Liberal Democracy as a Dictatorship of Minorities

 Making sense of the direction of the evolution of societies has always been a challenge among philosophers and social scientists alike. Before tackling the subject of liberal democracy, viewed here as a dictatorship of minorities, it is fair to say that so far, we do not possess a clear understanding of where societies are heading. 

In the 19th century, German philosopher Hegel proclaimed the "end of history". Closer to our time, Francis Fukuyama announced his own "end of history", which he believed to be characterized by the worldwide triumph of liberal democracy .

Although after 1989 the number of democracies surpassed other types of political systems (authoritarian, communist) for the first time in history, the fact is that today the majority of them are not liberal, but electoral democracies, as Dani Rodrik has pointed out in a recent study.

For any democracy - whether liberal or electoral - to function, however, a compromise between its players should be reached, that protects the rights of minorities, as well as those of the majority.

As opposed to electoral democracies, which are biased towards protecting the political rights of the majority of their citizens, liberal democracies are biased towards protecting and enlarging the rights of minorities within a given society. 

Rare as they are, liberal democracies appeared in the West in a specific context in which the owners of capital - or "the rich" - had succeeded in gaining or retaining political power with the support of a limited number of voters. Thus in 19th century France, after 2 revolutions (1789 and 1830) only citizens who earned a certain amount of money were allowed to vote. They made up about 1 percent of the country's population. The rest of the citizens, as advised by prime minister Guizot at the time, had "to get rich first" if they wanted to participate in the political life of the country. 

By restricting the right to vote through a variety of methods, the nascent elites of Western liberal democracies were thus able to deny political rights to the many for a long time, as well as to avoid any responsibility for the social havoc that capitalist development played during the first century or so of its existence.

Gradually, especially after the first world war, liberal elites were forced to concede voting rights and participation in political decisionmaking to the majority of the population, including women.

For a few decades after the second world war, the balance of power inside most Western nations shifted in favour of majorities, whose working and living conditions improved dramatically. Politicians representing voter majorities were then able to impose heavy taxes on the profits of the rich, sometimes as high as 90 percent, where there were none at the beginning of the 20th century.

The rich minorities' reaction was slow in coming but, through its consequences, it had devastating effects on the living standards of the majority of voters in Western nations. Through the adoption and promotion of neoliberal economic policies pioneered by Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US, the "1 percent" minority in society were able to reverse earlier policies of high taxation and, during the following decades, to diminish taxes back to levels unseen since the early 1900s.

It is fair to say at this point that if such a trend continues unchecked, Western business elites will end up paying no tax at all.
To achieve such an objective, the rich minority employed a variety of electoral tactics as well. First and foremost, they coopted all the leaders of mainstream (or majority) political parties and turned them against their own constituents (Clinton and Blair are the first to spring to mind here).

Second, they have all but destroyed the trade union movement in the West, which was the backbone of the political parties of the left and instrumental in obtaining favourable compensation for labour from the owners of capital.

The third and most peculiar way of advancing the political agenda of the rich minority has been by joining forces with leaders of other minorities, who had hitherto faced discrimination by majorities. Think here the LGBT community, some albeit not all ethnic minorities, and women.

If towards the end of the 20th century the rich minority exercised its control and promoted its agenda via the outright purchase of mainstream politicians on both sides of the political isle, over the last decades we observe a tendency to promote to power leaders who are either childless (think here Merkel or Juncker); who belong to the LGBT community (like in Serbia or Luxemburg); members of the billionnaire elite (Berlusconi, Trump); or selected members of ethnic minorities. Together, these minorities can display signs of becoming quite dictatorial when their agenda is challenged by majorities, prompting some to call this phase in the evolution of liberal democracies "totalitarian capitalism".

In hindsight, it should be admitted that majoritary democracies have historically been less than tolerant of the rich or the LGBT minority. Until a few decades ago, homosexuality was shunned in most Western countries and on occasion, its members were under threat of being prosecuted and imprisoned. Similarly, the heavy burden of taxation imposed on the rich minority during the '50s, 60s and 70s could be construed as more of a penalty of being wealthy than as a truly fair level of taxation. No wonder such policies bonded the members of these minorities together and determined them to use any means at their disposal - primarily money - to keep majorities in check and out of power.

The fight between these minorities and the majority has now spilled out into the streets, as the main institutions in our democracies, including parliaments, have ceased to work as they were supposed to. Far from liberal democracy  becoming the norm in the world, what we are witnessing these days is the withering away of established liberal democracies. Even in the West, the latter  are being replaced, one after the other, by electoral democracies catering to the rights of the majority. Repeatedly labeled "populists" or "illiberal" , the new breed of politicians spearheading this movement is here to stay and to expand both influence and power.

This time around as society evolves however, majorities should strike the right balance. As they restart making gains in prominence and power, they should avoid imposing punitive taxation levels on the rich, or promote anti-LGBT legislation, cater to racists and so on. After all, the rise of the neoliberal breed of leaders was a consequence of the errors made in the past by the politicians representing the majority of voters in Western societies.

Turkey Still a Model for Arab Youth

October 12, 2015

Saturday’s horrific terrorist attack in Ankara where more than 100 people lost their lives brings to mind similar gruesome deeds, from New York in 2001 or London in 2007. The similarities between these events, unfortunately, end with the casualties. In Turkey, the opposition -in a rather desperate bid to thwart Erdogan’s party’s re-election chances- took to the streets rallying against the government. This is unfortunate because normally, in times like these, political parties and the population rally behind the government of the day in a show of solidarity.

For democracy to flourish, it is not enough to have free and fair elections and respect for the rule of law. A necessary ingredient of any functional democracy is a measure of respect between the party (or parties) in power and the opposition. Sadly, this basic respect among political leaders and parties competing for power seems to be lacking in Turkey. In the past three years this appears to be the main reason why elections have taken place in a very tense atmosphere, made worse by vicious attacks, slander and unethical political bickering.

There is one essential aspect, however, that has escaped the attention of the Turkish opposition, blinded by hate as it is against Erdogan’s AK Party. Arab youth, who are yet to see positive changes in their societies following the Arab revolutions, still regard the Turkish brand of Islamic democracy as a model to be emulated. In a recent book about their aspirations, Ms. Bessma Momani -a renowned Arab-Canadian scholar and political scientist- wrote that

“Some Turks don’t want to hear this but there is a Turkish model in the Arab world. Some countries may find that Turkey’s involvement in the Syrian war has given the model a negative perspective but overall throughout the Arab Spring and even before there was a very positive view. What is the Turkish model? It’s to create a society that is economically growing with lots of opportunities. It’s a place that allows for Islam in daily life. As much as secularists might have a hard time seeing this, they do appreciate the idea that a Muslim party has an opportunity to compete. They view the Turkish model as positive and I think sometimes they are critical of Turkish actions with respect to Syria but I think if you take out the geopolitics, overall, Turkey as an economic model is very high. People still look up to it as an example.” (Source: Hurriyet)

Since 1998, I am one of the few European historians to have supported the idea of an Islamic party in power in Turkey. In doing so, I fully realize that my professional views are at odds with the beliefs of most EU political leaders and mainstream intellectuals, many of whom are blinded by secularism and could not foresee the rise of political Islam. It is not entirely by accident, therefore, that four years after graduating in geopolitics and international relations with excellent results from Sciences po Toulouse, I am still without a suitable job. The truth remains, however, that AKP’s many achievements, especially in the economic sphere, are substantial and its leaders’ performance in office should also be recognized as such by EU leaders and Turkish opposition alike.

EU Decision-making: Going the Wrong Way About It

 

January 31, 2012

We’re heading towards a Soviet-style union run by a Politburo made up of national political leaders uninterested in consulting the European Parliament on important decisions affecting our lives.

Whilst in Brussels where the EU heads of government were busily hammering out measures aimed at solving the euro-crisis, Martin Schulz held his first speech as President of the European Parliament. He rightfully incriminated the cumbersome and un-democratic way EU political leaders make decisions bearing on the future of Europe’s almost half a billion citizens. To be sure, the EU is not a fully functioning union yet and the fiscal arrangements concluded on January 30th only serve to reinforce this.

As Martin Schulz has complained, the European Parliament is rarely consulted before a vital, Europe-wide decision is made. Indeed, it seems national leaders act as a veritable Soviet-style Politburo. The German chancellor, like Russia’s leaders had within the Soviet federation, is increasingly able to railroad the other national leaders into agreeing to policies that will ultimately bring about… the unravelling of this union, as well. We have been used to comparing Germany to the other exporting powerhouse, China. So why compare it to Russia now? To their credit, the Chinese are pouring tens of billions of dollars into infrastructure projects within their ASEAN neighbourhood every year, sometimes without even being asked. Moreover, they are buying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of US treasury bonds, only to keep their business partner afloat and able to buy Chinese goods. Would anyone see the Germans doing likewise ? Not unless they really had to, and then on condition they get to take over the fiscal management of the country in need of assistance.

Look no further than the adoption of the so-called «golden rule», as a panacea for solving the sovereign debt crisis and so much more (!). Unfortunately, however, most of the countries that were forced to adopt austerity measures aimed at balancing their budgets have been beset by huge social turmoil, du jamais-vu in post-war Europe. To the current leaders who met in Brussels on Monday, warnings constantly issued by Nobel prize laureates like Joseph Stiglitz or leading economists like Martin Feldstein seem to matter little, if at all. If the trend continues, I sincerely wonder who is going to be left with enough funds to buy German cars and German machine tools around here… As Christine Lagarde has courteously reminded her German hosts recently, for every surplus country like Germany, there have to be a number of deficit countries left, in order to absorb its exports. There’s simply no other way about it. This is why the «golden rule» can only have a boomerang effect on the German economy, but to people affected by political myopia, that, of course, is no valid reason to desist.

And what if the European Parliament, since the spring of 2011, was in favour of the introduction of eurobonds? Nobody has invited its representatives to have a say at the summits where such decisions are taken. Let’s face it: for complex issues, inter-governmentalism as a decision-making mechanism has proven highly detrimental to the running of the Union’s affairs. More often than not, the Commission and the European Parliament look on as powerless spectators of the ongoing series of policy blunders which, instead of solving the crisis, aggravate it.

Whilst national governments are being constrained to stop much-needed investments in infrastructure and other projects, the European Commission is supposed to pick up the slack and spend some 82 billion euros on regional projects in order to kickstart growth. Now, if anyone believes that this sum is going to make a significant dent in the continent’s unemployment, good luck to them. Sure, as Martin Schulz has observed, the adoption of a 0.05% financial transactions tax would bolster the EU’s budget by 200 billion euros per year, but who listens to Euro-parliamentarians ? As in the illustrious Soviet example, apparently nobody…

Author : Spotlight on Geopolitics
 Print

External Relations  , E.U., euro

A Beacon of Islamic Democracy

 June 15, 2011

When it comes to geopolitics, few major shifts are more important than the emergence of an Islamic democracy in Turkey. Long resisted by the Turkish military and its western allies, the accession to power of Erdogan’s AKP party in 2002 has provoked major changes for the better in Turkey’s economic performance, institutional architecture and foreign policy orientations.

For the first time since 1946 – the date a democracy of sorts was inaugurated – a political party has succeeded in securing a third consecutive mandate, bringing much-needed political stability to a crisis-prone Turkey. As a result of the June 12 elections, Erdogan’s party has obtained a solid 49.9 percent of the votes. The electoral score reflects not only the recognition of the government’s achievements in social and economic terms, but is interpreted by many as a mandate for further reforming Turkey’s outdated 1982 constitution.

Back in the ’90’s, I was unfortunately alone in publicly supporting the Turkish Islamic politicians in their quest to form a government. In the wake of the Iranian revolution, most western specialists feared that such an occurrence would shift Turkey’s allegiance from NATO to the Iranian camp, which currently enlists countries such as Lebanon. Turkey’s evolution in the past decade proves, however, that an authentic Islamic democracy is both possible and potentially beneficial. For the first time in decades, countries like Greece or Armenia have nothing to fear from their militarily powerful neighbour, whose foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu inaugurated a “zero problems” neighbourhood policy.

Today, when the Arab revolutions are in full swing, it is the Turkish, and not the Iranian model, which has won the hearts and minds of many Arab reformers, from Egypt to Syria and beyond. In hindsight, it is worth pondering what would have been the potential consequences of thwarting Turkey’s Islamic political project again in 2002. In the current circumstances, however, the new Turkish foreign policy agenda and the projection of its soft power across the Middle East have so far succeeded in preventing the Arab world’s slide into despair and anti-western religious fundamentalism. (sources: Zaman, The Guardian, The Economist, EVZ)

Other People's Secrets

 December 7, 2010

The secret US intelligence files and diplomatic correspondence released by WikiLeaks have not stirred my interest enough to read them in detail. To me, most of them are other people’s secrets. Important as some of these might be, I find it somewhat indelicate to take advantage of the opportunity of studying them this way.

At this point in time, I cannot say for sure whether the military intelligence official who leaked the files is a hero or a villain. I guess it all depends on where one stands on these issues. From the point of view of the Washington establishment the man is, understandably enough, the scourge of the earth. For political leaders around the world and even for the public at large, the revelations contained in the leaked documents are an eye-opener, when they aren’t downright shocking.

What is more interesting is Washington’s official reaction to the publishing of the documents. For a number of years now, American intelligence officials and their people around the world have been involved in the massive gathering of all sorts of information. Billions of dollars are being spent to enable organisations such as the NSA, CIA and others to peek at the private lives of ordinary citizens of allied countries, without their knowledge or consent.

Take, for example, Sweden’s case. This fall, Swedish intelligence officials have discovered that the US embassy in Stockholm has installed electronic devices that allows it to monitor the phone conversations of locals, all in the name of US national security. A few years back, a Greek employee of Vodafone from Athens committed suicide, after being required by his company to illegally tap the phone conversations of Greek ministers. Every day, millions of emails, faxes, calls and harmless transactions are being monitored by the Echelon system. The privacy of electronic correspondence in the Western world has ceased to be sacrosanct for a long time now, and this is but a small part of US intelligence gathering operations squarely directed against ordinary citizens of allied countries or their governments…

Intelligence gathering operations against countries outside the Western world are even more intense. Some time ago, China’s former president Jiang Zemin had sent his presidential Boeing to be serviced in the United States, only to find it packed full with hidden listening devices on arrival. Social networks like Twitter or Facebook are extensively used to destabilise less-than-friendly regimes like the one in Iran. Satellite surveillance of phone calls and sensitive installations in such countries have become routine, resulting in driving many such activities underground in order to avoid detection.

These are but a few reasons why I consider the US’ official attitude to the leaks as highly hypocritical. When a country, superpower or not, is prepared to go to such lengths and expense to spy on citizens’ lives, correspondence and phones, it should expect to get a taste of its own medicine in return.

Worse still, the documents portray the US as a paranoid superpower, one whose officials trust no-one, friend or foe. Mrs Clinton instructs her personnel to gather biometric data, phone numbers, credit card details and miscellaneous dirt on foreign leaders and diplomats. Her actions bring to mind Elena Ceausescu’s bugging of ministers’ houses and her sick interest in their sex lives, private conversations and bank accounts. In true American style, Ceausescu himself invested huge amounts of badly-needed cash to install sophisticated telephone exchanges in every county, capable of monitoring the phone conversations of all Romania’s citizens. (Meanwhile, the country’s economy was going to the dogs…) Indeed, what’s the difference between the dictator’s paranoid hunger for other people’s secrets and the United States’ insatiable appetite for similar kind of data ? By the look of it, the difference is only one of scale.

In this poisoned atmosphere, I, for one, have largely given up using the phone to communicate with friends and family for some time now. If one can’t have a private conversation, why have one at all ? I’ve been through this absurd situation only once before – during the Ceausescu years. I had never expected,however, that this time around the people responsible for trampling upon our collective rights to privacy would be the officials of a country calling itself “the beacon of freedom and democracy”.

A Farewell to US Democracy

 January 23, 2010

It’s official : as of Thursday, January 21st 2010, US democracy as we all knew it has ceased to exist. In a highly controversial ruling, the US Supreme Court has done away with the ban on financial contributions by corporations in candidate elections. Thus, the American political system, already antiquated, will drift further away from those of its European counterparts. In contrast, most European countries grant equal media access to minority party candidates and severely limit donations to political parties. The decision, taken with 5 votes to 4, is seen to favour the Republicans, who were battered in the last presidential elections. It also puts to rest the bipartisan McCain-Feingold law of 2002 which tried to limit the influence of big money in federal campaigns. Considered by Russ Feingold “a terrible mistake“, the Court’s decision “has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns”. (source:IHT) Speaking on CBS on Sunday, John McCain has said that the movement he led to reform how campaigns are financed is now dead. Mindful not to yield too much power to American corporations, well-known for their predatory behaviour, US lawmakers had adopted the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 and in 1907 Congress voted the Tillman Act, prohibiting corporations from financing political campaigns. If they wanted things to move their way in Washington, corporate chieftains had to pay for the services of lobbyists. Not anymore : the Supreme Court’s decision paves the way for them to “buy” the services of senators and congressmen outright. The Supreme Court’s decision seems to lend weight to Leo Strauss’ neo-conservative theories according to which ultimate power in the USA rests with a “king”, a non-elected official who can overturn election results and demote presidents. These constitutional powers in the US are awarded to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Leo Strauss believed that modernity is just a myth perpetrated by gullible intellectuals and that democracy does not really exist. He contended that even countries like the United States have the equivalent of a medieval ruling class, made up of barons and princelings of American industry. As what goes around comes around, the United States becomes in effect the mother of all banana republics – a land where corporations can look forward to dictating their will to political institutions too weak to resist their financial backers.

Author : Spotlight on Geopolitics
 Print

English, External Relations  , USA

Turkish Voters Weary of Erdogan's Style

 March 30, 2009

The Turkish local elections ended on Sunday after a tense, national-like campaign designed by the ruling party AKP’s leaders to win key cities in Kurdish-dominated zones. Although it has won 39 percent of the vote, this is 8 percent short of the projected win envisaged by premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Moreover, this is the first time since the 2002 electoral win by AKP that the party has scored so low at the polls. Whilst many Turkish columnists argue that the global crisis is responsible for the poor electoral performance, many others including foreign observers blame it on Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic political style. Most likely, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Earlier this month, IPI (International Press Institute) and its affiliate SEEMO (South East Europe Media Organisation) have asked Commissioner Olli Rehn and other EU officials to press the Turkish government to respect freedom of the press and the life and limb of journalists who dare criticise the prime minister or lesser officials. The two organisations claim that Erdogan has publicly called for the boycott of newspapers critical of his performance in office and has slapped a 380 million-euro fine on Mr Dogan’s media empire. A friend-turned-foe, the Turkish media mogul’s journalists had been very critical of Mr Erdogan’s policies of late.

The premier’s critics claim he has all but abandoned his reform agenda. With unemployment in Turkey running at 14 % and with a fall in industrial production of more than 21 %, they had hoped his government would conclude negotiations with the IMF for a 20 billion plus bailout package. These were delayed, however, until yesterday’s election results became known.

The election results should act as a warning for Mr Erdogan if he wishes to continue in office and win the 2011 national ballot. To be sure, neglecting the economy and attacking press people critical of his performance is not the right recipe for success. Says Bilal Cetin, of Vatan newspaper: “The results show that the upward period for the AKP has ended. There are two possible reasons for that. First his choice to pursue tense policies and secondly the economic crisis that he underestimated, as well as increased corruption claims. If it continues, this downward trend poses a serious warning and even risk for the general elections due in spring of 2011. Turkey could return to coalition governments after the 2011 elections.”

In any free and pluralistic society, the press and its people are the guardians of democracy. By attacking them viciously and repeatedly, Mr Erdogan facilitates the return of his country to a time when the military played that role only too willingly – to everyone’s chagrin.