Safe
democracy
Source: By H.KHASNOBIS: The Statesman
Exercising political power and authority in domestic and foreign policy depends upon the choice of political philosophies. The primary concern of a sovereign state is to ensure territorial security for its citizens, preferably through peaceful means but, if necessary, by military force. This is a rational approach, one that is referred to as political realism. This is the baseline approach and is the minimum that a state is required to do.
On the other hand, political idealism outreaches political realism through promotion of those values around the world. Only a strong nation is capable of pursuing political idealism and this ambition of exercising political authority beyond the confines of nation states has given rise to numerous military interventions. President Woodrow Wilson could not make the world safe for democracy through diplomacy, cooperation and peaceful means. During his second term as US President, America's neutrality was challenged in early 1917 when the German empire started unrestricted submarine warfare despite repeated warnings. The incident forced a reluctant USA into World War I. Even though a military interventionist, history recognized Woodrow Wilson as a crusader of peace and diplomacy and he was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his sponsorship of the League of Nations.
The latter half of the 20th century has witnessed the rise of neo-conservatism as an extension of the doctrine of political idealism. The genesis of neo-conservatism is obscure and the concept is difficult to define. In the opinion of some scholars, the term was coined by socialist thinkers in the USA between the Fifties and the Sixties when they found that there was general endorsement even among liberals of military action to prevent a Communist victory in Vietnam. Neo-conservatism acquired a new garb after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. Global unilateralism became its central focus. That started a blueprint for US world dominance in the late 20th century. It has now been realised that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it. Neo-conservatism seeks to use military force as the first but not the last option of foreign policy. Neo- conservatives do not regard readiness and willingness to use military force in pre-emptive strikes as a violation of international law. They advocate assertive promotion of democracy. Planning and promotion of the Iraq war is the best example of US foreign policy of neo-conservatism.
There is a strong opinion that neo-conservatism is not about democracy at all, but a veil for making the world safe for multinational corporations and creating conditions for enriching the rich. It is a way of making democracy and capitalism synonymous. The neo-conservatives believe that free economy is ultimately an efficient economy that will maximize revenue through taxes and strengthen the State. The State should act only as a moderator and not an active player in the economy. State corporations are given to abuse and they are inefficient and uncompetitive. This line of economic rationale is not radically different from capitalist principles.
The political philosophies described here have one feature in common ~ that the end justifies the means, whatever means are necessary for whatever ends. The only difference is that in case of political realism, military power comes as the last option. Political idealism is a combination of peace initiative and military power. In neo-conservatism, military power is the first or only option. These philosophies that are widely practised are based upon Machiavelli's liberal imperialism. In the 21st century, they are seen as dangerous political doctrines because in the final analysis they place the power and interest of the State above the rights of those citizens who have entrusted it with their well-being. The view that ends justify means asserts primacy of national security over rights of individual citizens in democratic nations. It may empower the State with draconian laws and subjugate civil liberties. The question is whether these philosophies can be discarded for a better option.
The strategy, tactics and efficacy of non-violent political action, especially in its use to promote democracy around the world, has gained much popularity and recognition in recent years. Principled non-violence is the non-violence of those who practise non-violence as a creed or moral principle. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr both understood non-violence in this way. It was their way of life. It is now recognized that non-violent action can be practised effectively as a policy without a moral commitment to non-violence, without having to adopt a creed, moral or otherwise. It is a departure from the ideals of Gandhi and King, yet it is non-violence.
Unlike the non-violence of the weak, Gandhi and King did not abandon non-violence in favour of violent tactics simply because certain political goals could have been achieved more decisively, quickly or effectively through violence. They believed that violence could not lead to an effective remedy in the long run. They believed that conflict resolution through violence would create numerous social problems for the unborn generations. They also believed that intentional and sustained use of violence precluded obtaining any morally legitimate goal. This is principled non-violence that Gandhi described as non-violence of the strong. It includes pursuit of justice, elimination of oppression, development of inner peace and constant sensitivity to others. Gandhi viewed non-violence as the law of human race that was infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.
The philosophy of non-violence is based upon coherence of means and ends. Means must be as pure as the ends. Means and ends should be inseparable. The means represent the ideal in the making. In the long run of history, destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends. Immoral means cannot bring about a moral end and so under non-violence, means and ends must cohere.
Political realism, political idealism and neo-conservatism are all prescriptions for realizing certain goals. Unlike principled non-violence, these ends differ from the means. When one set of means becomes insufficient for achieving a goal, another set of means is adopted. Once the goal is attained, the means are discarded. The principle that ends justify means has remained the dominant political philosophy of the last 100 years.
It will not be easy to jettison this path and move to the principled non-violence route for conflict resolution. The world has changed considerably since the days of Gandhi and King. Principled non-violence is a long, tortuous and winding path that requires exemplary leadership skills and support of the people. It is a long-drawn struggle involving infinite sacrifices. The natural tendency will be to resolve a conflict through violence or military action. Promotion of democracy involves a cost. Costs could be starkly different if democracy is militarily imposed on a country as opposed to the country itself taking the initiative.
The good sign is that within the political arena, there is a vast and untapped area suitable for peace studies, conflict resolution and non-violent political action. That is the report of research scholars. Gandhi acknowledged that pragmatic or expedient non-violence can work side by side with principled non-violence. In recent times, the struggles for democracy in Myanmar, Belarus, Tibet and Zimbabwe are examples of non-violent struggles waged against oppressive regimes for worthy goals ~ those of ending tyranny and bringing peace with justice to the people. The concept of modern day non-violence is the expedient or pragmatic non-violence.
Promotion of democracy is a tool to end tyranny and fight terrorism. It is a way to promote stability in troubled regions and a mechanism to increase prosperity in poor countries. There has to be a commitment to understanding and empowering indigenous approaches to conflict resolution as opposed to delivering prepackaged models that are insensitive to context, culture, timing and diversity of local conflict actors. The path is not easy but worthy of pursuit.
Exercising political power and authority in domestic and foreign policy depends upon the choice of political philosophies. The primary concern of a sovereign state is to ensure territorial security for its citizens, preferably through peaceful means but, if necessary, by military force. This is a rational approach, one that is referred to as political realism. This is the baseline approach and is the minimum that a state is required to do.
On the other hand, political idealism outreaches political realism through promotion of those values around the world. Only a strong nation is capable of pursuing political idealism and this ambition of exercising political authority beyond the confines of nation states has given rise to numerous military interventions. President Woodrow Wilson could not make the world safe for democracy through diplomacy, cooperation and peaceful means. During his second term as US President, America's neutrality was challenged in early 1917 when the German empire started unrestricted submarine warfare despite repeated warnings. The incident forced a reluctant USA into World War I. Even though a military interventionist, history recognized Woodrow Wilson as a crusader of peace and diplomacy and he was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize for his sponsorship of the League of Nations.
The latter half of the 20th century has witnessed the rise of neo-conservatism as an extension of the doctrine of political idealism. The genesis of neo-conservatism is obscure and the concept is difficult to define. In the opinion of some scholars, the term was coined by socialist thinkers in the USA between the Fifties and the Sixties when they found that there was general endorsement even among liberals of military action to prevent a Communist victory in Vietnam. Neo-conservatism acquired a new garb after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s. Global unilateralism became its central focus. That started a blueprint for US world dominance in the late 20th century. It has now been realised that the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states rests on military power and the willingness to use it. Neo-conservatism seeks to use military force as the first but not the last option of foreign policy. Neo- conservatives do not regard readiness and willingness to use military force in pre-emptive strikes as a violation of international law. They advocate assertive promotion of democracy. Planning and promotion of the Iraq war is the best example of US foreign policy of neo-conservatism.
There is a strong opinion that neo-conservatism is not about democracy at all, but a veil for making the world safe for multinational corporations and creating conditions for enriching the rich. It is a way of making democracy and capitalism synonymous. The neo-conservatives believe that free economy is ultimately an efficient economy that will maximize revenue through taxes and strengthen the State. The State should act only as a moderator and not an active player in the economy. State corporations are given to abuse and they are inefficient and uncompetitive. This line of economic rationale is not radically different from capitalist principles.
The political philosophies described here have one feature in common ~ that the end justifies the means, whatever means are necessary for whatever ends. The only difference is that in case of political realism, military power comes as the last option. Political idealism is a combination of peace initiative and military power. In neo-conservatism, military power is the first or only option. These philosophies that are widely practised are based upon Machiavelli's liberal imperialism. In the 21st century, they are seen as dangerous political doctrines because in the final analysis they place the power and interest of the State above the rights of those citizens who have entrusted it with their well-being. The view that ends justify means asserts primacy of national security over rights of individual citizens in democratic nations. It may empower the State with draconian laws and subjugate civil liberties. The question is whether these philosophies can be discarded for a better option.
The strategy, tactics and efficacy of non-violent political action, especially in its use to promote democracy around the world, has gained much popularity and recognition in recent years. Principled non-violence is the non-violence of those who practise non-violence as a creed or moral principle. Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr both understood non-violence in this way. It was their way of life. It is now recognized that non-violent action can be practised effectively as a policy without a moral commitment to non-violence, without having to adopt a creed, moral or otherwise. It is a departure from the ideals of Gandhi and King, yet it is non-violence.
Unlike the non-violence of the weak, Gandhi and King did not abandon non-violence in favour of violent tactics simply because certain political goals could have been achieved more decisively, quickly or effectively through violence. They believed that violence could not lead to an effective remedy in the long run. They believed that conflict resolution through violence would create numerous social problems for the unborn generations. They also believed that intentional and sustained use of violence precluded obtaining any morally legitimate goal. This is principled non-violence that Gandhi described as non-violence of the strong. It includes pursuit of justice, elimination of oppression, development of inner peace and constant sensitivity to others. Gandhi viewed non-violence as the law of human race that was infinitely greater than and superior to brute force.
The philosophy of non-violence is based upon coherence of means and ends. Means must be as pure as the ends. Means and ends should be inseparable. The means represent the ideal in the making. In the long run of history, destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends. Immoral means cannot bring about a moral end and so under non-violence, means and ends must cohere.
Political realism, political idealism and neo-conservatism are all prescriptions for realizing certain goals. Unlike principled non-violence, these ends differ from the means. When one set of means becomes insufficient for achieving a goal, another set of means is adopted. Once the goal is attained, the means are discarded. The principle that ends justify means has remained the dominant political philosophy of the last 100 years.
It will not be easy to jettison this path and move to the principled non-violence route for conflict resolution. The world has changed considerably since the days of Gandhi and King. Principled non-violence is a long, tortuous and winding path that requires exemplary leadership skills and support of the people. It is a long-drawn struggle involving infinite sacrifices. The natural tendency will be to resolve a conflict through violence or military action. Promotion of democracy involves a cost. Costs could be starkly different if democracy is militarily imposed on a country as opposed to the country itself taking the initiative.
The good sign is that within the political arena, there is a vast and untapped area suitable for peace studies, conflict resolution and non-violent political action. That is the report of research scholars. Gandhi acknowledged that pragmatic or expedient non-violence can work side by side with principled non-violence. In recent times, the struggles for democracy in Myanmar, Belarus, Tibet and Zimbabwe are examples of non-violent struggles waged against oppressive regimes for worthy goals ~ those of ending tyranny and bringing peace with justice to the people. The concept of modern day non-violence is the expedient or pragmatic non-violence.
Promotion of democracy is a tool to end tyranny and fight terrorism. It is a way to promote stability in troubled regions and a mechanism to increase prosperity in poor countries. There has to be a commitment to understanding and empowering indigenous approaches to conflict resolution as opposed to delivering prepackaged models that are insensitive to context, culture, timing and diversity of local conflict actors. The path is not easy but worthy of pursuit.
No comments:
Post a Comment