| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Secular Democracy: On the Retreat |
01 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
By Sajjad Khan
Editor: New Civilistaion
sajjad.khan@newcivilisation.com
| |
| |
| |
| |
For many events in the Middle East in recent months have vindicated President Bush's bold and courageous decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003. Bush and his neo-conservative supporters have claimed that freedom is breaking out everywhere across the Middle East and Islamic world, just as they said it would. However the author argues that since 9-11, far from democracy being on the march it has actually been sounding the retreat. Even events in the Middle East, which have been cited as evidence of the spread of democracy, are on closer inspection actually a sign of a trend away from western political ideals.
Events at home and in the Middle East over the past few months seem to conform to an aphorism of John Adams, the second President of the United States. "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Adams' remarks were true then and are fast becoming true now, especially in the western world, democracy's home turf. Since 9-11, far from democracy being on the march it has actually been sounding the retreat. Even events in the Middle East, which have been cited as evidence of the spread of democracy, are on closer inspection actually a sign of a trend away from western political ideals.
However George Bush, Tony Blair and their supporters do not accept this premise. In their world every apparent success is being lauded as a great sign of the new dawn and every setback dismissed as a mere distraction or irrelevance. For them events in the Middle East in recent months have vindicated President Bush's bold and courageous decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003. Bush and his neo-conservative supporters have claimed that freedom is breaking out everywhere across the Middle East and Islamic world, just as they said it would. Removing Saddam they argue transformed the whole regional paradigm and as predicted the domino effect is now kicking in.
Afghanistan, liberated from a 'backward' Taliban regime, has had its first real presidential elections in decades. In overwhelming numbers the Palestinians chose a moderate to lead them rather than someone who would throw Israel into the sea. Brave Iraqis voted in their millions at the end of January to elect a new national assembly, despite huge security threats and intimidation. The sight of millions voting in Kirkuk, Mosul and Basra on Al Jazeera galvanised the Arab street, leading to unprecedented street demonstrations in Lebanon calling for the withdrawal of Syrian troops and the dismissal of a pro-Syrian government. Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Druze, directly attributed the demonstrations to the effect of the Iraqi invasion saying, "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq." Last but not least the seed of democracy is even spreading to those stalwarts of dictatorship in Riyadh and Cairo, where democratic reforms are now being enacted. If you add to this the velvet revolution in Georgia, the orange revolution in Ukraine, the yet to be named revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the pressure on Damascus and Tehran, it is not surprising that the supporters of the Bush agenda are feeling so pleased with themselves. As President Bush said in a recent speech to the National Defence University, "Millions have gained their liberty; and millions more have gained the hope of liberty that will not be denied. The trumpet of freedom has been sounded, and the trumpet never calls retreat."
However the only problem with the above picture is that it gives too rosy a picture of a democratic utopia. There are a number of distinct issues in this debate that need highlighting to bring balance:
Issue 1: It is stated that democracy is on the march, yet many would argue that what we are actually seeing is a roll back of democratic values since September 11 2001. A set of values that cannot even be fully adopted in the heartland of enlightenment is more an indication of decline and ret reat.
It is an irony of post 9-11 political discourse that the 'war on terror' is billed as a battle to defend liberty. September 11 2001 did not just result in the slaying of 3,000 people but was also responsible for the unravelling of a western value system which has found it difficult to deal or adapt to the new challenges of the international environment. A value system born out of a centuries-long struggle against an oppressive clergy, and which was able to defeat absolute monarchies, fascism and communism has now sounded a retreat of its own cherished principles at the altar of its new foe. This is not a retreat in a military sense, but it is a retreat in a political and ideological sense. Many however argue that the changes since 9-11 though altering the balance of security vs. liberty have not materially altered the ideological fabric of a liberal society. However the suspension of the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the separation of powers and the right to be aware of the evidence that is being used to imprison you are not mere footnotes of political life to be altered at will; they are rather supposed to be the bedrock of western political tradition. How else can one come to any other conclusion when fundamental values, principles and traditions - the political soul itself - are sold for the equivalent of 30 pieces of silver?
When Tony Blair or Charles Clarke claim that the greatest civil liberties are the right to live and for the nation to be secure, this in effect relegates other much fought over key values to the political dustbin. If the right to life was really the most important right, nations would never have gone to war to defend fundamental values, risking their sons and daughters in brutal conflicts. If the Second World War was about merely protecting life, then Churchill should have accepted Hitler's offer to surrender, thus sparing thousands of soldiers the horrors of battle and Britain's cities from brutal bombing. The rationale of protecting the nation's security is the perennial argument used by dictators and tyrants through the ages and is used constantly by regimes from Pyongyang to Harare to defend their draconian policies. However these regimes don't pretend to be something that they are not and nor do they seek to promote their values abroad. It is the active promotion of democracy abroad while simultaneously abandoning it at home that is the brazen hypocrisy. In rolling back democracy at home, the west has lost its moral leadership to preach to countries abroad, seriously undermining the pro democracy activists abroad it claims to support.
| |
| |
| |
| |
1 2 3 > Last »
Page 1 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
