milliy merkez
14-05-05, 06:38
Authoritarian 'Democracy' Imperialism and Colorful Revolutions
Tugrul Keskingoren[1]
We have been experiencing so-called democratic revolutions around the world
today. These opposition movements from the Caucasus to Central Asia, from
Iraq to Ukraine, are toppling the old regimes and their state structures.
Inexperienced opposition movements and their leaders are taking over the
state and have continued to control the entire society on behalf of
democracy in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Iraq and many more countries
both now, and more to come. However, no one questions the social nature of
the democratic ideas contained in these opposition movements. Where they are
emerging from, and what exactly do they attempt to achieve? Is the problem
in these countries really democracy, or perhaps instead the exploitation of
the market and natural resources through the use of these so-called
democratic movements. The purpose of these movements is not really
democracy, but use of political goals to achieve economic means.
The process of colonialization involves many different stages that take
place within different historical time periods. As part of this, both
political and economic methods are used as tools in these stages of its
development. For instance, the cultural, political and economic occupation
of Sri Lanka and India in the18th century, or similarly, the method of
'divide and rule' in Africa was undoubtedly not dissimilar to today's
tragedy in 'Turkish' Central Asia and the Middle East. As Franz Fanon points
out in his statement describing, "Blacks Skin, White Masks[2]," democracy is
a mask used as exploitation by the powerful. I believe that today, we have
been witnessing the neo-colonialization process by colonialist powers and
TNCs[3] in the context of the so-called democratic structure and movements.
The meaning and the real notion of democracy have changed, and today
democracy and civil society are part and parcel in a process that serves the
interests of the powerful, rather than creating freedom and equality within
modern society. Freedom, free speech and civil society are the true nature
and characteristics of a democracy; however replacing dictators with puppets
will not bring democracy and solve the socio-economic issues for these
underdeveloped and developing nations, but will only serve to sustain
further relationships of exploitation.
The recent cases of the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Iraq have shown us
that old and corrupt, anti-democratic regimes cannot survive by disregarding
the people's democratic demands and sustaining economic equality. On the
other hand, the opposition movements of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and
Iraq stepped up and demanded more democracy supported by other exploiters.
Isn't it a dichotomous situation for a so-called democracy?
In contrast to the argument of some scholars, democracy is actually a very
vague term that is defined in the context of cultural parameters rather than
within a universal pop-culture. Democracy in Iran may be exercised
differently than that of Western Europe, because there exists in Iran a
unique cultural and historical development of democratic structure and
institutions and socio-economic paradigms that are specific to the Iranian
context. Therefore, we must define and understand democratic ideal within
its appropriate cultural context. Democracy does not serve the interests of
trans-national corporations, but that of the people in these countries.
Although today some neo-liberal scholars argue that the meaning of
"democratic" openness has transformed into a description of democracy as a
political approach that is unable to survive without the free market.
However, the state structure in developing countries has become dispersed
and polarized by NGOs and their financiers, the TNCs. The state has been
weakened in this way and has lost control over the society in favor of the
interests of the elite or petite bourgeois. For the transnational companies,
in order to sell more products; the state structure should be weakened and
tariffs should be abolished for their own good, not for the good of the
people of these countries. This was the beginning of the decreasing power of
the nation state regarding the neo-liberal capitalist policies. According to
views, such as those of Thomas Friedman; FDI, foreign direct investment, and
free market capitalism bring more opportunities and democracy to the
underdeveloped and developing nations. But in reality, foreign direct
investment has not brought freedom to the developing nations, but has
produced an environment in which there results cheap labor, the existence of
workers without unions, socio-economic chaos, more debt to the IMF and World
Bank, and last but not least, meaningless independence and sovereignty.
There has been an increased in the power of the nation-state and national
borders in the developed nations, whereas the economic, cultural and
political borders of developing countries have been weakened. Moreover,
invisible borders and the diminishing power of nation state in the
developing nations have generated socio-economic anarchy and chaos for these
nations.
In the context of imperialism and neocolonialism, democracy cannot be
imposed on nations from the "outside." In his book, "Democracy in
America[4]" Alexis DeTocqueville argues that American democracy has been
developed and constructed within a democratic societal and state structure,
which is by the people for the people. It took a long time to build and
construct American democracy and the free institutions and democratic
behavior that support this. This was influenced by the ideas of freedom and
equality. Some other scholars argue that American democracy has developed
just within the last two hundred years. If this is the case for the
development of the democratic process in America, then one must argue that
it will take a long time to build democracy and to shape the civil society
in countries such as Iraq or Kyrgyzstan. Most importantly, Americans built
their democratic state after they received their independence from England.
Democracy was not begun under British colonialist rule because democracy
cannot be exercised under military or 'civil' occupation. Each is examples
of the occupation of both mind and culture and prevents democratic political
organization and idea of civil society.
Democracy is neither a product of pop-culture nor exercised by colonialist
powers. Colonialism cannot be the watchdog for any democratic structure and
ideas, because the power holders' economic interests overlap with
anti-democratic movements and paramilitary organizations, as we have seen in
Latin and Central America. In this sense, how can colonialism protect the
real nature of a democracy, when the "black skin white masks" attempt to
sell their products or to exploit the countries they have occupied? It is a
dichotomic process. We are within a certain historical stage of human
development; therefore in order to improve our society and to continue along
this path of social and economic achievement, we cannot live without
democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Department of Sociology, tugrulk@vt.edu
[2] Fanon, Franz. Black Skin White Masks. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1967.
[3] TNC: Trans National Corporations
[4] Tocqueville, Alexis De, Democracy in America. New York, NY: Vintage
Books, 1990.
Tugrul Keskingoren[1]
We have been experiencing so-called democratic revolutions around the world
today. These opposition movements from the Caucasus to Central Asia, from
Iraq to Ukraine, are toppling the old regimes and their state structures.
Inexperienced opposition movements and their leaders are taking over the
state and have continued to control the entire society on behalf of
democracy in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Iraq and many more countries
both now, and more to come. However, no one questions the social nature of
the democratic ideas contained in these opposition movements. Where they are
emerging from, and what exactly do they attempt to achieve? Is the problem
in these countries really democracy, or perhaps instead the exploitation of
the market and natural resources through the use of these so-called
democratic movements. The purpose of these movements is not really
democracy, but use of political goals to achieve economic means.
The process of colonialization involves many different stages that take
place within different historical time periods. As part of this, both
political and economic methods are used as tools in these stages of its
development. For instance, the cultural, political and economic occupation
of Sri Lanka and India in the18th century, or similarly, the method of
'divide and rule' in Africa was undoubtedly not dissimilar to today's
tragedy in 'Turkish' Central Asia and the Middle East. As Franz Fanon points
out in his statement describing, "Blacks Skin, White Masks[2]," democracy is
a mask used as exploitation by the powerful. I believe that today, we have
been witnessing the neo-colonialization process by colonialist powers and
TNCs[3] in the context of the so-called democratic structure and movements.
The meaning and the real notion of democracy have changed, and today
democracy and civil society are part and parcel in a process that serves the
interests of the powerful, rather than creating freedom and equality within
modern society. Freedom, free speech and civil society are the true nature
and characteristics of a democracy; however replacing dictators with puppets
will not bring democracy and solve the socio-economic issues for these
underdeveloped and developing nations, but will only serve to sustain
further relationships of exploitation.
The recent cases of the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Iraq have shown us
that old and corrupt, anti-democratic regimes cannot survive by disregarding
the people's democratic demands and sustaining economic equality. On the
other hand, the opposition movements of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and
Iraq stepped up and demanded more democracy supported by other exploiters.
Isn't it a dichotomous situation for a so-called democracy?
In contrast to the argument of some scholars, democracy is actually a very
vague term that is defined in the context of cultural parameters rather than
within a universal pop-culture. Democracy in Iran may be exercised
differently than that of Western Europe, because there exists in Iran a
unique cultural and historical development of democratic structure and
institutions and socio-economic paradigms that are specific to the Iranian
context. Therefore, we must define and understand democratic ideal within
its appropriate cultural context. Democracy does not serve the interests of
trans-national corporations, but that of the people in these countries.
Although today some neo-liberal scholars argue that the meaning of
"democratic" openness has transformed into a description of democracy as a
political approach that is unable to survive without the free market.
However, the state structure in developing countries has become dispersed
and polarized by NGOs and their financiers, the TNCs. The state has been
weakened in this way and has lost control over the society in favor of the
interests of the elite or petite bourgeois. For the transnational companies,
in order to sell more products; the state structure should be weakened and
tariffs should be abolished for their own good, not for the good of the
people of these countries. This was the beginning of the decreasing power of
the nation state regarding the neo-liberal capitalist policies. According to
views, such as those of Thomas Friedman; FDI, foreign direct investment, and
free market capitalism bring more opportunities and democracy to the
underdeveloped and developing nations. But in reality, foreign direct
investment has not brought freedom to the developing nations, but has
produced an environment in which there results cheap labor, the existence of
workers without unions, socio-economic chaos, more debt to the IMF and World
Bank, and last but not least, meaningless independence and sovereignty.
There has been an increased in the power of the nation-state and national
borders in the developed nations, whereas the economic, cultural and
political borders of developing countries have been weakened. Moreover,
invisible borders and the diminishing power of nation state in the
developing nations have generated socio-economic anarchy and chaos for these
nations.
In the context of imperialism and neocolonialism, democracy cannot be
imposed on nations from the "outside." In his book, "Democracy in
America[4]" Alexis DeTocqueville argues that American democracy has been
developed and constructed within a democratic societal and state structure,
which is by the people for the people. It took a long time to build and
construct American democracy and the free institutions and democratic
behavior that support this. This was influenced by the ideas of freedom and
equality. Some other scholars argue that American democracy has developed
just within the last two hundred years. If this is the case for the
development of the democratic process in America, then one must argue that
it will take a long time to build democracy and to shape the civil society
in countries such as Iraq or Kyrgyzstan. Most importantly, Americans built
their democratic state after they received their independence from England.
Democracy was not begun under British colonialist rule because democracy
cannot be exercised under military or 'civil' occupation. Each is examples
of the occupation of both mind and culture and prevents democratic political
organization and idea of civil society.
Democracy is neither a product of pop-culture nor exercised by colonialist
powers. Colonialism cannot be the watchdog for any democratic structure and
ideas, because the power holders' economic interests overlap with
anti-democratic movements and paramilitary organizations, as we have seen in
Latin and Central America. In this sense, how can colonialism protect the
real nature of a democracy, when the "black skin white masks" attempt to
sell their products or to exploit the countries they have occupied? It is a
dichotomic process. We are within a certain historical stage of human
development; therefore in order to improve our society and to continue along
this path of social and economic achievement, we cannot live without
democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[1] Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Department of Sociology, tugrulk@vt.edu
[2] Fanon, Franz. Black Skin White Masks. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1967.
[3] TNC: Trans National Corporations
[4] Tocqueville, Alexis De, Democracy in America. New York, NY: Vintage
Books, 1990.