DOES UNIPOLARITY STILL EXIST?

(FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 11^TH JANUARY 2009)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador of Bangladesh)

Western analysts fear that    Samuel Huntington’s waves of democratization (first, second and third) and, perhaps,  premature declaration by Francis Fukuyama of the “end of history” in terms of human evolution of the most suitable form of government might have come to a halt due to democratic roll back in some parts of the world. Stanford University Professor  Larry Diamond finds signs of democratic recession in Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Venezuela, the Philippines and some countries of former Eastern Europe.  Though majority of the people still prefer democracy as the best form of government, substantial minorities in many countries entertain an authoritarian option. Though the reason for democratic recession is reportedly poor governance with everything it entails these analysts believe, the trend “is not an aberration….it is, as economists Douglas North, John Wallis and Barry Weingast have argued, a natural condition. The natural tendency of the elites has been to monopolize power (and) use their consolidated power to limit economic competition so as to generate profit that benefits them rather than society at large”. Warnings have been sounded against the “fallacy of electoralism” that provides only a façade of democracy where the people elected are unable/unwilling to meet the demands of the electorate and in the words of political scientist and Harvard Professor  Robert Putnam “political participation is mobilized from above, civic engagement is meager, compromise is scarce and nearly everyone feels powerless, exploited and unhappy”. Vertical accountability in the form of a genuine democratic election and horizontal accountability in the form of investment of power in independent agencies to monitor the conduct of their peers and the government are absent. Bangladesh   has proved to be an exception in the process of democratic recession. In South Asia Pakistan and Afghanistan are regarded as fragile democracies at risk of authoritarianism.

The question that arises in one’s mind is whether the countries accused of democratic rollback do not reflect American discomfort to live with nationalism of other countries while it is  comfortable with  giving space to “new sovereigntists” who would like to subordinate international laws to US domestic laws and who consider US sovereignty as illimitable and unbound. Though many countries in Africa do not present a picture of peace and tranquility; Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Vladimir Putin of Russia can only be accused of following policies independent of US dictates. Morally indefensible  US  veto in the UNSC trying to stop Israeli atrocities on unarmed people in Gaza and the US’ unilateral intervention in Iraq in the face of opposition of the UNSC reflected, in Michael Glenon’ opinion( of Fletcher School of Diplomacy) were due to the incompatibility  of the UN to function according to the shift in world power as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet empire that effectively established unipolar moment for the US. One, therefore, has to take with a grain of salt list of countries claimed to be at risk of falling into the lap of authoritarianism.

Besides it is debatable whether one should not  consider   the  essentialist construction of the people and the religion of Islam dominant in Western academic orthodoxy is  not   grossly distorted, because of some  deviants’  grotesque interpretation of the religion   posing serious threat not only to the West but also to developing countries regardless of religious faith practiced by them. Terrorism is unlikely to bring about Islamic renaissance.  Instead efforts should be directed towards achieving “global civic ethics”   that derives from the principle that all people are bound together morally regardless of their distinctive culture and identity. If it is recognized that human security is central to global peace then a government’s right to rule must be weighed against its people’s right to security. In cases if it is found that people’s security is being threatened under the cloak of religious activism then the state should assume its responsibility to put ban on such religious activism which incipiently tries to crawl towards staging a so-called Islamic Free Election Trap to stage a coup to establish a theocratic state.

The state’s responsibility becomes more acute as  religion based politics generates fear among minority communities the protection of whom has been pledged by all civilized countries both in their domestic law and international commitment.  The 1972 Bangladesh Constitution did provide for such a ban. The post-1975 conservative establishments amended the Constitution once in 1977 and again in 1988 by passing the 8^th amendment making Islam the state religion. Additionally the Vested (Enemy) Property Act enacted during Pakistani rule through which 2.1 million acres of Hindu owned land were confiscated.  It has been  alleged that Jamat-e-Islami had funneled more than one crore taka to the Taliban after the US attacked Afghanistan in 2001; that al-Qaida through Jamat-e-Islami had engaged many militant Bangladeshis to wage war in Afghanistan against NATO forces; that Jamat-e-Islami shelters at least sixteen radical groups in the country committed to establish Taliban like Islamist regime in Bangladesh.    In the ultimate analysis  one hopes that inter-faith dialogue becomes an essential part of global discourse and Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations does not  continue to chart the relations between the First and the Third world.