| |
View
Point Abid
Ullah Jan
The
New Meaning of Democracy
After
refusing to heed the voice of millions of anti-war protestors,
Bush came out with a vision of turning conquered Iraq into "a
model democracy." He said this would be "a lesson to
other American foes." (1) Note that he did not say other
anti-people dictatorships.
The more it is getting hard for Bush and Blair's to hide their
duplicity, the more it is getting interesting to analyse the recent
news reports. Latest statements from "democratic leaders"
about "Iraqi dictator" are basically blowing off the
American and British people as nothing more than a focus group
that they are not interested in listening to ("President
unbowed by protests," News, Feb. 19). Blair said that he
was proud to live in a democratic country that allowed people
to march for a cause. Just two days later the press blared: "Blair
to defy anti-war protests," (The Guardian, Feb. 17, 2003).
Specialists in letting the naked emperor believe that he is nicely
dressed were quick enough to call anti-war demonstrations "immoral,"(2)
and "irresponsibility and exhibitionism." (3) To change
the meaning of democracy, Washington Post (Feb. 23, 2003) came
out with an editorial "Democracy's Choices," whereby
it arms Bush and Blair with some circuitous arguments. Its editorialists
suggest that the "continuing dissent should not paralyze"
them. Instead, public demonstrations "should inspire President
Bush to make his case more clearly and strongly."
Opinion polls are now worthless. According to Washington Post,
"British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister
Jose Maria Aznar and their allies are the only one who have chosen
the toughest political act"; i.e., "looking past the
polls and reasserting their support for the United States."
'Ignore the people, support the US': this is the new standard
for democracy from now on.
The concept of democracy as a government of people, by the people,
for the people has fast turned into government of puppets, by
the puppets for the bullies in Washington. This is the basic principle
of the game for at least those who are out side the US. Within
the US, democracy means a powerful government that considers its
people's opinion precious till it comes to power. Their votes
are counted like diamonds. However, they are treated like sheep
when it comes to post-election opinion. They are no more than
a "crowd," as Thomas Sowell called them in his February
23 column in Washington Times. Washington Post also proudly applauds
Blair and Aznar, who "watched the protests that filled their
capitals last weekend, acknowledged the message, then called Mr.
Bush to say they would not back down before Saddam Hussein. Theirs
is a stand on principle…" (4) This is democracy.
John Reid, the Labour party chairman, took the marchers head on,
saying they recommended doing nothing other than sustaining a
status quo "under which there are people being murdered,
tortured and dying and starving". (5) Interestingly, none
of these leaders think the same for Palestine, where people are
butchered on daily basis to sustain occupation by a barbaric regime.
Blair cited atrocities committed by Saddam and warned of the potential
horrors if there were no war against Iraq. This argument is not
given for Israel. Perhaps because it is the kind of democracy
Bush and Blair want to impose on Iraq.
Some might consider February 15 a historic day for it gave birth
to global democracy with more than 10 million people expressing
their clear and concerted will in hundreds of cities on every
continent. In fact, this is the beginning of global tyranny and
the open promotion of local tyrannies for serving global Masters.
The experiment has begun with Afghanistan and is being tested
for further replication in Iraq.
People's will is no longer valuable. You can freely express your
views but in advanced "democracies," such as the US,
you may not even be allowed to march, or publish an anti-government
advertisement in the mainstream media. It doesn't matter if 85
percent of the public in Italy and other places oppose US policies;
it is fine as long as their Masters approve these them. Opinion
polls are no more political dynamite for the tyrants. Once upon
a time, they used to be so for the then democratic leadership.
Public opinion has now moved off the centre stage. It is no longer
a prime currency of power: Poll numbers in the political realm
are no more the equivalent of stock prices in the corporate realm.
The forces of tyranny have gone so strong that opinion polls are
no more like periodic off-year elections, which used to predict
the real elections. This trend is becoming more prominent in the
US, UK and their strong partners in dictatorship, such as Egypt
and Pakistan. Elsewhere, the signs of old, pro-people democracy
still exist. For example, Gerhard Schröder of Germany and
Roh Moo-hyun of South Korea won the leadership of their countries
on the basis of what their public actually wanted.
Let Bush and Blair give a new meaning to democracy. Let them impose
Karzai, Musharraf and Mubarak type of dictators around the world.
Let them fully support war, occupation and repression carried
out by democracies like Israel. The worldwide demonstrations are
an indicator of the kind of two world orders we are going to witness
in the near future. Labels and notions of democracy, or otherwise,
are irrelevant. The marchers have put faces on the numbers. Majorities
around the world have clearly rejected global tyranny. The marchers
who flung themselves into action clearly showed that threat to
Bush and Blair doesn't lie in Afghanistan or Iraq. The "World
of Disorder" they want to fight against doesn't lie outside
their borders.
Everyone marvelled at efficient coordination of nineteen men (US
official figures) who brought down WTC on September 11. On February
15, 10 million coordinated their actions. The world mastering
demi-gods neither marvelled, nor moved. This was, nevertheless
people's - not "terrorists" - response to global tyranny.
Rejecting it will have far more negative consequences than September
11. Unlike the geographic boundaries mentioned by Samuel P. Huntington
and Thomas Freidman, this thinking divides the world into the
real "world of order" and the "world of disorder."
The great majority have expressed their opinion to the policies
of regimes in London and Washington. Until the final clash between
the world of order and disorder in the near future, let the likes
of Bush and Blair and the elite Security Council denigrate "we
the people's" opposition as a "crowd." Let them
use the UN as an instrument of war, not peace. Let them wage another
war ignoring the reality that the calculus of their probable win
has radically altered. Before the 15th the war seemed a war on
a geographic location in the name of correcting a wrong. Now,
for the first time, it is evident that the "axis of evil"
has no boundaries and the global tyrannical designs respect no
bounds. Reaction and consequences of the coming war would be as
unanticipated and varied as the definition of democracy by Bush
and his Allies.
References.
1. Dana Milbank, " Bush: Iraq Can Be Lesson to U.S. Foes,"
Washington Post, Friday, February 21, 2003; Page A20.
2. Michael Kelly, "Immorality on the March," Washington
Post, Wednesday, February 19, 2003; Page A29
3. Thomas Sowell, "If crowds are to be our guide," Washington
Times, February 23, 2003.
4. Editorial, Washington Post, February 23, 2003.
5. Ewen MacAskill and Michael White, "Blair to defy anti-war
protests," The Guardian, Monday February 17, 2003.
|
|
