S. consisted of a union of 31 states. That union however was divided into two under the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. The country suffered a terrible civil war between North and South.

amerikan baskanlik_sistemi_turkiyeye_model_olmaz5

Lincoln, the 16th President, who won the elections with a promise to abolish slavery, took office in 1860. Alarmed by this, the southern states, whose agricultural economies relied on slavery, began seceding from the union. One important detail was that Lincoln, who had failed to take the southern states in the election, secured power over the entire country under the presidential system. The southern states regarded secession from the union as their only option to maintain their slave-labor based economies. First South Carolina, and then Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas declared independence in opposition to the new president’s policies.

amerikan baskanlik_sistemi_turkiyeye_model_olmaz6

The secessionist states united as the “Confederate States of America”.Jefferson Davis, who had previously served as Secretary of State for War, was chosen as President of the Confederacy and Richmond was declared as its capital.  With the accession to the Confederacy of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee, 11 states had seceded from the USA. The war began in 1861 and lasted four years, causing the deaths of 620,000 people. This war between the North and South resulted in the two sides invading one another’s territory time and time again, and the North finally emerged victorious . America thus avoided division and fragmentation at the last moment. Another important consequence of the war was the end of a slave-based agricultural economy, particularly in the South.

THE ENRICHMENT OF THE USA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM

Some 11 million Africans were brought to America as slaves and made to work in the 300 years between the early 17th and late 19th Centuries. Some 20% of these slaves lost their lives en route. In the 1860s, America had a population of 31 million, and 89% of African-Americans were slaves. Thirteen percent of the total population, some four million people, were slaves. While around 500,000 slaves were laboring in the North, the figure was about 3.5 million in the South. Thirty-five percent of the South’s nine million population were slaves.

Slaves on the sugar plantations were forced to work an average of  4,000 hours a year. That is three times more than manual laborers work today. Slaves in the cotton fields were forced to work 3,000 hours a year. At least two million slaves worked in the cotton fields. America soon came to meet 80% of the world’s cotton needs. The situation was similar in other sectors of agriculture. An almost zero-cost agricultural economy had begun to enrich the South, and an industry-based economy the North. http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/facts-about-slave-trade-and-slavery

“The Indians, after all, were little different than wolves, both being beasts of prey, tho they differ in shape, who deserved nothing from the whites but total ruin.” These words by George Washington are important in revealing from whom and how the USA obtained its rich lands.

The USA, the size of Europe, has fertile lands and rich underground resources. Looking at present-day America’s underground resource,  we see figures of four million tons of coal and 1.6 million tons of copper, with the third-largest gold reserves in the world, at 230 tons. The U.S. is also the world’s third-largest oil-producer, with a 12.23% share of the global production. The USA, with its steel skyscrapers and steel railroads, stands in 8th position in world iron reserves and in 4th position in terms of steel production. America’s 8.5 billion ton iron reserves are almost 200 times the size of Turkey’s. The large quantities of iron, used in many areas, from aircraft carriers to tanks and jets, in the USA are one of the main reasons for the country’s wealth. When we look at the world’s most powerful and wealthiest countries, we see that they are also rich in iron, oil and underground resources. The fact that these resources were worked by slave labor for so many years allowed the country to enjoy unjust earnings.

In addition, with the exception of the Civil War, the USA was shielded from external threats by virtue of its geography until the 20th Century, and was able to invest in urbanization and industrialization rather than military expenditure.

Furthermore, the millions of Europeans who moved away from repression and backwardness in Europe and migrated to America sought to create a more libertarian, democratic and liberal society in the New World. This philosophical approach was also reflected in American politics, giving rise to a two-party system that avoided extremes and espoused national causes with different approaches. The importance attached by the American people to art, aesthetics and quality also contributed to the country’s growth. The reason why other countries – many with the same wealth – lagged behind is the bigoted mindset of their peoples.

The main reason for America’s wealth, as with all the world’s richest countries, is its natural resources, not its form of government.

CONCLUSION

Looking at the technical details set out above, the “Presidential System” may emerge as a legitimate one in the unification of federal states sharing common ideals and are not based on specific races. America’s strong economy and military also play a major role in maintaining this union. A weak America would obviously fall apart in a moment.

Texas and California, the two most populous states in the U.S., have begun speaking of secession from the union even today, as a result of economic policies they find displeasing. Twenty states that did not want to accept the election of Obama as the President of U.S. organized signature campaigns for seceding from the union.  It is a known fact that some 25% of the population, as much as the entire population of Turkey, are unhappy with the union and want to break away. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-20/1-4-americans-want-their-state-secede-us

Looking at the issue from the Turkish perspective, permitting federations based on different ethnicities and different goals will result in the break-up of the country, no matter what the form of government is.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


The Price of Dictatorship, the Price of Fear

26 03 2015

Sami Jamil Jadallah

I grew up when there were curfews that lasted for days, when listening to the wrong radio station could land you in jail, and when “security/mokhabarat” could haul you to jail for no reason at all. I remember when I would see “darak” police on horses raiding villages and breaking into homes to mix rice, oil, lentil and flour on the middle of the floor.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/dictatorship.jpg

Yes, in those days we lived in fear and so did hundreds of millions of Arabs. That is why dictatorship flourished all over the Arab word and that is why 30 and 40 years down the line, both people and nations pay the price of fear and the very heavy price of dictatorship.

One has to wonder…what if Nasser of Egypt had not been a military and political dictator. Would Egypt have still lost the ‘67 War? Would Sadat and Hosni Mubarak have still been its leaders? Would Egypt be in the terrible mess it is in now and has been in for the last 50 years? While Hosni Mubarak, his family and his friends looted the country, world financial institutions were demanding the Egyptian government reduce and even cancel subsidies on bread, together with fava beans; staple food for a majority of the Egyptian people. Those families were lucky to have chicken once a week if at all.

One has to wonder…what if Iraq did not have a criminal dictator like Saddam Hussein…would it be in the same terrible mess it is in now. Would Iraq have engaged in a war of 8 years with Iran for and on behalf of the US? Would a different leader have still wasted the nation’s wealth and sacrificed over one million of his citizens for a reckless war?

Saddam’s dictatorship is painful to remember, and impossible to forget. Saddam led Iraq from war with Iran to war with Kuwait, which of course led to the American/Israeli invasion of Iraq. Millions of people were sacrificed and trillions of dollars were flushed down the drain.

Hafez Assad was no different from Saddam. He took over in a military coup, ruled the country with iron fist, and allowed his family to loot the country. To preserve his family rule, he engaged in deliberate war against the city of Hamah, no different than what we see happening today. His brother as commander of Saraya El-Diffa’a or Presidential Guard claimed to have killed not less than 38,000 in the city of Hamah back in ‘82. His son Bashar is following in the footsteps of his father and uncle. A family farm where the people become vassals of the regime.

Ali Saleh as a commander of the Yemeni army took over the entire country, placing members of his family in key positions in the army, in the petroleum industry, the airline industry, and in commerce. Elections were rigged every time and while he emerged as the clear winner; the entire nation of Yemen was left a loser. How many generations will it take Yemen to catch up with the time lost?

Muammar Qadaffi was no different from all the other dictators of his time. He ruined Libya’s potential with his reckless misadventures in Chad, Sudan, the Philippines and in Northern Ireland, wasting tens of billions on ‘revolutionary’ ventures. Meanwhile, his country and people were living in state of fear, lacking all basic services, with tens of thousands of the best and brightest going into exile. Libya could have a Dubai or Abu-Dhabi but it was not; none dared to challenge Qaddafi and so the Libyan nation and its people ended up paying a very heavy price.

Bin Ali of Tunisia was no different. He was a security functionary who knew how to use fear to take over an entire nation. He hijacked the nation allowing his security forces to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and he and his family fleeced the nation while the World Bank, and IMF and Western leaders all praised his leadership and the great economic miracle he achieved for Tunisia. It seems that representatives of the World Bank and Western leadership preferred the lavish comfort of the 5 stars hotels and presidential guesthouses over traveling to the countryside to see the widespread misery that the majority of Tunisian lived in.

In Iran, Indonesia, Latin and Central America, the story is the same—military dictators take over countries in a coup d’état and establish themselves as rulers for life, imprisoning all opposition, and proceeding to loot their countries and destroy their nations’ civil societies and any semblance of a representative government.

From Tunisia to Indonesia, parliamentary elections have been rigged in favor of the dictators and their cronies. Instead of protecting the nation, security forces were there to protect regimes, under which hundreds of thousands of people simply disappeared in the corridors of the ministers of interiors and security agencies. In Jordan, Egypt and many other countries, becoming a kindergarten teacher would require formal approval from “mokhabarat/security services.” If one did not have a certificate as proof of identity, they were cast out as nobodies, unable to rent a house or get a job.

In Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and many other nations, it is the masses that have lived in fear. It is the masses who have paid a heavy price for not snuffing these criminal dictatorships early on when the price would have been much much less.

All dictatorships, even those funded and sponsored by countries like the US, France, England, among others, will fall sooner or later. When they do fall, it must by the will of the people, and not NATO jets. Sooner or later even the most corrupt and indoctrinated army will return to its roots, the people. Syria does not need NATO or US jets, it needs its own army to turn against the dictatorship of Bashar Assad and his family.


The “Narco-Democracy” System in Mexico

22 03 2015

ao1

by Adnan Oktar

The United  States of Mexico is one of the first countries that spring to mind when drug smuggling is mentioned. The country’s very name immediately puts drug cartels, murders, kidnappings, theft, robbery, corruption and arms smuggling in the mind of the public.

Due to the drug mafia having infiltrated the administrative and political systems so deeply, countries such as Mexico, Columbia and Peru are referred to as ‘narco-democracies’ by the Americans. The cartels in these countries are described as “shadow administrations.”

THE DRUGS CARTELS HAVE TAKEN OVER ALL STATES

Mexico consists of 31 states and a federal region, and almost every single one is in the hands of drug cartels. Power struggles between cartels are taking place in several states.

Some 200,000 people work for the drug cartels in the country. These cartels, which also engage in arms smuggling from America, are continuing to spread terror in the country. One difference between the Mexican and other countries’ mafias is that the former have armored vehicles, helicopters, generals in their pay in the armed forces and their own military units. Like the separatist terror organization  PKK in Turkey, these cartels have set up their own courts and tax collecting system in their states. They represent a state within the state.

One of the largest cartels is the Sinola Cartel, which is active in the drugs trade, including the USA, Great Britain and Europe. The cartel is active in 17 states in Mexico. Between 2008 and 2012 alone it killed 10,000 people in order to take control of the town of Juarez in the state of Chihuahua on the U.S. border. The town is therefore known as the ‘murder capital of the world.’ The Zetas Cartel, which is active in 11 states, was founded when members of the military resigned and entered the drug trade. The cartel is described by the U.S. as ‘the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and dangerous cartel in Mexico.’ Mexico is under the control of such criminal organizations, both large and small. There is no doubt that politicians and members of the judiciary the media and the military are also involved behind this power. While ISIL’s beheadings attracted widespread horror across the world, the ruthless methods of intimidation used by the Mexican drug cartels, such as beheading or skinning people alive, rarely  appear in the global media.

Mexico attracted wide notice  worldwide  with the kidnapping of 43 students in September 2014, and their murder the following November. Claims to the effect that the students were first detained at a rest stop while passing through the town of Igula in the state of Guerrero and then handed over to a drug cartel by the wife of the mayor issued from an important source, the Mexican Chief Prosecutor’s Office. According to the indictment, the ‘first lady’ of the state thought that the students had come to protest against her and she wanted the cartel to “teach them a lesson”. The result was the death of the 43 students. Protests spread across the country, as a result of which 22 police officers and then Mayor Abarca were arrested.

This and similar incidents reveal the difficulty in governing states with different congresses and constitutions. States’ elected governors serve for six years. That serves the interests of the drug cartels. Using powerful officials is an important method employed by the mafia that controls state institutions.

Governors with broad powers on the one hand and autonomous municipalities within states on the other can always create problems in the country. For example, the state of Oaxaca in the south of the country has been faced by revolts led by teachers’ unions ever since 1995; 418 of the state’s 570 municipalities are autonomous. The new governor’s use of repressive measures to make the region attractive to tourism in 2006 exacerbated the uprisings. The governor banned protests, but that simply aggravated them even further.

One particularly troubled part of Mexico is the poorest state of all, Chiapas, home to the armed Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Since this group lacks the strength to demand independence, they are striving for greater concessions and autonomy. They began an uprising in 1994, and have occupied municipalities from time to time. Mexican federal government recognized the movement in 1996 and came to an agreement with it.

VIOLENCE CANNOT BE PREVENTED IN MEXICO

According to research figures from the BBC’s ‘Mexico, Crime and Violence in Numbers’ report, the estimated number of kidnappings in 2013 was 123,470. According to the same research, no investigation takes place into 94% of the crimes committed in the country. According to official figures, the number of people who have ‘disappeared’ since 2006 is 22,322: To that we need to add the 70,000 people killed in the fight against the drug cartels initiated by President Calderon in 2006-2012. The number of households subjected to at least one criminal action is 10.7 million.[1]

According to U.N. Inter Parliamentary Union Committee’s report  “Human Rights Abuses of Mps-2014″, 11 deputies were killed during that year. One of those has occurred in Mexico, another has occurred in Venezuela, another country in Latin America.

THERE IS AN ‘IMPERIAL PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM’ IN MEXICO

Mexico has a presidential system with wider powers than that in the U.S.; there is no Prime Minister and no Vice-President. Presidents are elected for six year terms and cannot be removed during that time. One of the weakest aspects of the system is that the individual receiving the most votes in the one-round electoral process becomes president.

Enrique Pena Nieto won the election in July 2012 with 38% of the vote. Nieto will be in full charge for six years despite not receiving the votes of 62% of the people. The grave nature of the situation becomes more apparent bearing in mind that the president has the power to appoint ministers, Constitutional Court judges, the chief prosecutor, the head of the security department, the chiefs of the armed forces and ambassadors. The president’s powers go even further than that; he can veto laws passed by Parliament and even the budget, and can propose draft bills to Parliament. Not even the president of the U.S. has the power to propose draft legislation that the president of Mexico possesses. In addition, he has the power to select his party representatives and his own successor as a future presidential candidate. He can also negotiate international agreements.

Some 36% of the Mexican people think that the election in 2006 was dubious, an opinion supported by the Washington DC-based research institution Center for Economic and Policy Research. That figure also applies to the 2102 election. Mutual accusations regarding the improper use of drug money are made in almost every election.

As a matter of fact, drug barons assumed responsibility for the financing of the government’s electoral campaigns during the time of former President Carlos Salinas (1988-1994). The Mexican chief prosecutor’s office says that $30 billion was laundered through the stock market and privatization schemes at that time. The next president, Ernosta Zedilla, said in a statement in 1996 that “Some people in the government may have served the interests of drug smugglers.”

Politicians requiring powerful backing can gradually become part of this system in Mexico, where 10 to 12 wealthy families are part of the drug cartels and dominate the economy.

The one-round of voting and excessive powers invested in the president make the system in Mexico an ‘Imperial Presidency.’

Jose Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch interprets the human rights violations in Mexico as ‘the justice system not working.’ The organization’s reports state that ‘unsolved killings’ are used as a ‘tool of violence’ to shape political and social life. Vivanco summarizes the state of affairs in Mexico by saying that the judicial system works very slowly, making it susceptible to blatant corruption, oppression and threats. He said that violations are covered up, and torture and unsolved killings therefore become unstoppable. The fact that the president is also the head of the judiciary and the security forces creates a ‘concentration of powers’ rather than a division of powers and mean that the presidential system in the country is not a democratic one.

INJUSTICE IN INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN MEXICO

Mexico is one of those countries where the middle and upper classes benefit the most from economic progress. Two-thirds of exports go to America. It is the world’s 7th largest oil producer and its 11th largest exporter. Nonetheless, following the crisis in 1994, its private banks came to the brink of collapse in 1995. In exchange for rescuing these banks, America obtained a kind of veto power over  Mexico’s economic policies. Although the country is also wealthy in terms of tourism and natural resources such as copper, per capita income in Mexico is only around the $14,000 level.

Inequalities in income distribution are worsened by the drug cartels’ crime revenues in the country as a whole. The cartels are estimated to have annual profits  of $6.5 billion in the US market  alone. Sixty percent of the drugs market in America is supplied through Mexico.

Mexico is well-known to be one of the leading   global money laundering centers. In 2011, President Calderon asked for help from the American administration to stop the flow of black money coming to Mexico from arms and drugs. While the great portion of the Mexican people are poor, Mexican Carlos Slim is  in first place on  the list of the world’s richest people.

RESULT

The only thing that should be done to purify Mexico from the endless downward spiral of violence and high crime rates is to have  policies of love rule in the country. The lack of love and education prevails behind all illegal activities that drag people into hatred and violence.  To overcome this, the antidote of love should  be administered .

Countries such as Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Brazil – all of which are governed under presidential systems – perceive the fight against crime as a fight against the mafia alone, and therefore end up failing in it. Mosquitoes can only be eliminated by drying up the swamps where they breed. That is only possible through educating people and raising awareness in society first and then conducting an international struggle against the drug mafia worldwide. All the people need to back their leaders in such a campaign. Policies of love are the only option that can bring that solidarity about.

On the other hand, countries escaping narco-democracy status or imperial presidential systems and adopting progressive and pluralistic democratic systems will prevent fractures in society. All opinions in society, being protected by the executive and the legislature, will increase domestic peace within the country. Otherwise, the perception that distrust towards rulers cannot be rectified for years – if ever – will make all of  society uneasy.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30053745

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Page 1 of 9312345...102030...Last »