Various Political Factors

Donald Trump recently suggested that the U.S. Constitution should be suspended. This should not be surprising in the least. Donald Trump is really a king. We saw this in "The Theory Of Kings", April 2022. Ever since the beginning of civilization kings and emperors have ruled. Something that has lasted that long is not going to be changed overnight by the drafting of a constitution. In the modern era we haven't done away with kings, we just don't call them kings anymore. Instead of actual kings we have demagogues that act like kings. There is democracy and not every ruler is a king or queen but kings are as present as ever.

The recent cycle of prime ministers in Britain might have seemed chaotic, and in a way it was, but it was also democracy at it's best. Britain has never been ruled by a dictator. If a leader falls too far out of favor then they are gone. Britain would have never gone through what America did with Watergate because Nixon would have been gone. In a democracy the leader is supposed to be working for the people, not the other way around. The basic meaning of democracy is that no one is special. If you want to be special then you have to earn it. How many majority-white countries would let a dark-skinned children of immigrants lead the country?

So much of what goes on is a matter of simple demographics. The reason that there is a shortage of workers is not that leaders have been brilliantly successful in creating jobs, or that the economy is booming. It is because of Baby Boomers retiring. When there is an increase in crime it may not be because of failed political policies. It may be the simple demographics that males between the ages of 15 and 25 tend to equal crime.

Don't forget that anniversaries can be very important in determining the course of events. Is it a coincidence that the first major racial uprising in the U.S. during the 1960s, at Watts, took place in 1965, which was the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation? The tumultuous events of 1989, the fall of Communist governments across eastern Europe as well as the uprising in Tiananmen Square, took place on the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution. The recent emergence of a far-right government in Italy came just in time for the 100th anniversary of the 1922 March on Rome, which brought the fascists to power.

History is so important because we tend to repeat it, often without realizing it. There used to be a movement to unite the Arab countries, the Pan-Arab Movement, but it never succeeded. The primary basis of a nation tends to be language or religion, neither of which was a factor here. But history was the factor. There was a brief union between Egypt and Syria, the United Arab Republic, but it didn't last. There was a movement to unite Syria and Iraq, but that didn't succeed even though both were ruled by the same Baath Party. But what about the history of the successive caliphates and their capital cities? The Umayyad Caliphate was based in Damascus. It was replaced by the Abassid Caliphate that was based in Baghdad. Next came the Fatimid Caliphate that was based in Cairo. Damascus already existed but Baghdad and Cairo were specially built to serve as the caliphate capital. Modern Egypt and Syria could unite only briefly because of this historic difference. Iraq and Syria couldn't unite at all because their two historic caliphates were direct opponents, the Abassids having overthrown the Umayyads.

There have been a number of separation referendums in western countries in recent years, Quebec, Catalonia and, Scotland. The trouble is that the separatists are the ones who make up the rules. Is it right to break up a country that has existed for centuries on a simple majority vote? The next question is the definition of the entity that is separating. Who says that the entire entity, such as Scotland or Quebec, is a whole? If the separatists can divide the country then why can't the country divide the separatists? Instead of the whole separating why shouldn't it be done by individual counties voting to leave or stay? Politicians in the separatist entity may have a vested interest in separating, not for the good of the people but for their own place in history. It is their chance to go down in history as the George Washington of a new country. Polls are not an entirely reliable measure of the desire for independence as people may say they want independence just to sound patriotic or to send a message to the central government not to take their loyalty for granted. Even during the vote some people may vote for independence not because they actually want it but because they want the vote to be as close as possible, lest the central government take their loyalty for granted.

A controversial topic nowadays is artifact repatriation. In general I am in favor of giving artifacts back. A nearby museum, on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, returned the mummy that had been identified as Rameses I to Egypt. But it can get complicated. Suppose that you visit a country and buy a souvenir. Then there is a revolution in the country and the new government realizes how important the souvenir is. You are told that the government that was in power when you bought the souvenir was not legitimate and that you must give the souvenir back. Then there is the question of who has the right to claim an artifact. Just because a modern country occupies the land area of the civilization that produced the artifact does that mean they have the right to it if it is now in another country? Of course stolen property should be returned but what is the definition of "stolen" if the artifact was purchased from someone, implying that the seller had the right to sell the artifact? Then there is the concept of world history, these artifacts are the heritage not only of the civilization that actually produced them but of the whole world. It is also true that it is the museums in the west that have actually made the artifacts as valuable as they are. In times past local people would look for things that looked ancient to sell to travelers, not considering the artifacts as of any significant value to themselves. The Egyptians of about a thousand years ago actually set out to dismantle the pyramids, as can be seen today with the blocks missing from the Pyramid of Menkaure. Many countries take in a lot of money by tourism of ancient sites but travelers would not have been aware of the sites if not for the artifacts in western museums. So it is a complicated question.