|
Current Democracies
The twentieth century has made phenomenal contributions to science and technology and has been abysmal for ethics and morality. We have shrunk the
earth, brought continents within hours of each other and thoughts within seconds; we have produced unprecedented wealth and flooded our markets with an unimaginable array of goods; we have established democracies on
all the continents and resounded our commitments to human rights universally. Yet, the vast majority of humanity remains trapped in poverty; inarticulate, oppressed, and powerless to influence their destinies. Our
social organisation negates our scientific and technological achievements by restricting their benefits to selected sectors of our people. We have established a world system that is generated by inequality and
generates inequality.
It is estimated that two-thirds of the world's population goes to bed hungry, lives in unsanitary conditions, has a low life expectancy and high infant
mortality rate and receives practically no medical care. (1) Never before in the aeons of human time has such a magnitude of people been pushed to the margins of society.
Poverty amidst Plenty
The poor are poor not because of lack of resources, but because of high imbalances in the distribution of resources. One economist observes that if the
resources of the USA, India and Pakistan were pooled together and redistributed equally among the three, poverty in the latter two countries would be eliminated. (2) But such redistribution is unthinkable, though
highly moral and implemental of our lip-service to democracy and equality. It would bring God's people together, in the way that God intended, according to practically all theologies, recorded and oral. But the
managers of our destinies balk at such solutions and dismiss them out of hand as impractical and absurd. What is so absurd about equalising the living standards of people throughout the world?
The absurdity lies in the fact that we do not have the moral fibre to do so, that we have chosen to be governed by policies and practices that would
horrify our traditional seers, that we have acquiesced to be governed by immorality or at best, an amorality of self-interest and laissez-faire and see little wrong in leaving our fellow human beings to starve while we eat. Our academics have shored us against our conscience by developing theories and rationalisations that, in the final analysis, blame the poor for their poverty and absolve the rich of responsibility.
It is acknowledged that the poor need a helping hand, and this is given, but almost without exception, whether by the State or the private sector, at
the risk of eroding their dignity and pride. The solution lies, not in handouts that make no dents in the coffers of the wealthy and maintain the searing inequalities of our times, but in a restructuring of our
economic order and our moral values.
Capitalism and Morality
Our world crisis, and we arein crisis, is a crisis of values. We are dominated by the utilitarian values of laissez-faire capitalism, processed in Europe, off-loaded on the other continents through colonisation, and pursued more perniciously today through globalisation.
With the failure of communism in Eastern Europe and China, the free market economy has emerged as the unchallenged mechanism for the production and
marketing of resources. Its protagonists trumpet it as not only the only viable producer of wealth, but also the only protector of freedom and democracy!
"Market economies have produced more wealth and greater economic security for more individuals than even their most ardent eighteenth century and
nineteenth century defenders thought possible. Capitalism's improvement in the quality of life is equally impressive. And no other economic system has proven even remotely so compatible with liberty and
democracy". (3)
Market economies have
produced enormous wealth but this is concentrated in a few hands. Capitalism's improvement in the quality of life is for those who can afford it; and it is restricted to the material: it does not extend to the emotional. It plunges the individual in a ceaseless and often senseless quest for more, depriving persons and people of inner peace. The liberty it offers is focussed on individual rights to the point of license and at the expense of group rights, thereby belying the tenets of democracy and equality.
The very problem with capitalism, the absence of a moral base, is extolled as its unique genius by its supporters. Its generating force is identified
as self-interest, proudly proclaimed by the Guru Adam Smith, who said: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages". (4)
Capitalism does not deliver the world its dinner: in fact it has plunged it in ever increasing hunger, in violence and wars. Capitalism hoards,
monopolises and operates in terms of legalised sharp practices. We are beset with conflict, violence, wars, terrorism, crime, illegal drug cartels, and legal multinationals that plunder underdeveloped countries by
under-pricing their exports and their currencies and overpricing their imports, and burdening them with debt services.
Christian Insistence on Moral Trade
Medieval Christianity rejected money-making as perilous to the soul: "He who has enough to satisfy his wants and nevertheless ceaselessly labours
to acquire riches, either in order to obtain a higher social position, or that subsequently he may have enough to live without labour, or that his sons may become men of wealth and importance - all such are incited
by a damnable avarice, sensuality or pride". (5)
While Protestantism rescued trade from the rank of sin, it placed it firmly within the bounds of morality and emphasised that its benefits should be
shared, not monopolised by an individual or his family.
"It is not lawful to take up or keep up any oppressing monopoly or trade, which lends to enrich you by the loss of the Commonwealth or of many. A
Christian should conduct his business in the spirit of one who is conducting a public service; he must order it for the advantage of his neighbour, as much as, and, if his neighbour be poor, more than, for his
own". (6) [Baxter: p.200]
Capitalism dismisses such moral strictures as impeding economic growth and development, even though economic growth and development are not its goals;
they are incidental to the profit motive. So called development has, in a number of startling instances, proved detrimental to communities, precisely because the underlying motive has been the self-interest of
organisations and persons. Capital investment in most cases is simply a money game, played for profits, and as the game develops, so new rules are invented with only one objective in mind, how to compound those
profits. There is little regard for those who may be hurt or destroyed in the process.
In leverage buy-outs, the value of shares of companies double and treble literally overnight without the addition of any observable value to the
products or any development of the economy. Managers who manipulate such deals become millionaires ten-times over by privatising their companies, buying them off themselves with loans unwittingly subsidised by the
taxpayers (since interests are written off as corporate expense accounts), breaking them up and selling off parts at huge profits; then re-organising the remnants and reverting them into public companies and earning
greater profits. Bondholders and taxpayers are the losers in such swindles described as ‘corporate cannibalism’ within the capitalist fraternity itself. In one such American deal in 1988, $28 billion was involved,
more than the Gross National Products of Peru or Portugal. (7)
Globalisation
Perhaps the biggest swindle in capitalism is globalisation which has followed in the wake of decolonisation. The newly emergent states after World War
II, hooked on to the Euro-American model, pursued industrialisation, but having neither the capital nor the skills to do so, were easily seduced by European countries and the USA, awash with petrodollars. They
loaned the capital through their finance houses, particularly the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The seduction began at low interest rates, but the rates climbed. Foreign technocrats advised and
encouraged developmental projects that did little if anything for development, added nothing to the quality of people's lives, but made fortunes for middle men in both the borrowing and lending countries and piled
up debts for the borrowers
Governments unable to function without the support of big business are vulnerable to their influence and their immorality. In the worse scenarios,
government members are seduced into the wheeling and dealing of the business sector, and the people’s interest is abandoned. In the Philippines, during the sixties and seventies, vast loans were made by
international banks to private firms whose partners and board members were also government officials. The government guaranteed the loans. When the crunch came, the government, that is the people, paid and are still
paying, while simultaneously suffering the impoverishment of structural adjustment. (8)
Had the humanitarian impulse prevailed, had there been a genuine desire to admit the newly independent states into a commonwealth based on equality and
justice, the former colonisers and the new super powers would have pitched in to help the new states develop themselves. But they were too firmly rooted in the exploitative tradition. Having relieved them of the
dependency of colonisation, they seduced them into that of globalisation. They exploited their raw materials and burdened them with debts that continue to keep them impoverished and underdeveloped. The only sectors
that have developed are the small strata of an elite that have found membership in the international club of moneyed men.
As would be expected under the circumstances, 85% of the world's poor are concentrated in the former European colonies, the so-called Third World. The
largest portions of African budgets go towards servicing their loans from the developed world. There are countries paying up to 70% of their GNP servicing debts.
Debts borrowed in dollars have to be paid in dollars, which have to be earned through exports. Africa's exports are mainly raw materials; while the
debt service grows, due to the fall in the value of the indigenous currency, the real value of the exports decline and with that, foreign exchange earnings. The percentage of export earnings used to service
Zimbabwe's debts rose from 3.8% in 1980 to 25.6% by 1995. In South Africa, the debt rose from $16 billion in 1989 to $51 billion by 1995 and now stands at $ 62 billion; one-fifth of the South African budget is spent
on debt servicing. The huge slice taken by debt servicing leaves little money for health, education, welfare and general development - poverty escalates, in direct proportion to the debt serviced.
In addition to the financial reckoning, there is the reckoning of human welfare. Borrowing countries reaching crises of payment are subjected to the
tyranny of creditors who impose standard structural adjustment programmes on all indebted countries. Real incomes drop, unemployment rises, and poverty deepens as governments reduce or withdraw essential services
like health, education and housing. Their peoples, unable to find support in their own countries, sell their labour in other countries, and the whole syndrome of anomic exploitation, demoralisation, alienation, loss
of dignity and broken families set in.
The creditors on their part remain distant and cold in their opulent offices, geared to their computers, focused on the huge profits made from the
consequent miseries, deemed inconsequential because they are not part of their reckoning. The extortions demanded from the poorest of the poor, are worse than Shylock's pound of flesh.
And the worse aspect of this world economy is that nobody seems to understand it - Why depression? Why inflation? Why does the value of money
depreciate and disappear?
Can we tolerate this kind of economic order at the cost of such human misery? Is human genius incapable of devising and adopting another kind of order?
Capitalism and the Arms Bazaar
The business within the framework of the world economic order worsens, if it can worsen, with the trade in arms, probably the most lucrative trade of
all. It appeals to the basest instincts of humankind. It produces nothing, it develops nothing, it destroys and if left uncurbed, may destroy our entire universe. The producers of armaments need wars to test their
products and keep their businesses going. The Iraqi War was as vicious as it was because it provided a testing ground for the new US weaponry, even as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did for the atom bomb. The war was in
itself an arms bazaar. We will never know the extent to which the decision to attack Iraq was influenced by the US arms dealers, but the half a dozen companies responsible for the weaponry were euphoric at the
conclusion of those attacks in anticipation of soaring sales following the window display. For the vendors of arms, each war is a rehearsal for the next.
Ironically, the top five arms producers are also the permanent members of the Security Council of the UNO. Between 1985-89, the Soviet Union sold $66
billion worth or arms, the US $53 billion, France $16 billion, Britain $8 billion and China $7 billion. The arms were sold mainly to developing countries, which could least afford them. They were helped to purchase
them through loans from finance institutions in the developed countries, recycling their dependency on them. (9)
The killing machines create their own myths, the need for an ever expanding, ever ‘improving’ arsenal. Inconceivable amounts of money are spent on new
models as the old are made obsolete, on new prototypes which often end in failure. The defence business survives on a war psychosis and the arms producers are also the manufacturers and vendors of that psychosis
disseminated through the media.
President Eisenhower referring to the Vietnam War in his memoirs wrote: "Our main task was to convince the world that the South East Asian War was
an aggressive move by the communists to subjugate that entire area".
Wars pursue dominance and power and perpetuate inequalities and poverty. The post-World War II conflicts that erupted in Asia, Africa, Latin America
over boundary disputes, resources and ethnic intolerance were exploited by the superpowers, the USA and USSR, in their bids for ideological and economic dominance. They poured in arms and expertise, fanned the
conflicts to full-scale wars which collectively were referred to as the Cold War, regardless of how hot they were, how devastating and terrible for those who actually fought them.
The Crisis of Democracy
The crisis of values is also the crisis of democracy, for democracy, in ideal terms, is a moral force, and as such, a necessary force. It is an
egalitarian force aimed to establish equality between persons and communities in their access to resources, and their articulation of needs, and thus empowerment.
Capitalism and democracy trace common roots in enlightened European liberalism. Yet the only thing they have in common is their declared commitment to
individual freedom.
In capitalism, it is the individual's right to self-interest bordering on license, and at times licentiousness, though keeping within the parameters of
the law. The democratic concern for freedom is genuine and the individual's rights are constrained within a moral framework. In capitalism it is the right to a free market, the freedom being in effect restricted to
the captains of commerce and industry, to control the economy, untrammelled by state curbs in the management of supplies, demands, prices of commodities, or cost of labour, tariff charges and land use. It is
fundamentally freedom to exploit the market for maximum profits.
The capitalist state, to the extent that it has yielded to the pressures of the economic order, is no less totalitarian than the socialist. In pursuing
the vested interests of the ‘propertied’ class under the subterfuge of the free market, it undermines the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of its citizenry. It becomes overbearing and tyrannical and loses
sight of its purpose, which is the welfare of the people.
Democracy is not a secular value as often defined; its essence is to be found in religions. Religious systems are the most abiding and popularly
acknowledged repositories of democratic values. The generality of humanity has an "instinct" for democracy, if this were not so, there would be a passive acceptance of domination. The generality of
humanity also has an ‘instinct’ for God - people see themselves as equals in the sight of God. The belief in equality is thus a moral belief. If we attest to inalienable rights, then we attest to natural or
God-given rights, rights that are absolute and not relative.
The Islamic concepts of freedom and democracy are derived from the concept of tawheed; in terms of which neither are subjective, arbitrary or
man-made; they are Divine and therefore absolute. Freedom is conceived as absolute in the sense that we are absolutely free to manifest the Divine will. Islamic scholars see free will as a prerequisite for the
actualisation of the moral order. The moral order cannot be coerced. It has to be the expression of free choice, the choice to follow the righteous path - Sirat-al-Mustaquen.
Democracy fails when democratic rights are seen as purely secular, man-made, relative, and therefore to be trifled with by secular tyrants. The
structures of democracy are social, not the rights they confer. The wonders of science and technology delude us into thinking that human power is temporally derived, that it has no infinite source, that democracy is
a human invention, it has no pre-social base, that human rights are derived from a social contract, that the human being is born without any definition of rights: that
democracy is not only a social construct, but it is an intrinsic European construct. In fact, the sense of democracy like the sense of God is to be found in all societies. While democracy is a pre-social moral force, the institutions are social and manifested differently in different cultures. Its experience is more proximate in non-industrial society, since it is personal and direct than it is in mass industrial society where it is representational and highly bureaucratised, and where in many instances it has dwindled into the ritual of voting with declining participation in the ritual.
Opinion polls in the USA reflect declining confidence in government. In 1994, 29% of those interviewed in one poll agreed that the government "was
run for the benefit of a few big interests". By 1992, four fifths of the respondents supported this view. In a 1994 national poll, 66% of the respondents agreed that "government is almost always wasteful
and inefficient". Low opinions of government are matched with low participation at the polls. Switzerland has the lowest poll participation, the USA has the second lowest: only 18% of the voting-age population
participated in the 1994 mid-term USA primaries. (10)
If democracy is to be saved for Humankind, then our existing structures of highly centralised power and authority, which end up in the domination of
minorities over huge majorities, will have to be replaced with new models of government and management that decentralise power and distributes it more evenly among the people, reaching the individual and empowering
him/her to have a stake in it.
Law in Need of Moral Authority
Whatever the sociological and psychological explanations of values, they succeed best when perceived as supernatural in origin, more specifically as
rooted in God. Thus, practically all secular constitutions invoke God. The perception of the Divine is not only universal, but similar in vastly different cultural situations, literate and pre-literate, as is
observed in the following hymn of the pre-literate Pygmy:
In the beginning was God
Today is God
Tomorrow will be God
He has no body
He is as a word which comes out of your mouth
That word! It is no more
It is past - and still it lives
So is God. (11)
A belief so persuasive in the human conscience cannot be negated by our secular and intellectual elite without serious damage to the social fabric as
has already happened. A little more humanity and a lot less certitude would go a long way in helping us out of our dilemma.
Modern industrial society is plagued with crime and violence, or deviance from the law, largely because the law is seen, or subconsciously experienced,
as arbitrary, serving the vested interests of particular classes or groups. The dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate is often technical rather than moral. To command respect and commitment, the law must
be worthy of faith. The response to law projected as man-made and secular cannot but be different from a response to law which is seen as Divine.
The Upanishadic concept of law is identical with truth, created by God – "the law is the truth and truth is law". In the Islamic view society
is perceived as the actualisation of Divine law. Just as nature and the movement of the planets are ordered by Divine Law, so is human nature, with the important difference, that humans, invested with free will, are
able to actualise the Divine will, not involuntarily and instinctively as with other species, but intelligently and selectively. Islamic States, however, have secularised law, made it arbitrary and exploitative and
unreflective of the Divine will.
Failure of the United Nations to provide a Moral Force
Our religious institutions have failed us in that they have not held fast to the moral order, but have compromised with economic and political
interests. It is doubtful that they can rescue themselves from the morass into which they have fallen and liberate us from the decadence into which we are trapped.
We need a strong moral force to order our lives. Both world wars demonstrated the need for a central authority that would intervene in conflicts
between nations and avoid wars. God did not suffice, because He had been fragmented into numerous religions and innumerable denominations. Both the two world bodies set up after the respective world wars failed to
exercise moral authority because of their exclusion of the very source of that authority, and because of their surrender to the exploitative interests of the major powers.
The very structure of the UN precludes it from operating as a democratic force. Its highest body, the Security Council, charged with maintaining
international peace, was founded with just five permanent members, three European - UK, France, USSR and two non-European - US, China - at the time, not Mainland China where 80% of the Chinese people lived, but the
China of Chiang Kai Shek, allied to the USA.
The General Assembly, the second tier of the UN was equally unrepresentative of the world community at the time of its founding. Of the 51 members,
only 9 were Asian and two African. By 1970, with decolonisation, the character of the General Assembly changed dramatically with two-thirds of the membership made up of underdeveloped and developing Afro-Asian
countries. But the fact that member States have equal voting rights regardless of population size, tends to result in the rights of the minority over the majority, and of the wealthy over the poor.
From the outset, the Security Council and the General Assembly did not operate as a moral force, but as platforms on which the USA and USSR scored
points against each other. The welfare of the world became secondary and often incidental to their power positions. Other member countries were treated as actual or potential constituencies of the one or the other
side.
The initial brief of the UNO, orchestrated in the main by the USA and USSR, was to legitimise the distribution of the spoils of World War II between
them. Each, endowed with its distinctive ideology, capitalism and communism, dominated the thinking of the newly emergent ruling elite and plunged a number of the former colonies into open wars, as they hotly
pursued their spheres of interest in their countries.
The UNO failed its very first test in 1947 when the rights of the Palestinians were usurped and their country transformed into Israel, because, among
other factors, the USA, fearful of a Soviet presence in the region, opposed a peacekeeping force recommended by the UN Secretary General.
When the British withdrew from Palestine where violence had already broken out between the Palestinians and the immigrant Jews, the UN Secretary
General had warned that a peace-keeping force was essential, but the USA, fearful of a Soviet force in the region, had opposed it. The region became plunged in a war that continues to this day.
The USA took direct action in the Dominican Republic to prevent an anti-American and therefore it concluded, a ‘communist’ government, from
consolidating power. To isolate the Soviets, it unleashed a holocaust on the Vietnamese, matched only by that inflicted by the Nazis in Europe - the countryside was pounded with bombs, and forests and rice fields
were defoliated. By 1967, 1.5 million tons of bombs had been dropped on South Vietnam, 75 000 tons more than dropped in World War 2. That war ended only when American citizens jerked themselves out of their
somnolence, exercise their critical faculties and protested, but by then half a million Vietnamese and 45 000 Americans had been killed and the war had cost the USA $150 billion. (12)
In Czechoslovakia, it was the Soviets who blocked UN intervention in 1967, moving in 70 000 troops to suppress that people’s opposition to their
communist regime.
The USA and former colonial powers tended to support reigning reactionary governments; the Soviets championed the right to revolution, primarily to
pursue its Cold War against the Western bloc. So in the first year of the UN, Britain supported the reactionary governments in Greece and Turkey, the USSR supported the revolutionaries. The Greek situation blew up
into a major area of conflict as the USSR aided the guerrillas and the US gave economic and military aid to the governments.
Propagated as an instrument of peace, the UN has survived, not as a peace-keeping force, but as a debating chamber where nations in conflict blow hot
air. The best that can be said of it, in retrospect, is that, but for that ‘cooling’ off at the UN, the twentieth century may have been even more violent, though the recent atrocities in Bosnia cast doubt on even
that.
The UN's protective mission falls short of protecting people, since it is restricted to protecting countries, and not people within countries. It is
today an expression of Western European liberalism, underpinned by it's laissez-faire principle, which ultimately protects those in office and in control of governments and resources. It is thus, above all, a respecter of consolidated power and its commitment to the right of self-determination has worked as a commitment to entrenched power. Its interventions in major conflicts are more a record of political expediency tailored to meet the vested interests of those in power, than genuine attempts to resolve problems which demand impartiality and morality.
If the United Nations is to succeed at all in serving humanity, the Security Council has to change to make it representative of the world order, and
above all, its domination by specific powers, particularly the USA, has to end. Such transformation requires the transformation of capitalism itself, very probably its elimination, for so long as power is defined in
terms of access to capital and armaments and these remain concentrated in a few hands in a few countries, those hands and countries will continue to hold the world hostage to them.
What Solutions?
Having identified some of the factors in our global crisis, it becomes necessary to posit some solutions. Our key problem is that of the crisis of
values into which we have been plunged by our key social order, the economic. Like a bad disease, that order has infected the world and that unfortunately is the meaning of globalisation.
Globalisation is not a relationship based on mutual benefits between countries: it is not a stratagem to integrate the artificially created three
worlds into one. It is a strategy of the so-called First World, the highly technological European world to continue its domination of the decolonised, ‘third’ world.
Globalisation is also a stratagem to weaken the state. International capitalism cannot integrate governments; it can integrate economies. A world order
is sought outside the state, in the economies of the countries, dominated by the new robber barons of our times. The state's responsibilities are subsumed by the market. State parastatals, the people's stake in the
wealth of the country are turned over to the private sector on the excuse that it can manage them better. Apart from this the very fact the state is unable to protect the people's interest destabilises it.
Paralleling the global economy is the global media. Orchestrated mainly from the USA, it serves the interests of the global vendors, undermining the
cultures of the world and harnessing them to the uni-culture of consumerism. It mobilises consumers for the multinational vendors, through direct advertising, and indirectly through the lifestyles they project in
the stories they tell. These vendors insinuate themselves into the minds of consumers, manipulating their intellectual and emotional needs, cultivating their tastes, influencing their behaviour, their interpersonal,
intercultural relations and their habits of consumption - what they wear, eat, drink, how they relax, where they take their holidays, etc. They are the most powerful people in the world, and also the most dangerous.
They have the capacity to change and recreate cultures, and process and destroy political and social personalities. They consult no one apart from themselves. In mysterious anonymity they plot their tangled plans
and become so enmeshed in them that they themselves cease to understand their ramifications: all that matters is the end result, profit.
We have to liberate ourselves from such colossal masterminding of our lives. The solution has to be drastic and it has to be protected first and
foremost from the sabotage of rhetoric that dismisses any alternate as unreal, impractical. While retaining all the accumulated techniques of business management and international trade, the amoral and immoral
aspects of capitalism must be expunged and the economic order transplanted with a moral heart.
We respond today to the triumph of ‘capitalism’, as an invincible truth, overlooking the fact that it is a system which has ordered our lives for no
more than the last 200-300 years. More important, its currency depended on changing the then-existing European/Christian value system. If values were changed then to faster capitalism, values can be changed now to
generate an economic system that will benefit humankind, and liberate the world from poverty and people from disempowerment.
We have to become self-conscious at the individual level, group conscious at the collective level, and regain a sensitive balance between the personal
and social, regain our moral centre and order our lives accordingly.
Let us also remind ourselves that while we ponder human values, time is running out on us, that we face an environmental holocaust that threatens to
trivialise our concerns with our cultures and our civilisations, our religions and our languages, our music and our dances - threats of over-population, diminishing natural resources, pollution of our environment,
threats that challenge our very physical existence.
References
(1) Sharp AM, Register CA, Leftwich RH, Economics of Social Issues, BPI Irwin, Homewood Illinois, p.4
(2) Lebergott S, The American Economy: Income, Wealth and Want, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1976, p.3
(3) Vogl, David, Dialogue 1:1992, US Information Agency, Washington, USA
(4) Smith, Adam, Wealth of the Nations, Penguin, 1974
(5) Tawney, Fourteenth Century Schoolman, p.48
(6) Baxter, Richard in Tawney, op cit, p.200
(7) Time, December 5, 1988
(8) Briones, Madlolis Leonor, The Process of Debt in South East Asia: Focus on the Philippines, Conference Paper, 1998
(9) Tuchman, Barbara, The March of Folly, Abacus, pp. 439/470rial">
(10) Lipset, Seymour Martin, Malaise and Resiliency in America, Journal of Democracy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Journals Division, Washington,
July 1995
(11) Mbile, John S, Concepts of God in Africa, London, 1970, p.127
(12) Newsweek, April 8, 1991
top
|
