Democracy better than dictatorship
Once again Mr. Dyer is demonstrating western style journalism by being very benevolent toward the "friendly camp" and very critical, even rude, toward "the enemy" (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 4 1999: Fifty years on: Comparing Communist China and India). Maybe this black-and-white viewpoint Mr. Dyer nurtures is a consequence of his military background (there is "Us" and "Them" and in between is no man's land). Mr. Dyer is obviously still living in the Cold War cafe. But he is entitled to his own viewpoint and that is one thing I am not holding against him. A different problem is his selective vision.
Democracy is of course the best of all possible ways. Tyranny is the opposite. But Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. The guy who ordered the atomic bombing of Japan and who burned Dresden flat was democratically elected. The guy who started the Vietnam War was democratically elected (as was the guy who lost it).
All the guys who ordered the bombing of Yugoslavia, or Chehnya, were democratically elected, so were the guys who killed 500,000 Iraqi children by sanctions. Some of these guys were even reelected; which shows the rest of the world what kind of public opinion democracies develop, but also tells us about voters' priorities.
On the other hand, Chile, for instance, made big progress in its development under dictatorship; same goes for Indonesia. The Taiwanese government before the recent elections couldn't really be labeled "democratic", but Taiwan also made huge progress and is now an economically developed (and democratic) nation.
Singapore is probably another example of a country that made big advances, not thanks to democracy but to other factors (like stability, order and security). And so on.
So what is my message to Mr. Dyer this time? No regime (like no journalist) is inherently good or bad. Democracies should be better than dictatorship. Most probably are. But some seem to be great for their own citizens (they reelect their leaders), but are a disaster for small and weak nations around the globe.
Truly democratic leaders should execute their mandate of the people who elect them, and not overexpose the world to it (it is my democratic right to elect a guy to kick my ass, but if I elect the same guy to kick somebody else's then it is no democracy anymore).
If we cannot really help, at least we should leave others alone to deal with their own problems. What is good, or even the only good, for Mr. Dyer and his 500 million westerners, might not be so for one billion Chinese. Or for 5.5 billion men, women and children locked out of Western Happyland.
BRANIMIR SALEVIC
Jakarta