The elections over the past month have been an example of how democracy holds dictators responsible. Musharraf first had to seen his party ousted in the once supportive north western territory, and then faced a rout in the general elections, removing him from power.
This is a leap forward for the middle east. Musharraf showed time and time again his dogma of oppression, everything from assassination of opposition ministers to jailing judges for upholding the law.
Sadly the same may not happen in Zimbabwe. Mugabe looks set to tear away yet another victory from the upcoming elections on Saturday, through a series of bribes (ambulances) and corruption (extra 'ghost' voters) much as he did in the last election. If he does so, then I increasingly regret the decision of the UK not to intervene in the reign of Mugabe much earlier in his time in power, as they almost did do. Hopefully this coming election will prove me wrong and I will be referring to the new ruler of Zimbabwe as Mugabe's successor. I'm sure all can agree that he should not be left to lead his nation to stagnation as Cuba was.
On socialism and the lie of equality
This remains one of the foundations of Aneism, based on the logic of the subjective reality and the science of evolution. Naturally, humans are unique, and as unique beings, we are not the same as any other.
Socialism would have us believe that all should be placed equal in governing the nation state, that all are equally capable, and more then this, that it is part of fundamental rights.
However, perhaps the golden rule of the state is that all states tend towards Oligarchy with time, whether this be democratic or totalitarian, the 'elite' always end up above the proletariat. This inevitability is perhaps the scourge of socialism (and lead to the formation of communism, where all are equal other then the few).
Not everyone is born equal. Socialists would have us believe that every person is equal to one another, we all have faults and gains, but we all round out equal, and so equally capable. This is simply not true. There are some who are incredibly intellectual, incredibly sporty, charismatic, innovative, and some who are all of these. Equally there are those who are none of these things, the labourers of the world, the unemployed, the forgotten. All of these people are hardly comparable to doctors, scientists, lawyers and the MDs in their respective societies, and it would simply be foolish to assume the two classes (lower and middle respectively) are equally rational and capable of deciding what is good for the nation state.
As can likely be realised, I am a strong elitist and supporter of the oligarchy above socialism. There are some who, through natural variation and sexual selection, are superior to others of our species in a myriad of ways. It can hardly be expected therefore, that we should accept the rule of the many over the rule of the best, as the latter form is always going to be superior to the former, they're simply better (genetically and through their upbringing) at guiding their nation state along the best course.
All people have their rights, but there will always be leaders.
