Communism vs. democracy

Mr. Mercier's opinion on communism (Red threat remains, The Jakarta Post, April 1, 2000) is a something about which I will not comment. That is his opinion and he is of course entitled to it.

Different, altogether, are his arguments. His (negative) judgment of the idea and the philosophic or economic foundations of communist ideology, is based on crimes and atrocities the communists (as individuals or organized as groups or states) have committed. There is no mention of the fundamentals of communist philosophy in Mr. Mercier's letter.

This would be similar to disqualifying or banning Catholicism, lets say, for the crimes of the Great Inquisitor or for native genocide by Conquistadors in Latin America.

Or judging Democracy and Free Market economics solely by the impact made by, say, the Vietnam war (some two million killed in this one "incident"), or sanctions against Cuba or Iraq (500,000 children killed as direct consequence of sanctions). Should we undertake to judge democracy on the basis of this and other numerous examples I can easily provide, and not take into account the theoretical value of this system and the opportunities it offers if implemented properly, than we could easily conclude that democracy should be banned.

So the way Mr. Mercier "analyzes" things is one-sided and limited. The answer I offer is different: free the ideas and thoughts and arrest criminals no matter what their ideological excuse might be.

As for George Orwell: As is the case with every true art, The Animal Farm or "1984" can be interpreted in many ways and nobody should claim to have the only "correct" interpretation. We could for instance analyze the United Nations and its Security Council and see that, although "all pigs are equal", "some pigs are more equal than the others". There are of course numerous other examples. So, although, communism is gone, Orwell's fears and visions are still very much alive.

BRANIMIR SALEVIC

Jakarta