Liberalization is Not the Sure Path to Democracy
Nassim Daher Al-Hayat - 21/06/06//
A Davos World Economic Forum meeting was held recently in Egypt's Sharm El-Sheikh resort, a move that by itself holds many important connotations. The meeting was held, after all, in a place repeatedly hit by terrorism. Another indicator was the broad level of Arab participation this time round in its deliberations.
It is no secret that the accelerating pace of globalization in all walks of life has come to dominate the agenda of the Davos Forum since it first began, and which has now reached the ripe age of 3 decades. This agenda reflects the concerns of the member states and the concerned economic parties, with the meeting becoming a seasonal station for tracking the latest developments and transformations. The meetings afford them the opportunity to monitor the latest debates, deliberations and directions of the various concerned parties concerning the global economy.
The Arab participants, for their part, conveyed the realities of their troubling situation to the Davos members. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, as the saying goes. All the research reports and the reality on the ground testify to the fact that the Arabs are on the margins of the margins of the scientific and technological revolutions going on around them, not to mention their embarrassing position as regards setting free the forces of democracy to break the bonds that hold back their societies from reaching the shoreline of modernity. Most likely they are still incapable of looking at themselves in the mirror, confronting themselves, all their structural flaws and the tremendous chasm that prevents them from catching up with the rest of the world that is zooming away. Not surprisingly, then, the Arab response is in line with what we have come to expect; that is, beating round the bush instead of going to the heart of the matter. And beware of any genuine criticism that hits rock bottom lest this anger the international decision-makers and the major investors.
The causes of Arabic indignation lie in the conduct of the major powers, the proverbial locomotive of the international institutions and the decisions taken by the widest spectrum of the Northern states. The almighty dollar monopolizes the lion's share of international transactions, taking up to around 70%, while the New York stock market alone equals twice the rest of the other world's bourses put together. In other words, the United States is still the primary destination for the world's goods and capital while Washington, D.C. is the centre for the formation of international decision-making. For their part New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston are the global trend-setters. Individually or collectively these cities determine in the near future everything from know-how, to technologies, research, commodity lines, the flow of primary products, the metal market, the media and entertainment industries, modern services and consumer fashions.
The Arabs, for their part, as in previous sessions of the Davos Forum, took up political and economic issues from the perspective of the worn-out Arab-Israeli conflict. This was in addition to other pressing issues, of course, such as the need for development, combating terrorism and, last but not least, reform and democratization. On each of these topics the Arab contribution was in the form of apologetics that could always be boiled down to the need for cautious gradualism, with a special emphasis on beseeching foreign parties to give them more and more time. Thanks to this, the conviction has emerged that the Arabs are only concerned with running away from decisive action and holding the stick from the middle, that is, wobbling around while staying put and exaggerating the measures taken in answer to the international environment.
At first sight, it may be understood that Arab neutrality over confronting the essential problems facing the 'globalized village' means that the Arabs have no voice in determining the fate of the world, except of course when it comes to oil and energy provision, that is. After all, in spite of official pronouncements about the strategic locations of the region, the threat to our identity and the verbal warnings about foreign powers frothing at the mouth because of our raw materials and markets, all the statistics say otherwise. To cite international documents of repute, we are falling behind on almost every measure, whether social, political or in terms of international cooperation, to say nothing of science and creativity. And Arab weakness has reached its precipice with the near total inability of the Arabs to contain internal and regional crises. We can see this in torn Iraq and in Darfur in Sudan, through to the Palestinian tragedy which is now being driven by internal squabbles and antagonisms. Just look at the deteriorating state of Lebanese-Syrian relations which are governed by the no longer concealed authoritarian instincts of Damascus.
From a broader perspective, we see that the Arabs are imitating the ostrich, burying their heads in the sand in the face of all these mounting dangers. On the topic of the Iranian nuclear program, for instance, we see a vague and deliberately ambiguous Arab stance, even though we are the ones immediately concerned with its short and long-run consequences. Washing our hands of the responsibility of such a fateful issue, one that could determine the future balance of power in the region, is tantamount to retiring from the burdens of responsibility. Running after the coat tails of the major powers will only lead to further marginalization and shedding tears on our lost role. Pumping more oil into the world economy, as important as oil is, will not stabilize the situation because we are providing a strategic while leaving all the strategic decisions over our festering issues to the major states which import this oil.
A clarification must be made before we can proceed, one that will disjoin issues that have been falsely and deliberately confused. This procedure is necessary when it comes to this particular issue, democracy and how one institutionalizes it. That is, democracy is not the same thing as liberalism or liberalization.
Making one synonymous with the other is an affliction we must correct. We must break this false equation because, in terms of definition and practice, the two terms are related but not coequal to each other. Democracy is a political and societal principle centered round societal participation, and can be measured as on the rise or in decline on that basis. This is why schools of economic thought compete in democracies to insure these objectives in the context of any given economic system in any space-time locale.
Liberalization, on the other hand, is economic in content and objectives. It has had a historical contribution to politics, but this has unfortunately transformed itself into a conviction that liberalization is the ideal path to achieving democracy. This monopolization of the democratic discourse is unacceptable. It is one leg on which democracy stands, nothing more and nothing less, and know ups and downs in its history, even in inveterate democratic states.
The pioneers of democracy are diverse and belong to a mixed bag of allegiances, and it is an inexcusable mistake to squeeze them all into the liberalizing fold. Many came from a labor activist background while others were the result of clerical reform and social emancipation. Many specifically came from a socialist background or joined national liberation movements. From this we can decide how synonymous the twin concepts of liberalization and democracy are and from here we can expose Arab claims that confuse the two. Such calls are made out of deference to the conservative circles in the current American administration, specifically to camouflage the shortfall in true societal democracy in the Arab states.
The Arab libertarians are desperately trying to snatch democracy from within the folds of liberalism, basing themselves on an interpretation that is partly correct. But a more rounded account would note how they fail to extend their onslaught to the guardians of their regimes. Instead, they beautify the images of these regimes by focusing much on liberalizing the economy and individual freedom as a forerunner to that. They justify this with reference to the priority of attracting investors by setting up a stable climate, taking a patriarchal approach to solving societal squabbles and creating societal peace. This is a forced tranquility that actually restricts freedoms and takes a paternalistic approach on the basis of maintaining the reverence of the state. As a result, extremism finds fertile ground where political liberalism makes the institutions of state a mere skeleton of democracy minus its substance.
The central flaw in the liberalist claim lies in the mirage of abbreviated routes and applying principles isolated from their surrounding comprehensive environment. And they go about this in a very elitist, experimental way, negligent of the social structures and relations and the nature of authority.
Consequently, this approach invokes importing ideas and practices that have little appreciation here among the workers and popular sentiments. Such methods are looked at as ready-made solutions that are blissfully unaware of the nature of social oppression and income disparity, standards of living, education and downright theft of rights, in comparison to what is the order of the day in capitalist countries.
There is little doubt that the political orders here can absorb an injection or two of economic liberalization, just as the current regimes have been able to embroil themselves in the international security order and its political demands under the banner of 'democratization'. We saw this in Sharm El-Sheikh, were minimal costs were paid by the Arab states, and carefully calculated ones at that, with a reserve arsenal of executive measures against those reformers who overstep the line. In line with our awareness of the true nature of what is going on, and how reform has lost its compass, we absolutely have to disassociate liberalization from democracy and return things to their true origin. The proper solution comes under the title of democracy, the be-all and end-all of what we crave, the approach and the objective. Within the democratic fold can live and prosper many ideological children who all believe in pluralism. This is true democracy and the best that can be done to ensure its persistence and security. This is the true test of the current regimes and here is the true opportunity for change. That is, admitting that democracy is conditional on plurality and the creative divergence of opinion. This will make others respect us and open up the reservoirs of energy lying dormant in our societies, allowing us to pick and choose the best of the many good options on offer to us.
ِA Lebanese writer
|
