www.owohrod.com.

It must be the exception and certainly not become the 'norm' in the removal of a regime or government from power.  Unfortunately, it is becoming too widespread, and with the tacit, if not open and full support of too many governments Yes, the actions of the masses on the street might lead to new elections being called and a new party or parties forming a new government.  But, are such governments then expected to act and govern at the pleasure of the demonstrators and/or civil insurgents who created the opportunity for them to get into power?  Do they govern under the implied, if not expressed threat that, if they do not meet the demands of the demonstrators and/or civil insurgents, now.  Then they, or, indeed, other sections of the citizens, will again take to the streets and attempt to bring them down? What security of tenureship can a government coming to power under this kind of power transfer, govern?  As opposed to the more orthodox popular

The immigrant is like a predator in search of the prey of a sustainable job, without which they cannot achieve a viable life and living. But this is not the real problem for many of the wealthier countries that are opposing the inflow of immigrants, migrants and refugees to their shores and societies.  The man or woman who has to decide whether to have a limb or internal organ removed from them, has already got a strong attachment and identification with the part/s of their bodies which need to be removed.  Whereas the country resisting the need, the request to take in migrants and immigrants.   Has not such attachment with the prospective incomers, and will suffer little or no pain in taking actions which are likely or could lead to their destruction.  They are in a position where they can perceive themselves to be at no risk of suffering any loss from keeping the immigrants out.  At least, in the very short term, and when the 'problem/solution

Good government cannot emanate from the powerful ruling elites governing on mostly their behalf.  Nor from the sections of the masses of the people practising a form of 'lynching democracy', by illegitimately overthrowing the existing government. What are we to make of the populist protests taking place in Chile, in Argentina, in Brazil, in Bolivia, et al, and now, in Lebanon and Iraq? Can these mass protests really be successful in anything more than, probably, causing the incumbent government or regime to capitulate; to remove themselves from power?  And, let us say they succeed in creating the momentum and dynamics to bring the current government down.  What of the legitimacy of thousands, even millions of citizens creating such a change force?  Can they claim anything more than the 'populist legitimacy' of those demonstrators and/or insurgents', and probably that of those who back them?  It certainly is not apparent or clear that they c

Of course this will not be easy; but then, there is nothing that is easy about the evolution and survival of our human species, or of any other species.  Survival, like destruction, can be a simple matter of taking the wrong path or route; as binary as that. The fact is that meeting the challenge of human migration is very much an integral element of the challenge of achieving and maintaining a sustainable local, national, regional, international and global economy. It is also a part of the 'jobs  for all v wages/salary' conundrum'. There are times when a person can find him/herself in the desperate and unenviable dilemma of having to decide whether to sacrifice one of their limb, an hand or a foot, or internal organ, in order to safe their life.  The question of whether it is better for a country to draw up the drawbridges and leave the people, the migrants and refugees seeking shelter from the storm or tempest of economic blight or wars, to expire and

There are times in the history of nations, when the people are driven by madness and desperation, being dressed up by them and others, as wisdom and clarity of vision.  At such times, the 'voice of the people' can be as or more lacking in legitimacy as is the voice of the government they want to be rid of.  Which is usually that, 'western democracy' is perceived as infinitely better than the Chinese and Russian political and social systems.  And that the Russians and the Chinese are the 'bad guys', while the Americans and West Europeans are the 'good guys.'  All of that can be taken as a given; as the basic starting point for any debate about the continuing conflicts which are impacting and/or about to impact not only the historically unstable parts of the world.  But pretty much every part of it. So, what are we to made of what is happening in Britain, as manifested by the travails of surrounding the hoped for, by some, soon to