Officials: Iraq Likely To Postpone Election: Fill & Download for Free

There is no dearth of people in India who want military dictatorship at least for some time. Perhaps, we have not learnt from our neighbourhood.Autocracy is a double-edged weapon. It may hurt you more rather than helping you.Moreover, it is not that India has never had autocracy. India is a democracy only for last about 70 years, and out of this also, we had a type of autocratic government for about two years. Prior to that, India had all along been an autocratic state in one form or another. And, yet, India continues to be a developing / poor country. I’ll come to details of autocratic rulers in India a little later. Let me first discuss some other issues.Okay. Let us first see some autocratic countries in today’s world. China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, are some of the autocratic countries. Previously, Iraq headed by Saddam Hussain was an autocratic nation.Want to know how people are subjugated mercilessly in an autocratic states?In 2002, in Iraq, Saddam Hussain got 100% votes! Yes, he got votes of ALL of the 11,445,638 eligible voters!! Previously too, he had won 99.96% of the vote in 1995.[1]In 2014, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was elected to the parliament with 100% votes.[2]Do you know why they got 100% votes? Not even a single vote (out of millions of citizens) went against them! Why? Because, dissent means DEATH.Do you want that in India?Do you want an autocratic system like Saudi Arabia, where half of the population (women) have no rights at all, while the remaining half also has so many restrictions. For example, you cannot party. You cannot criticize government. You cannot criticize the religion. Punishment may be DEATH penalty.Do you want that in India?Don’t go to distant places. Our neighbour, our blood-relation that parted ways from us in 1947, Pakistan has seen army dictators on more than one occasion who ruled Pakistan as autocrats. Has Pakistan developed because of such autocracy?The pathetic situation in which Pakistan is today should be the best reason to dissuade you from thinking about India becoming an autocratic state.It is true China has developed despite being autocratic state. It is said that fast decisions are taken (and implemented) on development matters. Because, nobody can have a dissenting voice. People would be crushed if they show dissent. So, this has led to better development. But, then, this is only half-truth. There are many other reasons too, for China’s development in last few decades, however, this is not the right place to go into full discussion on that.[Tiananmen Square protests - Image source: At least 10,000 people died in Tiananmen Square massacre, secret British cable alleges]But, then, what do you think of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, in which about 10,000 protestors are supposed to have been killed by China Government by use of force, including military tanks![3] A Government using military tanks on its own citizens, who are protesting peacefully!! Even the infamous Jallianwala Bagh incident may be put to shame!!! Do you want that in India?[Tiananmen Square protest – Image source: Tiananmen Square death toll '10,000']In China, you do not have any freedom of speech and expression. Internet content is censored by Government. Many popular websites are not available in China. And, if available, they are pre-censored. You are not allowed to write freely on social media sites.In fact, if India were to become an autocrat state, you would not have been able to ask this question on Quora, because Quora would not be permitted in an autocratic India, or at least it would have been pre-censored. And, if you put anything objectionable (which would be judged from the subjective standards of the rulers) on social media, you may straightaway be packed to prison!Still not convinced? Watch this YouTube video, which describes how North Korea leader Kim Jong Un feeds his own uncle to dogs and executes 'traitor' with flamethrower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN9K2eY2188Do you want all this in India?It is true that a democracy has many negatives. More so, if it is a noisy and divisive democracy such as India, which has many castes, religions, languages, etc., which keep people busy in fighting with one-another, and sometimes such fights take ugly turns resulting in serious riots, the most recent being the mass violence that took place on 2 April 2018 (just 9 days back) when some SC/ST organisations staged violent protests.It is also true that decisions can be taken faster in an autocratic state. But, then, at what cost?I can divide autocratic rulers in two broad categories – benevolent and malevolent. Now, let me tell you that ALMOST 100% of the autocrats would come in the category of malevolent, and almost 0% in the category of benevolent. This is true, at least, today. I know there may be one or two honourable exceptions. But, is it not said that exceptions only prove the rule?So, an autocratic nation may have one 1 or 2 advantages (faster decision, faster implementation, even if it ruthless). But, then, it has 10,000 disadvantages!!! The victims of Tiananmen Square massacre will tell you, if they could tell you from their graves!!!It is not for nothing that Lord Acton famously said in 1887:[4]“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”Or, in short, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.Prior to that William Pitt, British Prime Minister had said something similar in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:[5]"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."And, mind you, this type of wisdom was derived from the experiences of many from the absolute monarchs, who would act as autocrats. How absolute power can have a corrupting influence can be seen from the examples of Roman emperors who declared themselves Gods.Let me now come back to India. We have had autocracy in India as under:(1) For a period of 21 months, from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had imposed emergency in India. This was a period of autocracy in India. Elections were postponed. Almost all opposition leaders were jailed as preventive measure and without any conviction in any offence. Constitution of India was amended drastically by way of the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, which was aptly called the mini Constitution. There was complete censorship on press media. Fundamental rights of the people were drastically curtailed. Supreme Court was made subservient. Force was freely used to oppress people. Sanjay Gandhi, son of Indira Gandhi, wreaked havoc on citizens, by forcible nasbandi (family planning) operations and other atrocities, including Turkman Gate incident in Delhi. In fact, whatever an autocratic state is supposed to do, almost everything was done. What was the beneficial result? Did we develop? Did we improve? Was there any positive impact? True, in the beginning, some discipline was enforced. Trains started running on time. Government servants started coming to offices on time. Etc., etc. But, after initial few months, things came back to square one. We remained the same India as we were and as we are, but with many negative things added thereto due to an oppressive government. Today, you’ll hardly find anyone supporting the emergency period. Even Congress party itself would never applaud or rather even refer to the emergency period. There is a complete consensus that the emergency period was the worst and the blackest period in the independent India. So, did autocracy help India?(2) During British rule, Indian government (ruled by British) was an autocratic government. They did not come to power by winning elections on any democratic basis. They used oppressive laws to suppress Indians. Basic freedoms were not available to Indian citizens. People were tortured, oppressed. Of course, one can say that it was a foreign rule, so the British were not interested in India’s development. But, they did try development, wherever it was in their interest. Railway network was created by British. Modern laws were introduced. Modern court system was introduced. Etc., etc. However, the fact remains that India was not worth living during British period. I am sure no nation would like to be in a situation which prevailed in India during British period. So, did autocracy help India?(3) We had autocracy in India during the Muslim rule for a few hundred years. All sorts of atrocities were committed on citizens, including massacres of millions. Forced religious conversions took place. People did not have the basic rights. Men could be butchered at will, and women would be captured by the kings and warlords. Hundreds of women would be enslaved and kept in harem. Was such autocracy good for India?(4) We had various kings in different parts of India, prior to Muslim rule. Most of them were autocrats. Always at war with one-another. With no basic rights to the citizens. I don’t think such autocracy was good for India.True, it may be said that democracy is of recent origin, at least in India, so we cannot compare the autocracy of those earlier periods. But, the emergency period during 1975-77 is from the recent history.Frankly speaking, I shudder at the thought of India again becoming an autocratic state at any point of time in future. I don’t want a remedy which is worse than the disease.You may perhaps be from a post-1977 generation (i.e., born after the emergency period). So, you may perhaps be excused for your ignorance for thinking about introducing an autocracy in India.But, if you are really serious about having an autocratic system like that of China in India, well, my sincere advice to you would be to apply for a Chinese Visa and to get a one-way ticket to China. Once you are in China, please do ask a similar question on Quora (I hope it is there).But, after reaching in China and spending a few days, please do not reverse the question and ask (though you may be tempted to do so), “Can China implement democracy like India?” You may have to spend your remaining life in prison.Footnotes[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/16/Iraq[2] The world of 100% election victories[3] Declassified: Chinese official said at least 10,000 civilians died in 1989 Tiananmen massacre, documents show | Hong Kong Free Press HKFP[4] 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' - the meaning and origin of this phrase[5] 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' - the meaning and origin of this phrase

Although a lot of people seem to like to imagine nightmare scenarios in which the U.S. president declares a "national emergency" and suspends the next election, allowing him to stay in office indefinitely, and although this does happen far too often in less-developed democracies in the world today, this is simply not going to happen in the United States. Even if a new war started a week before the election, or during the period between the election and the inauguration of the new president, the changeover would still happen on January 20.If there were ever a situation in U.S. history when a presidential election could have been suspended due to a national emergency, it would have been in 1864, in the midst of the Civil War. Lincoln might have tried to argue that continuity of government was more important than democracy. Fortunately, American democracy was already robust enough for the election to take place. The war was the dominant issue of the election, with Lincoln's opponent George McClellan campaigning on a platform of beginning peace negotiations with the Confederacy.Several other elections since then have been held in the midst of large-scale U.S. wars, albeit foreign wars: the 1944 election during World War II, 1952 during the Korean War, 1968 at the height of involvement in Vietnam, 2004 fairly early in the Iraq War. The 1952 and 1968 elections not only resulted in a change of president, but a change of governing party, despite the fact that a war was going on.Of course, even though the U.S. has fought very few formally declared wars, the U.S. has had forces deployed somewhere most years of its history, especially since World War II. In other words, the U.S. is almost always in some sense "at war," so a president looking to stay in power indefinitely on the grounds that a war was being fought would really always have that excuse to go to. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way.Again, people seem to like being afraid that the president will seek some extralegal means of staying in power. Since presidents of other countries have done this, even in the present day, it's not hard to imagine this in the U.S. But, the rule of law and the democratic institutions of the U.S. are strong enough to keep it from happening.EDIT/UPDATE: I don’t usually go back and update old responses. These things have time and date stamps on them, and I assume it should be understood that responses reflect things as they were at the time of writing. With things relating to the 2020 election, I’ve often prefaced responses with some explicit statement like, “As I’m writing this on the afternoon of November 20th,” or some such thing.When I wrote this response in February 2016, early in the 2016 election cycle when Barack Obama was still in office and Donald Trump was far from clinching the Republican nomination, there were a number of questions on Quora that implied that Obama could somehow find a means to simply extend his term. I believe that some people were hoping that this might happen, while others feared it… plenty of Americans believed and still believe that Obama was some kind of dictator. Anyway, I wrote this answer specifically in response to the idea that the president could use the existence of a war to delay either the election or the inauguration of the next president. Five years later, I believe this specific answer, focusing on that specific issues, holds water.Clearly I was in correct in dismissing the idea that a U.S. president would seek some extralegal means of staying in power. Some of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election have had the veneer of the law, going through the courts. Others have sought to manipulate legal or constitutional processes, trying to get certain officials to assert an ability to stop or delay certification, or trying to get Republican state legislators to replace members of the Electoral College. Some of those efforts were not extralegal per se; they relied on creative, if likely incorrect, interpretations of laws or of the Constitution to give officials extraordinary powers.But we know, of course, by January 10, 2021, that Trump certainly sought extralegal avenues as well. We have recorded evidence of him personally trying to get the top state election official in Georgia to overtly change the outcome in that state, which would be bad enough. But he also organized a rally and stirred it up into a mob that was then set upon Congress during the counting of electoral votes, a poorly-executed but still brazen attempt to use violent force to affect the election outcome.

I like some of the answers by the so-called adults in the Democratic Party. Using no right-wing media sources, here are a just handful of the massive failures in the Democrats’ preferred media:FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq (Published 2004)How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York TimesA damning admission: New York Times concealed NSA spying until after 2004 electionHow Hillary Clinton Militarized US Policy in HondurasThe New York Times Admits Key Falsehoods That Drove Last Year’s Coup in Bolivia: Falsehoods Peddled by the U.S., Its Media, and the TimesHow the OAS, and the media’s lack of scrutiny, caused a violent coup in BoliviaWill Rachel Maddow face a reckoning for her Trump-Russia coverage? | Ross BarkanThese 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t DieThe Steele Dossier Set the Stage for a Mueller LetdownRobert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.2019: A Year the News Media Would Rather ForgetThis was all really shitty reporting. With the “hair on fire” Russia reporting, Rachel Maddow and the Democrats officially became conspiracy theorists.Lots of Democrats don’t like facts like these:Buttigieg's Police Issues Go Beyond Secret TapesCops: Buttigieg Could Have Prevented Tapes ScandalCops Confirm Talks with Buttigieg and Donors on Replacing Police ChiefHere are some things Democrats have done recently:Massachusetts Hopeful Alex Morse Couldn’t Overcome Homophobic SmearHe’s Gay. His Main Opponent Makes Homophobic Remarks. (Published 2019)Bloomberg's Answers on Sexual Harassment Were Pretty StunningDNC overhauls debate requirements, opening door for BloombergDNC calls on states not to postpone primariesNew evidence has emerged Elizabeth Warren claimed American Indian heritage in 1986| VoxElizabeth Warren Apologizes to Cherokee Nation for DNA Test (Published 2019)DNC removes measure calling for end of fossil fuel subsidies from platformTlaib hits top Dems over silence on Trump's Islamophobic Ilhan Omar attackCory Booker Joins Senate Republicans to Kill Measure to Import Cheaper Medicine From CanadaSen. Joe Manchin announces he’ll vote for Brett Kavanaugh