Naninho said:
We assume that democracies try to avoid getting involved in wars. Democratic leaders must answer to the voters for war, and therefore have an incentive to seek alternatives. Still, this is completely illusory, and serve only to mask the reality of elite rule. Thatcher's willingness to sacrifice the lives of others is undeniable. Whilst the Argentineans, under the leadership of Dictator General Galtieri were being whipped up into a patriotic fervor, the UK Government seized at the chance to whip up the same patriotic fervor in there. The media took up the cause, and the Argentineans were portrayed as blood thirsty opportunists who would destroy the British way of life on the Islands. Despite the Islanders having to rely on Argentina for post and supplies, the British were fooled into accepting that they must claim for some islands they never heard of. Thatcher, was also going through a massive loss of domestic support and elections were looming. She knew the patriotic cheer leading would lead to death, but politicians are more than willing to sacrifice others so that they can hold onto power. She played the same game as Galtieri. As crazy as it seems, democracy and dictatorship are two faces of the same coin... |
I have no problem with believing that democractic leaders will go to war for votes (modern example - Bush in Iraq). When you think about it the fact that the war won her so much popularity (and essentially the next election) meant that her decision was upheld by democratic principles - she answered to the British voters for the war in the next election and won by a landslide.
