| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Secondly, since both Germany and Japan had developed some democratic institutions and political organisations prior to the war, there was a precedent to refer back to in the post-war period. Many of the politicians involved in the post-war period in both countries had been active in the twenties and thirties, so they could return their countries to prior modes of political activity, rather than introducing democracy from first principles. In Iraq, there isn’t a body of experienced politicians or parties who can be drawn from for the same purpose, nor are there prior modes of democratic government to be referred back to for guidance.
Thirdly, Germany and Japan were able to move to democracy from militarist nationalism because it was a change in the mechanisms of achieving prosperity for the nation, not in the goal itself. Both Germany and Japan were mono-ethnic societies who defined their political objectives on the basis of achieving the dominance of their people over all others. For both states, in order to maintain great-power status they needed access to the raw materials and labour of neighbouring lands. Their military leaderships were not an isolated group who had no connection to their wider society, but rather they carried out their policies, however criminal, in the name of their people. Proficiency in all fields was sought to fulfil this higher aim of national destiny. After defeat, it was clear to the elite in both countries that alliance with America was the best way to rebuild their societies and regain their vitality, though this time economic and not military power was the key. This was especially so because of the start of the Cold War and the threat of Communism. Thus the political class moved en masse from one set of values and institutions to another, but the sense of purpose and societal cohesion returned in the aftermath of war.
For multiethnic societies such as Iraq, which are the norm outside Europe, democracy doesn’t necessarily offer the same continuity. Whereas in mono-ethnic societies, it is clear whose interests the state must serve, in states with more than one group, things are more ambiguous. In mono-ethnic democracies, politicians campaign on the basis of their abilities and policies, and they are chosen largely for these reasons, and since the electorate and the political class share a common identity, it is usually not necessary for this to feature in electioneering. However in multiethnic societies, the interests of the ethnic group are not always identical with the interests of the state or society as a whole; so ethnic rivalry is given a role in national life through the ballot box.
For politicians in a multiethnic society, playing on identity politics is an expedient way to garner electoral support. By claiming that he can guarantee the interests of his ethnic group against others who are considered adversaries, the politician guarantees himself a relatively loyal support base. By appealing to real or imagined grievances held by one group against another, political parties who claim to represent their people can maintain support even when their policies do not match their manifestos. It is not surprising therefore that political activity in US-occupied Iraq has quickly taken on a sectarian character as political actors have attempted to show that they can represent the best interests of their particular community.
In general, past experience would seem to suggest that introducing democracy to multiethnic societies is no guarantee that such states will be stable or prosperous, regardless of the means by which it is introduced. There are countries however, such as the UK, Canada and India, which are often put forward as examples of cohesive, relatively prosperous states that are multiethnic and democratic. In these states, significant and well established groups have existed side-by-side for decades, indeed centuries, without witnessing the horrors visited on undemocratic dictatorships with multiple ethnic groups.
After scrutiny however, it becomes apparent that the ability of these states to provide prosperity and the peaceful exchange of ideas, while being composed of different ethnic and religious groups, stems from specific historical factors that have contributed to the development of their political life and institutions. In the case of Britain, different groups had co-existed in the same political system for centuries, with the traditional minorities, Scottish, Welsh and Irish being integral to the identity of the nation. The general cohesion of these different groups however doesn’t stem from democratic values, but rather the fact that the English dominated the other groups for centuries and at times attempted to extirpate all traces of the culture and symbols of these groups. Only after generations of Scots, Welsh and other groups went through this process was it possible to talk of a unified Britain that could share a common democratic culture. Had political mechanisms existed 400 or 500 years ago that could enable these groups to express their grievances and shape the government institutions accordingly, we would surely see a very different situation in these lands today. It thus could be argued that this process of assimilation has made it possible for democracy to work for Britain, to the extent that today Scotland can have a devolved assembly while at the same time a number of Scots hold senior positions in the UK government.
As for India, the success of democracy there in a multiethnic setting is disputable. While it is the case that India has gained international prominence due to its embrace of the software industry and nuclear power status, it does however play host to a series of insurgencies in different regions. First of all there is the decades-old dispute over Kashmir, which requires the permanent presence of well over 500 000 government troops in that region. Aside from that, there have been serious communal disturbances between Muslims and Hindus throughout the history of modern India, most recently in 2002 when well over two thousand Muslims were massacred in Gujarat. Receiving less attention than these well known tensions are those related to the assorted Naxalite (Communist and Maoist) groups whose uprisings have given them effective control of some areas of Andhra Pradesh state. This is in addition to an alphabet soup of insurgent groups in the northeastern regions bordering Bhutan, Bangladesh and China.xiv
Canada is the most prominent international example of a prosperous multiethnic, multi-lingual state with strong democratic traditions. Ranked highly in measures of economic development and quality of life, it proclaims itself to be the official home of multiculturalism. There aren’t many countries in the world that have a Minister of State for Multiculturalism at the federal level. Since the late sixties, the federal government has given extensive rights and protections to the cultures and languages of minorities, specifically due to the rise of separatist tendencies in the French speaking Quebec state, demanding a sovereign state for French Canada separate from English Canada.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 3 4 5 6 >
Page 5 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
