Post by Islamic Revival on Feb 1, 2005 5:09:09 GMT -5
Another great article by Ms Linda Heard...
www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=58339&d=1&m=2&y=2005
Challenging a Sacred Cow
Linda Heard, solitairemedia@yahoo.co.uk
Excuse me while I put on my flak jacket. For many the touting of democracy as the best system of governance — indeed, the only form — has become almost a religion. Democracy, they say, means freedom, choice, justice and prosperity. It’s the cure of all ills; a political holy grail, an ideal to which we should all aspire. George Bush says the US has never been threatened by a democracy, so that’s all right then.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? There is just one slight problem, though. Does a “by the people, for the people” utopia actually exist?
The majority of Iraqis appear to think it might, judging from their excitement at voting for the very first time in their lives. They’ve been promised democracy and, sure enough, they were handed a piece of paper to tick and stuff into a ballot box.
The truth is very different. Iraq is occupied. The occupiers have no timeline for moving out and any Iraqi government will have to defer to the US for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, residents of Sunni areas were either intimidated by insurgents not to vote or refrained from doing so due to their suspicions the exercise was little more than a sham to make the Americans look good. The litmus test will come if and when the new government asks the occupiers to leave, and refuses the idea of permanent US military bases.
There is a lot more to democracy than the ballot including a free press, an independent judiciary, the sanctity of human rights and civil liberties, backed up by stable institutions. Iraq currently possesses none of these prerequisites.
The same can be said for Palestine and its much-vaunted democracy. The Palestinians may have voted for Mahmoud Abbas as their leader but can he deliver a sovereign state? Can he deliver free passage, free trade, or security?
The Palestinians have no rights over their seas or their air space. They don’t even have an airport. Their “democratically-elected” government cannot prevent their lands being grabbed or their homes demolished. They are living, nay subsisting, under a particularly nasty occupation. This is the ugly reality so don’t let’s dress up occupation by labeling it with a fancy word.
As for the occupying countries, which call themselves democracies, are they really?
Take Britain, for example. During the build up to war with Iraq, some 80 percent of the British people were against the invasion. A whopping two million took to the streets to say as much. But this didn’t even give a “for the people, by the people” government pause for thought. As it turned out the people’s instincts were spot on.
It is true that Britons will have the chance next spring to vote out the party, which flagrantly ignored their wishes but what options are on the table? The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both voted for the war in Parliament and both are likely to put the trans-Atlantic alliance before the feelings of their constituents.
America, eager to export democracy to the far corners of the planet, should put its own house in order first. Just imagine in a country of 350 million educated people a son adopts the presidential mantle of his father. Isn’t it coincidental that George W. just happened to be the very best person for the job, while his younger brother, governor of Florida, waits in the wings? Is it something in the genes?
There, it isn’t the people who collectively design their nation’s direction but industry, big business, banks and self-interested politicians assisted by the media. The US has its ruling dynasties — Bush and Kennedy — just like so many of those nations it is out to forcibly reform. There is one difference though.
Americans are indoctrinated to believe they have choices. Again, Kerry, the only serious contender during the last race, was a pro-war senator. The others either didn’t have enough funds or were discredited by a media, which we now know the government is not averse to bribing.
Indeed, the administration has recently reluctantly admitted paying three conservative commentators to sway public opinion in favor of its policies.
We should not forget, too, that in 2000, the loser Al Gore was the recipient of the popular vote prompting complaints about the Electoral College approach and the panel of mostly Republican judges, which was given the final say.
As for that fine democracy called Israel, this is a place where people espousing a particular religion can call home, while those carrying rusting keys to their actual homes built by their grandfathers are shut out. This is a state, which fears a “one person, one vote” system more than anything as long as Arab-Israeli couples have six children as opposed to an average of two Jewish newborns. Arab Israelis are treated as second-class citizens and yet, Israel is touted as the only democracy in the region.
The question is this: Is Western-style democracy the only way or are there viable alternatives? Let’s take a look at the United Arab Emirates.
Just 35 years ago, the Emirates boasted little except a few paved roads, a hospital or two, a couple of schools and hardly any five-star hotels. Today, the country is booming. Its per capita GDP is $24,000, while Dubai is growing at the rate of 14 percent per annum. It has a crime rate most Western countries would die for.
It may not be a democracy but so what? Emiratis are free to do just about anything and number among the most widely traveled on earth.
What is more, they genuinely respect their leaders who made the desert bloom...and how! There are no bag ladies here. There are no druggies bedding down in shop doorways. There are no people clamoring to emigrate. On the contrary, many are clamoring to get in.
Any system of government, which provides its citizens with all that they need and which keeps law and order while respecting human rights should be admired.
Worshiping democracy may be fashionable but democracy is only a means to an end and not a be all and end all. At the end of the day, the only relevancies are the cash in people’s pockets, the freedom to enjoy it, and the smiles on their faces.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.
www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=58339&d=1&m=2&y=2005
Challenging a Sacred Cow
Linda Heard, solitairemedia@yahoo.co.uk
Excuse me while I put on my flak jacket. For many the touting of democracy as the best system of governance — indeed, the only form — has become almost a religion. Democracy, they say, means freedom, choice, justice and prosperity. It’s the cure of all ills; a political holy grail, an ideal to which we should all aspire. George Bush says the US has never been threatened by a democracy, so that’s all right then.
Sounds good, doesn’t it? There is just one slight problem, though. Does a “by the people, for the people” utopia actually exist?
The majority of Iraqis appear to think it might, judging from their excitement at voting for the very first time in their lives. They’ve been promised democracy and, sure enough, they were handed a piece of paper to tick and stuff into a ballot box.
The truth is very different. Iraq is occupied. The occupiers have no timeline for moving out and any Iraqi government will have to defer to the US for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, residents of Sunni areas were either intimidated by insurgents not to vote or refrained from doing so due to their suspicions the exercise was little more than a sham to make the Americans look good. The litmus test will come if and when the new government asks the occupiers to leave, and refuses the idea of permanent US military bases.
There is a lot more to democracy than the ballot including a free press, an independent judiciary, the sanctity of human rights and civil liberties, backed up by stable institutions. Iraq currently possesses none of these prerequisites.
The same can be said for Palestine and its much-vaunted democracy. The Palestinians may have voted for Mahmoud Abbas as their leader but can he deliver a sovereign state? Can he deliver free passage, free trade, or security?
The Palestinians have no rights over their seas or their air space. They don’t even have an airport. Their “democratically-elected” government cannot prevent their lands being grabbed or their homes demolished. They are living, nay subsisting, under a particularly nasty occupation. This is the ugly reality so don’t let’s dress up occupation by labeling it with a fancy word.
As for the occupying countries, which call themselves democracies, are they really?
Take Britain, for example. During the build up to war with Iraq, some 80 percent of the British people were against the invasion. A whopping two million took to the streets to say as much. But this didn’t even give a “for the people, by the people” government pause for thought. As it turned out the people’s instincts were spot on.
It is true that Britons will have the chance next spring to vote out the party, which flagrantly ignored their wishes but what options are on the table? The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats both voted for the war in Parliament and both are likely to put the trans-Atlantic alliance before the feelings of their constituents.
America, eager to export democracy to the far corners of the planet, should put its own house in order first. Just imagine in a country of 350 million educated people a son adopts the presidential mantle of his father. Isn’t it coincidental that George W. just happened to be the very best person for the job, while his younger brother, governor of Florida, waits in the wings? Is it something in the genes?
There, it isn’t the people who collectively design their nation’s direction but industry, big business, banks and self-interested politicians assisted by the media. The US has its ruling dynasties — Bush and Kennedy — just like so many of those nations it is out to forcibly reform. There is one difference though.
Americans are indoctrinated to believe they have choices. Again, Kerry, the only serious contender during the last race, was a pro-war senator. The others either didn’t have enough funds or were discredited by a media, which we now know the government is not averse to bribing.
Indeed, the administration has recently reluctantly admitted paying three conservative commentators to sway public opinion in favor of its policies.
We should not forget, too, that in 2000, the loser Al Gore was the recipient of the popular vote prompting complaints about the Electoral College approach and the panel of mostly Republican judges, which was given the final say.
As for that fine democracy called Israel, this is a place where people espousing a particular religion can call home, while those carrying rusting keys to their actual homes built by their grandfathers are shut out. This is a state, which fears a “one person, one vote” system more than anything as long as Arab-Israeli couples have six children as opposed to an average of two Jewish newborns. Arab Israelis are treated as second-class citizens and yet, Israel is touted as the only democracy in the region.
The question is this: Is Western-style democracy the only way or are there viable alternatives? Let’s take a look at the United Arab Emirates.
Just 35 years ago, the Emirates boasted little except a few paved roads, a hospital or two, a couple of schools and hardly any five-star hotels. Today, the country is booming. Its per capita GDP is $24,000, while Dubai is growing at the rate of 14 percent per annum. It has a crime rate most Western countries would die for.
It may not be a democracy but so what? Emiratis are free to do just about anything and number among the most widely traveled on earth.
What is more, they genuinely respect their leaders who made the desert bloom...and how! There are no bag ladies here. There are no druggies bedding down in shop doorways. There are no people clamoring to emigrate. On the contrary, many are clamoring to get in.
Any system of government, which provides its citizens with all that they need and which keeps law and order while respecting human rights should be admired.
Worshiping democracy may be fashionable but democracy is only a means to an end and not a be all and end all. At the end of the day, the only relevancies are the cash in people’s pockets, the freedom to enjoy it, and the smiles on their faces.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback.