Feb 2003

Western Democracy: Sham or Real?

A perspective from the Indian Subcontinent

The weekend of Feb 14, 2003 saw an unprecedented array of humanity rallying against the unrelenting war cries emanating from Washington and London. Upwards of 10 million people marched on the streets in over 600 cities across the world. And most significantly, the most impressive displays of public resistance to a potential carpet-bombing and military occupation of Iraq occurred in the nations where the political leadership has most aggressively supported the US war strategy. It was in Rome, London, Barcelona, Madrid, Melbourne and Sydney where enormous demonstrations sent a very clear message: that the hawkishly pro-US policies of the governments of Britain, Australia, Spain and Italy have no popular mandate, and that the people of these nations are passionately opposed to further military actions against the beleaguered people of Iraq.

Poll after poll have shown that a majority of the people in Europe and other nations closely aligned with the US oppose war. In many European and other nations, opposition runs as high as 80-90%, with 60% or more indicating that they would be opposed to war even if the Security Council caved in to US pressure and passed a war-resolution. In France, as many as 80% wish their government to exercise France's veto against any resolution advocating war.

Peace-loving people throughout the world can take great comfort from millions of good people who took a stand against the further decimation of Iraq. In inspiring and awesome displays of humanitarian concern, the people of several European and other nations sent a message that their political leaders were isolated in their pro-war positions. Roughly 2 million in Rome, 1.5 million in London, 1.3 million in Barcelona, .7 million in Madrid, .5 million in Sydney, Melbourne and other Australian cities took a stand opposing their pro-war governments. Several hundreds of thousands also protested in New York, San Francisco and several other cities in the US.

But the astounding thing is that none of these governments have yet been moved by this phenomenal extent of public opposition. In India, if similar percentages of the people were to take the streets, it could lead to a political earthquake. It would be inconceivable that any Indian government could last in the face of such opposition without a change in policy. But in these supposedly great centers of "Western Civilization", not only are the top politicians unmoved, they continue with their aggressive war rhetoric.

Whereas the polls indicate that opposition to war in most countries in Europe is quite similar to the opposition to war in India (where over 80% are opposed to war) the stands taken by the governments are remarkably different.

That millions of people have been able to transcend the unremitting war-propaganda of the media outlets owned and controlled by the war-barons is a great feat in and of itself. But that this spectacular display of humanitarian will might lead to so little apparent change in the stance of the concerned governments ought to come as a great shock and disappointment to those who truly believed in "Western Democracy".

Surely democracy is more than just the right to cast a ballot every few years? Democracy in its real essence requires not only that people have the right to elect their own representatives, but also that their representatives reflect their views and desires when in government. In situations where the political representatives willfully defy the will of the people - especially in a matter that concerns the very survival of millions of people on the planet, the people ought to have the right to replace such deviant representatives. The right to immediate recall of wayward representatives ought to be an essential feature of any real democracy. Either the political representatives should change their policies to reflect public will, or else they must resign or be forced out of office.

If millions of people can march on the streets with so little concrete political impact, then one must ask the question, how truly democratic are these so-called Western "liberal" societies? Are Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi and Howard elected leaders or elected tyrants and despots? Are they leaders of genuinely sovereign nations, or merely elected governor-generals of US satellite states?

With what face can any of these duplicitious politicians judge the rule of the Baath Party in Iraq when they themselves are so out of step with the people they claim to represent? With what face can such political figures lecture to the rest of the world about "human rights" and "democracy" when they seem to have so little respect for the views and sentiments of the very people that put them in office?

Of course, Indians knowledgeable about colonial history need not be too surprised. For instance, all through colonial rule, the British Labor Party was no less an abettor of the colonial agenda than the Tories or the British Royalty. Colonial rule was made palatable to the British public through a cynical process of lies and deception that made it seem as though colonization was a "benevolent" process, something that the British "owed" the people of India (and other colonies) so as to save them from their own "backwardness" and the "tyranny" of their local "despots". Colonization was presented as this "noble mission" that would "liberate" and "rescue" the Indian "natives" from "centuries of stagnation and socio-economic poverty and decay" and bring India rapidly into the "modern world". Colonial rule was frequently presented as a great "moral and ethical" imperative to more skeptical Britishers.

Of course, the reality of colonization was quite different. Prior to colonization, India ranked with the richest nations on the planet where even the poorest did not go hungry; but after two centuries of colonial rape and plunder, India became a nation of beggars - where almost 75% were chronically malnourished or underfed, where literacy had shrunk to an abysmal 11%, where life expectancy was an appalling 31 years, and where India's medieval towns and industry had been virtually all destroyed. India's very spirit and cultural exuberance had been crushed, and the economy had stagnated for two centuries. Yet, many of the colonial lies persisted in the consciousness of the European intelligentsia, particularly in London, the epicenter of colonial imperialism.

In an era where communication between the Indian and British masses was virtually non-existent and only took place through colonial intermediaries, it is not surprising that opposition to colonization was so difficult to muster. But certain technological transformations have now made it possible for sections of the masses in Europe and the US and it's other allies to become more aware of the truth. So even as Bush and Blair continue to mouth off statements that seem to be more reminiscent of the old colonial era, millions of people throughout the world have been unmoved by the slanderous propaganda and pro-war fabrications of the new colonizers.

As more and more people become aware that it is the policies of the US and its allies that have destroyed the living standards of the Iraqi people, the idea that more bombing and military occupation could somehow "liberate" the Iraqi people seems utterly preposterous and absurd. It is clearly much harder to hoodwink the majority of the people and have them meekly line up behind another bloody military adventure.

Nevertheless, even as one can take great comfort from the heroic accomplishments of the Peace Movements in the Western nations, the slogans and consciousness of anti-war protestors in cities such as London will have to advance considerably. One can only hope that the most advanced political forces in the Western nations will use this historical opportunity to educate the masses about the limitations and inadequacy of Western democracy. Perhaps activists will be able to talk about the plutocratic nature of these Western governments, about their long history of pillage and plunder throughout the world.

And perhaps the most powerful slogans of the next major anti-war demonstrations will be "Regime Change" - not in Baghdad - (which is something for the Iraqi people alone to determine), but right in Washington, London, Madrid, Rome, Canberra and other pro-war European capitals.

The most advanced citizens of the US and its allies are already raising such slogans. If the world is to ever become truly democratic, then the first step must be to remove all the wicked war-mongers from office, and put in place new political representatives that truly reflects the democratic will of the peace-loving people of the planet.

No nation can pretend to don the "democratic" mantle when it can't even learn to respect the sovereign rights of other nations, when its leaders arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to wage preemptive wars against nations that have already fallen prey to intrusive external control.

The Iraqis have been smarting for over a decade in a vicious regime of economic sanctions and almost daily bombings in the arbitrarily imposed no-fly zones. In the last decade, the government of Iraq has been making an effort to mend fences with all of its neighbours. If Iraq were any real threat to its neighbours, then the task of keeping regional peace ought to rest with the regional governments - such as Turkey, Syria and Iran, and other neighbours of Iraq. But excepting Kuwait, all of Iraq's neighbours are pleading for peace. In such circumstances, not only are calls for war utterly disrespectful of Iraqi sovereignty, but disrespectful of the sovereignty of Iraq's neighbours as well.

The oppressed people of the region are naturally heartened and encouraged by the growing breadth of the anti-war movement. Hopefully, it will mature to the point where it can not only stop this war, but also demand that the US and its allies keep their troops home. In addition, it must insist upon the recall of elected representatives who refuse to heed the call of the masses.

In the last decade, billions of dollars in taxes from the citizens of the Western world have paid for a series of unjust wars. It is high time that this colossal misallocation of resources be stopped, and redirected towards eliminating hunger, disease, homelessness and illiteracy that plague the poorest of the poor throughout the planet. Working for peace and progress ought to be the hallmarks of genuinely democratic societies, not the conduct of unjust wars of colonial conquest and exploitation.

Also see: How should the world's peoples respond to US aggression against Iraq ?