As various western factions debate whether Iran is or is not a democracy, or is or is not in the process of becoming one, or mired forever as some sort of mishmashed autocratic theocracy or theocratic autocracy or theo-oligarchic dictatorship or military oligocracy or or or . . . it does us well to bear in mind that not one of these various régimes, Hitlers, enemies-of-order, terrorists, failed states, nemeses, adversaries, competitors, ad inf. exhibits anywhere near the hegemonizing, evangelical zeal of the club of Western democracies when it comes to their political institutions and variously scorned or vaunted ways of life. I'm not referring specifically to the American version of militarized neocolonialism in which foreign nations are forcibly conquered and occupied, their leaders deposed, their governments disassembled, and the whole thing reconstituted at gunpoint in some or other image of American Federalism, although that's certainly part of it. I'm referring instead to the broad philosophical and ideological commitment to "spreading democracy," from niggling hopes that the Chinese industrial economy will convert that nation to the doctrine of universal suffrage and 30-second campaign spots to the more romantic ideation of Iranian street protests as an early application for NATO membership and congressional seats in Brussels.
You might call it Democratic internationalism, and although it's gaudier by far, it bears a striking resemblance to its old nemesis, Soviet Communism. It stands in stark contrast, incidentally, to whatever on earth you'd call the Chinese system--whatever else you might say about the Chinese, they don't seem to have any designs on the American constitution. Our various scardeycats prattle fearfully about Islamofascism and its expansionist impulses, but while one can certainly find radical voices calling for the unification of the Ummah, even the wildest dreams of some new caliphate stop short of Cordoba, let alone Vienna, despite the fever dreams of The Internet's more entertaining madmen. Occasionally you will hear some American rightwinger or British nationalist averring that the Muslims are overrunning London, Paris, Marseilles, but even this doomsday is more a worry about displacement than conquest, a vaguely held fear that white folk are being outbred. There is no sense or evidence that Osama bin Laden wishes for America to convert and embrace the religion of the Prophet. The Taliban have no designs on Topeka. Yet you cannot say the US Congress has no plans for Karachi.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
All Together Now
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I blame Jesus. Or maybe Hitler.
That is, Jesus because the Christian tradition of thinking the whole world needs saving by Christian Truth is inextricably linked with the expansion of Western capitalist democracy; and Hitler because the entire condition of global politics still lives in the shadow of WWII and the myth of America as the great conqueror of Ultimate Evil.
Or, maybe it's just a repetition of empires doing what empires do, regardless of whatever political, economic, or other ideological tradition they employ. China may yet prove to have some imperial ambitions of their own, once they get their shit together.
the condition of global politics actually lives in the shadow of the world's spendiest military and an imperial center that has grown very fond of using all the shiny and explodey new toys they can lay their hands on... oh and there is thing about all that oil and reserve currencies and whatnot, too.
Democratic imperialism is the enemy of political experimentation and local autonomy, as I blog here.
As far as I know Muslims don't possess any immunological advantages over westerners, so like Africans (but unlike native Americans) the dhimmis of the future can hold out hope for eventually having successful anti-colonialist movements which retake the motherland. Unfortunately we will then be ruled by the most effective of the ethno-nationalist thugs which fought for liberation in the first place, and we may occasionally wish for the Mohammedans again. At least they were some kind of solution.
Why can't the Dutch force the rest of us to take their form of government at gun point?
@Anony8:02: Because if they could, it wouldn't be a good form of government, a priori.
What about at reefer-point, then?
Post a Comment