Communism has many implications. In practice, few textbooks or
reference books agree in defining it. At the same time politicians are inclined to over-simplify and concentrate on one of its many implications
as a definition. Communism, generally, may be defined as the system of
society in which property, particularly real property and the means of
production, is held in common. This, with the implication of “from each
according to his ability and to each according to his needs” is the classic
definition. However, as communism developed in Russia the first apparent
need was a need for planning production rather than for the total state
ownership of land and the means of production. So, in a definition of
communism, today state planning and the means of enforcing conformity
to the plan are of the first importance.
The theory of communism was first created by two German
philosophers of the mid-nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels. In formulating their ideology they borrowed various ideas from
other philosophers particularly hegel, Adam Smith and Ricardo. Among
these various proponents of socialism at the time, Marx and Engels were
distinguished by their great emphasis on production of material goods. In
this respect the two men were very close to certain modern capitalist
economists. They were, however, true socialist, believing in equal
distribution of wealth, and having little faith in the private property
system.
The philosophy of Marx and Engels is fundamentally a
reinterpretation of world economic history. In their view the history of
mankind could be roughly divided into successive major periods. First,
there was the prehistoric era, in which man barely eked out an existence.
This was followed by the slave state period exemplified by the Roman
Empie the age of feudalism and serfdom; and finally, the modern period
of capitalism with the industrial revolution. In turn each period achieved a
higher degree of production than its predecessors. Thus temporary
setbacks and minor exceptions, the history of mankind represents slow but
continual progress in increasing the production of the material goods
which man needs for existence.
However, according to Marx and Engels, one the prehistoric
period passed, each economic system had class groups of exploiters a
exploited, and this maintained, the exploiting class in Rome was t
patricians, in medieval times, the feudal lords, and under capitalism, t
bourgeoisie. Each of these exploiting groups had held its powers by
possessing or controlling the means of production such as arable land..
commercial forest, industrial machinery, factories. Marx and Engels believed that with the advance of capitalism and
which it could almost produce sufficient material goods for full satisfaction
the rise of the Industrial Revolution, mankind had finally neared a stage in
of its needs. But to them, the system of capitalism itself had great faults,
which prevented an equal distribution of material goods. for example,
capitalism suffered periodic depressions, during which such means of
as factories would stand idle, though there was need for their
products. Furthermore, the means of production were still in the hands of
alleged exploiter class, the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile, the class of
industrial workers, who actually operated the means of production had a
very low standard of living, and could not afford to buy an adequate
amount of products of their own factories.
The remedy for this situation of relative abundance of goods but
unequal distribution, according to Marx and Engels, was to change
capitalism in socialism. To effect this change, Marx and Engels believed
that the class most exploited under capitalism, the industrial proletariat,
would rule the state and establish complete socialism. When socialism
(public control of both production and distribution of goods) had been fully
established so that each individual’s needs were satisfied, the state
authority would gradually wither away and be replaced by voluntary co-
operation of the entire populace, all adult members of which would be
engaged in some form of productive work.
Engels and Marx held various other views elaborating upon and
confirming the above theories. According to their economic history, each
great historical era (slave-state, feudalism and capitalism), had first
represented progress over the preceding civilization. But in their later
stages, each of these forms of economic society had declined no longer
could or would continue increasing production, and was finally replaced.
was brought about by a new-class seizing control of the means of
production. Thus, the feudal nobles seized the production from the Roman
patricians, and later lost power to the capitalist bourgeoisie. According to
such reasoning, the capitalist system would also decline, and must be
replaced by a new society. Thus socialism could logically replace
capitalism, and the means of production pass from the hands of the
bourgeoisie to those of the proletariat.
Another argument of Marx and Engels was the wastefulness of
class struggle, which in their opinion had always existed. Thus, in the
slave-state, the patricians and plebians had quarreled, during feudalism, and the bourgeoisie. Both philosophers considered that such struggles
the nobility and the serfs and under capitalism, the industrial proletariat
hampered production and thus prevented the output of material goods
difficulties by abolishing classes, thus turning the entire populace into a
needed by society. In their view, a socialist state would eliminate these
proletariat means of production.
Another feature of Marxism, as the teachings of Engels and Marx
According to both men, quarrels between states were allegedly quarrels
between their ruling classes, that is, the bourgeoisic of each country. Marx,
not a foreign nation. Thus, by this reasoning, the proletariat of the world
and Engles claimed that the real enemy of a proletariat is the bourgeoisie,
should unite against the world bourgeoisie. In fact, Marx actually started a
First International for this purpose.
In recent times the meaning of the word communism has been
narrowed down to that interpretation of marxian doctrine proposed by
Lenin when he came to power in Russia as a result of the revolution in
transform society in Russia. Communism in that sense is only one of the
November, 1917, and on the basis of which he and his followers tried to
possible inter-pretations of Maxian socialism and leading socialists from
the beginning having attacked Lenin’s theory and its realisation in
Russia. While socialism put its faith in an evolutionary development and is
democratic means of attaining the liberation of all men from economic
servitude, communism regarded revolution and ensuing dictatorship of the
proletariat as a necessary period of transition to the future free and
equalitarian society in which everyone would contribute to the common
good according to his abilities and would receive according to the needs
According to communist theory, the social revolution – accomplished i
the interests of the proletariat and, after the abolition of class society, of
all men must be conducted by the “proletariat’s advance guard”, the
communist party, because the people as a whole and even large parts of
the proletariat, educated in the pre-socialist era in the bourgeoisie conces
of life, are unable to grasp and to realise the new order immediately. A
the instrument of this participation they accepted the workers, soldiers
peasants’ councils (the Russian word for council is soviet) which had be
formed during the Russian revolution in 1905. In these soviets only co
working class were represented, not the “capitalists” or “exploiters”
mode of election was carefully regulated that only deputies belonging to approved by the party were chosen. But communism, differing in that
respect from fascism, regards dictatorship as a transitional institution, and
full democracy as the goal. It believes that true democracy cannot be
realised in capitalistic society on account of the economic exploitation
imposed upon the economically weaker elements of society, and that the
generally accepted form of parliamentary democracy only veils the control
of society by capitalists. While fascists believes in the unalterable and
beneficial inequality of all races and appeals the instincts of man which
have their origins in the past, communism, believes in the equality of all
men and races, and its outlook is based on reason as a common element in
all men and as a guide for the construction of the future.
Economic and political measures predominate in the Communist
programme as long as the unfavourable environment persists. If the
privileges of social life, are to be made available equally to all who share
the burdens of that life, society must be made the owner of the
instrumentalities of the labour. The socialist system of distribution and
ownership is so completely in opposition to the capitalist system of
allotting privileges unequally, without any relation to differences in effort,
that the transfer of control from capitalists to socialist has to be by a
process that is abrupt and violent, there can be no gradual and voluntary
combination of the opposing groups nor any merging of their policies by a
process of concession and compromise. a catastrophic social revolution is
the first step in the concentrated and coercive rule made necessary, on the
one hand, by the counter-efforts of a minority bent on regaining their
privileges of the old order, and, on the other hand, by the intertia of a
majority inexperienced and undisciplined in the ways of the new order.
It is chiefly in this emphasis upon the impossibility of a free and
democratic socialist government – resting on the consent of the governed
and recognising no private rights against itself- that Russian communist
may be said to differ from the orthodox Marxians in the western states.
Many writers, of widely varying social doctrines, hold that rule by a
minority, forcibly guiding an incompetent and inert majority and denying
any claims of particular interest against the collective interest, is the mark
I every community that attempts to act in an organic way. The
I qualify this general doctrine of aristocratic and authoritarian
collectivism by the Specification that every coercive political rule over a
Community is inevitably by and for the immediate benefit of some class
Within the community. Political authority is never an expression of social the countries of Africa and the Persian-Gulf, to Canada and many other
nations. Its unique strategic situation and the complicated and
contradictory balance of forces has not led to unprecedented militarization
and nuclearisation of this region, and it makes a tangible impact on the
military and political situations of the world as a whole.
Unlike Europe, both in terms of political influence and military
strength, the situation in the Asia-Pacific region is not “bipolar”. many of
the region’s states are non-aligned and take independent stand, both
conflicts raging in this region and other international problems.
The Cumulative impact of the unstable political situation in
individual countries and the tensions of interstate relations heighten the
level of military confrontation in the region. It is, therefore, not surprising
that out of more than 250 military conflicts that have occurred in the world
since the Fifties, 240 have taken place in Asian or Pacific countries. Again
it was in Asia that the nuclear arms were used for the first and the only
time.
Quite apart from the fact that three biggest socialist countries; the
Russian Federation, China and Vietnam are located in this region, Japan
occupies a strategic position in this region and the Soviet Union (New
Russian Federation) and American meet each other across the Pacific.
The US concept of security for this region so far has been based on
what was once termed, “Reagan’s doctrine for Asia aimed at achieving
clear maritime superiority.” It is trying to achieve this by creating a
military coalition, in which it helps to be involved not only long-standing
allies such as Japan and South Korea but also the members of ASEAN. It
is a different story that ASEAN countries have begun to assert their ear-
independence.
The large number of strategic, intermediate-range, shorter-range
and battlefield nuclear arms deployed in the region by the US, the Soviet
Union and China make a military confrontation probable and could cause
any local conflict to expand and engulf the entire planet.
The US and the Russia deploy possibly 25 percent of their stockpile
or over 4500 delivery vehicles and up to 25,000 war heads in the Asia-
Pacific region.
(ICBMS), heavy bombers and submarine launched ballistic missile
Out of its strategic trial of landbased intercontinental ballistic missile (SLMBS), the United States has traditionally preferred the naval
component in the Asia-Pacific region. According to some sources, about
third of the nearly 700 SLMBS on board American missile carrying
one
submarines are
deployed in the Pacific. There include Trident 1 missile
with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVS) (eight
submarine (SSBNS) each carrying 24 SLMBS.
war head per missile) carried on board light ohio-class nuclear power
Since 1983, the US has stationed a strategic air wing of 15 B-529
bombers on Guam Island, which has been dubbed a “Nuclear island” in
the region. Each B-529 strategic bomber can carry 12 cruise missile
(ALCMB) fitted with nuclear war head (following the bombers
modernisation this number will be increased to 20.)
The situation in Asia Pacific region is further destabilised large-
scale deployment of Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile capable of
reaching target with a range of 2600 kilometers. Their deployment on
board surface ships and multi-purpose submarine of the US 7th Fleet
began in 1984. By 1991, it is planned to arm 137 US warships with these
missiles. Tomahawk missile have been already used to arm 17 surface
ships and 25 submarines in the Asia-Pacific region and another 15 ship
with missile will be armed soon.
In addition to strategic forces, responsibility for “nuclear
deterrence” is borne by airfield and carrier based aviation. Seven of
American’s 15 aircraft carries are permanently assigned to the US 3rd and
7th Fleet operating in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Each carrier can accommodate up to 200 nuclear warhead and up to
nuclear-capable assault planes. The United States Pacific Fleet also
includes 45 diesel and nuclear-powered submarines and about 170 large
surface ships, all of which are able to carry nuclear arms. US department
of Defence admits that the 7th Fleet alone carries up to 1500 nuclear
warhead.
There are indications that the US intends to expand the nuclear
factor in the regional military confrontation. In October 1986, the
Pentagon decided to deploy a battalion of Lance nuclear-capable short-
range missile in South Korea where the American forces already have
further destabilising the situation in the conflict-prone Korean Peninsula.
fairly short range (130 Kilometer), this decision has the potential of
over 1000 tactical nuclear weapons. Though the Lance missiles have a what earlier century had even a
of whole continents by cultivation’s, canalisation of rivers whole
presentiment that such productive forced slumbered in the lap of social
labour… Capitalism has accomplished wonder for surpassing, Egyptian
Pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals, it has conducted
expeditions that put in the shade all former migrations of nations and
crusades”.
There is no doubt that the capitalist system has accomplished
much. In the United States, where the capitalist system prevails, the
income increased thirty times. The Americans claim that the abolition of
population increased six times between 1850 to 1950, yet her national
slavery education for all, health facilities on an unprecedented level, social
security for everybody, the doubling of longevity, within a century, the
highest increase of population on record
development of capitalism. Moreover, in the field of education, health,
and welfare, more has been accomplished in capitalist societies in a spirit
of service, and disinterestedness that ever before in history. In the world
today the great charitable foundations are to be found primarily in the
capitalist nations. In the United States, for example, the Ford Foundations
has assets of over 500 million dollars, and it annually disburses between
40 and 50 million dollars for purpose of education, human welfare, world
peace, and the strengthening of freedom and democracy at home and
abroad.
They further claim that capitalism has some describable political
implications. The individual risk taking, the desire and capacity to make
decisions, to assume responsibility, to determine one’s own life, are an
important motivation without which there can be no democracy. Persons
who constantly faced danger, risk, and responsibility in their economic
affairs were ultimately unwilling to accept authoritarian government from
kinds and aristocracies, and when the capitalist middle classes could not
obtain their objectives peacefully, they resorted to revolution; the English
civil war in the seventeenth century, and the American and French
Revolution in the eighteenth century. In fighting for itself, the capitalist
middle class appealed to the principles of universal human liberty, the
rights of man, and natural law. It is for this reason that democracy became
an intrinsic part of capitalist civilisation, and for this reason also that
greatest advances in democratic government and human liberty have so far
been made in capitalist societies. But inspite of these achievements which go to the credit of
capitalism, there are certain inherent defects in these system which are
ondemned by all right-minded social thinkers. The main drawback in the
capitalistic system is that business processes are carried on in terms of
wealth’, ‘value’, ‘price’, and ‘cost’. These concepts are pecuniary and
individual instances have little or no necessary relationship to human
welfare, whereas the ultimate purpose to be served by economic activity is
inherent relationship to human welfare decisions made on pecuniary basis
the generation of human well-being. Since money has no consistent and
decisions which would be dictated by considerations of human welfare.
may, and in a substantial number of cases, do, differ widely from
The emphasis which the system places upon pecuniary values undoubtedly
affects our personal and social evaluations of nonbusiness phenomena. The
successful citizen’ is likely to be the man who is the most successful
financially, friendships many follow patterns of pecuniary success, art,
music and literature may be threatened by tests of the pecuniary worth of
their products, a college education may come to be judged largely in terms
of its effects upon the prospective money earnings of its recipients, and so
Another defect of the capitalist system is that it has given rise to
unearned incomes. An unearned income is the acquisition of economic
goods or purchasing power from any source other than the sale of personal
productive effort on a competitive market. Capitalism has permitted
income of this type to exist, and in certain cases has unavoidably created
them. Their existence means that certain individuals are thereby enabled to
live, and in many cases to live well, without working. It means that some
are overpaid for their efforts and hence others are underpaid, for the total
national product is the sole source of individual incomes. If certain citizens
consume without helping to produce the total heap of consumable goods,
others must obtain from the heap less than they have added to it. Resultant
potentialities of class antagonism may interfere with the harmony and
cooperation that are essential to the most efficient operation of a complex
economy.
Another weakness in capitalism is that, on numerous occasions
and in many ways, it has offered business units powerful; inducements to
reduce productions and restrict supply of goods. It has permitted a
perversion of the profit motive to ends just the opposite of those it is
supposed to serve. Whereas profit normally is expected to be realised the Arabs in North Africa, and the Meshrek, the eastern half in the hevar
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya plus Sudan and Yemen, were strongly
Somewhat surprisingly all the five Maghreb states, Mauritania,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E and Oman plus Syns
Pro Iraq while in the East the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council
Emotional talk of unity with the Arab family has taken a very hard knock.
and Egypt, backed Kuwait, That is why there is no real “Arab solution,
And without unity the Arab states, despite their size, numbers, wealth and
strategic location, do not carry much weight in the world,
The hope for the democratisation of the Arab world also received a
set back because the victorious pro-Kuwait states, with the possible
exception of Egypt, have non-representative governments. And the non-
democratic tendency can only be accentuated by the fact that Saudi Arabia
will be the leading member of this group and the Saudis make no bones
about not being in favour of democracy. The Saudis were suspicious even
about Kuwait’s very tentative move towards a parliamentary system. The
war emphasised the internal splits within various Arab countries because
opposition parties exploited the popular pro-Iraq feeling to use it as a stick
with which to beat the unpopular anti-Iraq regimes. This was the case in
Morocco (in Algeria and Tunisia the demonstrators wanted their
governments to be more actively pro-Iraq), in Egypt fear of student protest
brought the shut down of the Universities. There was fierce governmental
repression in Syria and Saudi Arabia. The Arab polity has been over all
weakened polity.
Much of the pro-Iraq demonstrations were, in fact, led by anti US
and anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists who politically benefited and
were strengthened by the Kuwait crisis. This lurch towards
fundamentalism has been particularly noticeable in a country like Jordan
where the authorities and a majority of the people do not favour
fundamentalism.
The Gulf War has greatly weakened the independence, non-
alignment and the honour and dignity of the Arab victors not only because
of Iraq’s defeat but also because the anti-Iraq group is very much under
the leadership of the US. The non-aligned countries played almost no part
in the crisis, politically or diplomatically. The Gulf War has enhanced the
dangers inherent in a unipolar world of American hegemony. In the last days of the war that hegemony emerged in its crudest
form, when the United States took control of 20,000 square miles of
control Iraq, the ancient Mesopotamia, now transformed into the latest
western colony of Mesopotamerica, a mere 90 minutes drive from the Shia
shrine city of Najaf.
Such a colonialist action makes clear that the real US War aim the
destruction of Iraq. Sadam Hussain’s Iraq presented no threat to the U.S.,
U.K. Egypt or Saudi Arabia; if it had wanted to invade and capture part of
Saudi Arabia it had the opportunity to do that on August 2, when that
country lay wide open to the Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Even the Iraqi threat
to its traditional enemy, Syria, was merely theoretical.
The only country that was under real Iraqi threat was Israel, and it
was because the Jewish state in the local strategic ally of the U.S., and
because the Israelis and the pro-Israel Zionist lobby in the U.S. control
that country’s West Asia policy, and because Israel remains the enemy of
Palestinians and of the Arabs in General that there is so much more anger
than before against the Americans.
In the other parts of the world, especially the third world, the anger
is directed at the American overkill, and also because the peace settlement
that is envisaged almost demands the removal of Sadam Hussain, a matter
that should be left to the Iraqi people to decide.
Clearly the main gainer in this war has been Israel by playing the
clever tactic of first threatening to join the fighting and expanding the war
and than claiming credit and material advantage for not joining in. Israel
was the only country in the world that was happy because of the war and
which wanted it to continue.
The end of the Gulf War signals the beginning of more critical (and
possibly longer) economic wars. The past-war era will witness new trade
skirmishes that the US will have with Japan or Germany or these between
the organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the rest of
the world.
Most of these economic battles will centre around international
directions. The U.S, OPEC, Russia and other oil exporting countries will
crude oil pricesOpposing interest will move the prices in opposite
$25 a barrel But Japan, Germany and the
Third World importers will be happy with anything less than peace document of Versailles was not yet dry when in Italy the Fasciest
government came into power and in Germany the National Socialist
began its victorious drive.
party
Together with them a new political doctrine was advocated,
passionately oppressed to democracy and proclaiming new way of political
salvation, dictatorship. There should be no doubt that great attraction
which the new idol exerted over the bourgeoise intelligentsia, not only in
Italy and Germany, but everywhere in the Western world. And although
Fascism and national Socialism’have been destroyed as political realities in
the Second World War, their ideologies have not disappeared and still or
indirectly, counteract the democratic creed. A more dangerous adversary
than Fascism and national Socialism is Soviet Communism, which is
fighting the democratic idea under the disguise of a democratic
terminology.
Democracy thus stand discredited in the twentieth century. It is
true that the ideals “liberty, equality, fraternity” for which democracy
stands, seem to be empty words, not because they are destitute of content
and of human interest, but the emotion that attaches to them is largely
artificial. An active sense of liberty is only aroused when it is assailed, or
else when it is directed to some positive achievement of an opportunity.
Mere non-interference has no emotional value for one who has never
suffered or feared interference. A slave set free to starve has no true
liberty. Opportunity is needed to give a real content to liberty. A
realisation of these common places is required to strip the false glamour
for fine sounding words. A still more futile contribution to democracy is
the term “equality”. For men are not born equal, nor do they become
equal in any intelligible meaning of that term. Neither in health, or
strength, or intelligence, or goodness, or circumstances are they mental
make-up they are more alike different, and that equality of circumstances
and opporuntities is a sound ideal. But, the point is that their equality and
similarity are uninteresting, it is their differences that evoke our interest.
It is only so far as equal opportunities bring inequalities of achievement by
giving free scope to natural differences of capacity that they are valued. If
equality of opportunity led to abolition of all differences of social status
and of standards of living, though such a reformation might give some
substance to the sentiment of fraternity, it would diminish the interest
which attaches to inequality. In fact, inequality is only desired and valued inequalities in nature and achievement.
in so far as it provides opportunity for the emergence and expansion of
In dealing with the third person of, democratic trinity,
unlike the other two, fraternity does not make a positive appeal. It is a
“graternity” the charge of unreality takes a somewhat different shape. For
wild exaggeration of the feeling which men entertain towards strangers
even of their own nation. Patriotism does, indeed, carry some regard for
the well-being of other members of one’s own nation, and can evoke a
willingness to undergo efforts and sacrifices for the national well-being,
But here the sentiment of national brotherhood is nourished and stimulated
by a variety of interest and fears that arise directly from the failure to
realise the wider brotherhood of man. If there were no outside nations for
competition and possible conflict with our own, the sense of brotherhood
in a nation would be feeble and infrequent in its appeal, ordinary feelings
of sympathy and goodwill towards our neighbours would not deserve so
strong an epithet. As for the wider brotherhood of man, the appeal of
humanity, which inflamed the early prophets of democracy it is as
misrepresentation of the feelings of ordinary men and women towards
their unknown fellows. The indifference with which almost all of us
receive the tidings of some famine or other catastrophe, destructive of
lives in China or Bolivia, attests the unreality of human brotherhood.
But it is not merely on account of the emptiness of the ideals of
democracy, but because of certain defects in the actual working of
democracies, that democracy has been discredited in the modern world.
During the World War I no democratic system met its challenge
effectively. Openly or covertly every belligerent state organised itself in
terms of a more or less extensive dictatorship. The questions were asked
whether democracy hard that inherent efficiency necessary to cope with its
problems whether the social question could be solved through the forms of
classic democracy, whether disparities so vast as these revealed in the
most advanced society could be bridged in terms of peaceful evolution.
The conquest of Russia by Marxian socialism brought to power a body of
men for whom political democracy was an unedifying mirage. The
democratic state merely means the dictatorship of the capitalist that it must
accordingly be taken from him by a revolution in which the working
classes would, through the dictatorship of the proletariat, seize the state
and control the means of production in the interest of the masses.
Democracy for them was an ideal incapable of realisation until the power Bank of England, and the Governor of the Bank of England is member
the Board of Directors, in which administrative control is vested.
Chairman of the Board of Directors and President of the Bank for
International Settlements, Dr. W. F. Duisenberg (Netherlands)
CAB INTERNATIONAL
Wallingford, oxon Oxio DE
Tel 01491-832111
CAB International (formerly the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux)
was founded in 1929. It generates, disseminates and applies scientific
needs of developing countries. The organization is owned and governed by
knowledge in support of sustainable development, with an emphasis
its 40 member governments, each represented on an Executive Council. A
Governing Board provides guidance to management on policy issues.
CABI has five institutes: mycology, entomology, parasitology,
biological control and information science. These undertake taxonomic
research, offer pest and disease diagnostic services, characterize
biodiversity, develop sustainable crop protection practices, test new drugs
against human diseases, and provide training and information services.
The organization publishes books, journals and newsletters and produces
bibliographic databases on agriculture, forestry, allied disciplines and
aspects of human health. It also undertakes contracted scientific research
and provides constancy services and information support to developing
countries.
Director General, J. Gilmore.
CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY AND COMMON MARKET
PO Box 10827, Georgetown, Guyana
Tel: Georgetown 692809
The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) was
established in 1973 with three objectives; economic cooperation through
the Caribbean Common Market, the coordination of foreign policy among
he member states, and the provision of common services and cooperation
in matters such as health, education, culture, communications and
industrial relations. The supreme organ is the Conference of Heads of Government, which
desermines policy, takes strategic decisions and is responsible for resolving
conflicts and all matters relating to the founding treaty. The Caribbean
Community council consists of ministers of government with special
planning, resource allocation, development and smooth running of the
responsibility for CARICOM affairs and is responsible for the operational
Common Market and for the settlement of any problems arising out of its
functioning. The principal administrative arms are the Secretariat, based in
Guyana, and the Bureau of the Conference.
The 14 member states are Antigua and Barbuda. The Bahamas (which
Grenada, Gyana, Jamaica, Montserrat, St Christopher and Nevis, St
is not a member of the Common Market), Barbados, Belize, Dominica
Lucia, ST Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and
Tobago. The British Virgin Island and the Turks and Caicos Island are
associate members. The Communicant Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Puerto
Rico and Venezuela have observer status.
Secretary General, Edwin W. Carrington
COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is a multilateral grouping
of 12 sovereign states which were formerly constituent republics of the
USSR. It was formed by Russia, Ukraine and Belorussia on 8 December
1991, the remaining republics, apart from the Baltic states and Georgia,
joining on 21 December. Georgia joined in December 1993. The CIS
charter, signed in 1993, formally established the functions of the
organization and the obligations of its members states.
The CIS acts as a coordinating mechanism for foreign, defence and
economic policies, and is a forum for addressing those problems which
have specifically arisen from the break up of the USSR. These matters are
addressed in more than 50 inter state, intergovernmental coordinating and
consultative statutory bodies. The two supreme CIS bodies are the Council
of Heads of State and the Council of Heads of Government. The Council
of Heads of State is the highest organ of the CIS and meets not less than
twice yearly: it is chaired by the heads of state of the members in
(Russian) alphabetical order. The Council of Heads of Government meets
not less than once every three months to coordinate military and economic
activity. Other important bodies are the Council of Heads of Collective
Security (defence ministers), the Joint Staff for coordinating military strain from the communist quarters.
government. Thus democracy has not failed though it has to bear a terrible
Democracy is not a perfect form of government but it is
decidedly better than the other forms so far devised by men, because it
only can give opportunity to every individual for self-development. It has
so far met many challenges, and on its survival depends the future of the
human race. Its success depends upon the existence of a civic sense among
the people generally; a rational like-mindedness and an imaginative
sympathy that in some degree transcend economic and cultural differences,
office the sort of person who act largely under the influence of such
and a general disposition among the people to put into high governmental
attitudes. It presupposes also that citizens have enough intellectual and
moral vigour to withstand persistent deception by demagogues and to
I apply some discriminating judgments to the policies of their chosen
leaders.
In the second place, democracy if it is to succeed, needs free and
informed discussion of governmental affairs. The people do not govern
merely by having a right to choose their governors. They must have also
the opportunity to understand and criticise what these officers are doing. A
democracy, therefore, requires a system of general education, an
intelligent and independent press, and freedom of association and
discussion. Education must be general not merely in the sense that it is
available ot all but also that it is not over specialized or mainly factual,
and it must be a sort of supply the incentive and develop the potentialities
for free and effective thinking on political questions. Public authority
must, if the private press does not, provide means for supplying the
citizens with correct and intelligible description and interpretation of aims
and methods of those who hold public office. And all citizens must have
full opportunity for association, discussion, and peaceful protest,
democracy, is not so much the right of each to have his ideas adopted as it
is the right and opportunity of each to have his ideas heard and to hear the
ideas of all others.
Moreover, if democracy, as representative government, is to be
competent to grapple successfully with problems of property and business
control, it must secure on officialdom that is in reasonable sympathy with
its economic policies. This condition cannot be fulfilled unless the ladder
of education is broad enough to enable the children of the workers to enter
the upper grades on the public services, central and local, in numbers to their voting strength as citizens. For only thus can
representative government be extended from the parliamentary into the
administrative sphere.
