PREVENTING   “DEMOCRATIC ROLLBACK”

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

There is a fear in some quarters that the Samuel Huntington’s wave of democratization (first, second and third) heralded at different times of history that presumably led to a premature declaration by Francis Fukuyama of the “end of history” in terms of human evolution of the most suitable form of government may has come to a halt due a democratic roll back as parts of the world is believed to be sinking into democratic recession. Political analyst Larry Diamond finds signs of such recession in Nigeria, Russia, Thailand, Venezuela, the Philippines and some countries of former Eastern Europe that was credited with giving the world with the third wave of democratization. Though majority of the people in countries still prefer democracy as the best form of government, substantial minorities in many countries entertain an authoritarian option. Latinobarometro, an organization that monitors popular mood in Latin America,  have found that that only one fifth of the Latin Americans trusts political parties, one quarter trusts legislatures, and a similar number has faith in the judiciary. Figures collected by Scotland-based New Democratic based Barometer of the former Ease European countries tell of sadder tale. The reason for democratic recession is poor governance with everything it entails. The problem of these predatory states is that mal-governance “is not an aberration….it is, as economists Douglas North, John Wallis and Barry Weingast has 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 benefit 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 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, despite the warning of the Brussels based International Crisis Group that “even a successful election will only be an initial step to developing a more effective democracy in Bangladesh”, has proved to be an exception in the ongoing process of democratic recession one apprehends in Latin America, Russia, some parts of former Eastern Europe, and in Pakistan and Afghanistan in South Asia. Pakistan’s denial mood about Mumbai terrorists’ onslaught in the face of overwhelming proof that the terrorism was plotted and executed from the territory of Pakistan and the sophistication displayed during the execution of the heinous acts could only be done by people well versed in counter-terrorism displays that unfortunately even after the defeat of quasi-military regime at the hands of political parties in a democratic election displays the country’s inability as yet of being free from the overwhelming influence of extra-democratic actors.

In analyzing the trend of democratic recession, Bangladesh being the  most recent example of  bucking the trend, one has to give credence to the  essentialist construction of the people and the religion of Islam dominant in Western academic orthodoxy  Islam may not be  grossly distorted, because of some Muslim  deviants’  immersion in their own grotesque interpretation of the religion do pose serious threat not only to the West but also to developing countries regardless of religious faith practiced by them. For the Muslim world time is past  to hold on to tortured nationalism by blaming the West for failing to seize the moment when Western technology was on its way to irreversibly change the contours of global civilization. It is past time for the Islamic world to clean up the Augean Stable, get its act together and unite with the West and others to fight the common enemy—terrorism. Islamic renaissance is unlikely to emerge from the ashes of the destructive acts of Osama bin Laden. Efforts should be directed towards achieving “global civic ethics” reflective of Immanuel Kant’s theory of “universal moral community” 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.

 Global discomfort is evident these days over overt preeminence of religion in politics in some countries constituting an interruption on  an otherwise sequential historical progress of the world towards Francis Fukuyama’s liberal democracy constituting the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of government” and as such signaling the “end of history”. But Fukuyama himself has conceded that “one is inclined to say that the revival of religion in some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerists’ societies”.

 After Afghanistan, Islamic fundamentalism went global with its appeal to a section of Muslim society based on moral, cultural and political grounds. The Islamists argue that Western culture particularly the one related to Western women is essentially degenerative and incompatible with Quranic literalism. They argue that the values propagated by the West threaten Islamic purity and hence their advance is to be thwarted at any cost. Political argument is by far the easiest to sell to the wayward Muslim population who despite declaration of piety could have nursed in the darkest corner of their heart a desire to commit the original sin. The Islamists argue that the reasons for economic backwardness, political repression and societal dysfunction were caused by Western, particularly American assistance given to the repressive regimes in the Muslim world. So terrorists face little problem in becoming an ideologue of hatred to marginalized Muslims living at the fringe of an often affluent society. In his Knights under the Prophet’s Banner, a manifesto on jihad, Osama bin Laden’s deputy al-Zawahiri explains that it is legitimate to strike Western population, not just their governments and institutions, because they “only know the language of self-interest, backed by brute military force”. The problems faced by the Islamic secular movements have been compounded by the iconic presence of Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis in literatures trying to explain the democratic deficit generally suffered by the Muslim world. To Huntington in Islam God is Caesar, in Confucianism Caesar is God, and in European Orthodox Christianity God is Caesar’s junior partner. Unhesitatingly Huntington declares: “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam”. Historian Bernard Lewis saw the clash of civilizations earlier than Huntington and  perceived Muslim world’s “downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression” being caused by the Islamic world’s defeat at the hands of Judeo-Christian civilizations. But in this sweeping critique of Islam Lewis and others had forgotten that refusal of Western hegemony does not necessarily mean wholesale abandonment of Western values.  One can discern a different strand of thought as in Professor Robert Hefner’s assertion that there is no clash of civilizations between Islamic and Christian world and the really decisive battle is being waged within the Muslim civilization where ultra-conservatives are competing with the moderates and democrats for the soul of Islam. In understanding the intensity of the battle it is necessary to distinguish between neo-fundamentalists with transnational reach and secular Islam which believes in the subordination of religion to the state.

 An inconclusive debate remains about the incompatibility of democracy with monotheistic religions. Robert Dahl in his classic book Polyarchy had set eight essential requirements for democracy.  Other political scientists have added that democracy must also have a constitution that by itself is democratic in that it respects fundamental liberties and offers protection to minorities. Additionally democratically elected governments must rule within the confines of their constitutions, be bound by law and be accountable. From historical observations it has been found that religions place inherent obstacles in the way of democracy. Philosopher John Rawls found it particularly difficulty in a pluralistic society in which citizens hold a variety of socially embedded, reasonable yet deeply opposed comprehensive doctrines to arrive at an overlapping consensus. In the case of Islam some Western scholars have found that because of fusion of military and spiritual authority and because Quranic laws are deemed to be final the space for democratic debate for the formation of secular laws does not exist in Muslim societies. Some other scholars however have found that appropriation of political Islam by Islamic fundamentalists is untenable and millions of Muslims living outside the Arab world living in intermittent democracies would be unwilling to  become victims of so-called Islamic Free Election Trap in which fundamentalists use democratic means to get to power only to abolish democratic practices through legislation.

This accords with the views of  Dr. Peter Warren Singer (of Brookings Institution) that at broader levels the US and the Islamic world stand at a point of historic and dangerous crises as American description of the “war on terror” is broadly interpreted as the “war on Islam” by much of the world’s Muslim community. Singer is uncomfortable with Bernard Lewis’ deterministic view point that Islam as a doctrine rejects modernity and is thus placed in a “millennial rivalry” with the Judeo-Christian West. In Lewis’ monolithic analysis of Islam (the terms Arab and Muslim have been frequently interchanged in the analysis) runs the risk of committing the mistake made by McCarthyism of misdiagnosis of the “red menace” rolled into Soviet Union, China and Third World into one monolithic and inseparable structure.

Democracy is a dynamic process, it is evolving and is to yet to reach Francis Fukuyama’s “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and as such constituting the “end of history”.   According to German philosopher Jurgen Habermas a state’s raison d’etre does not lie in the protection of equal individual rights  but in the guarantee of an inclusive process of opinion and will formation in which free and equal citizens reach an under standing on which goals and norms lie in the equal interest of all.     Clearly then an ethical question would arise as perceived by Italian political scientist Luigi Bonante while discussing the difference between the individual and the state. He argues that while the state has sufficient tools to defend its rights and reject its duties; for the individual as recipient it is much harder to elude his duties than to achieve his freedom. This asymmetry provides strong argument for the protection of human rights. The  increasing activism of Islamists who wish to recreate a truly Islamic society not simply by imposing the sharia but by establishing an Islamic state where religious edicts will be integrated into all aspects of society has direct implications on David Held’s ( of London School of Economics) assertion that we no longer live in a world of discrete national communities but in a world of “ overlapping communities of fate”; then the Muslims in Bangladesh do not constitute the majority community as they are surrounded by Hindu majority India and Buddhist majority Myanmar and in the vicinity by non-Muslim South East and Far East Asian countries. 

In the ultimate analysis it would be prudent to put an end to wars of religion and direct our energy in facing the economic challenges of this century, particularly by the developing countries, striving to give a better life to the teeming millions.