World Without a Model?
Opinion
Hazem Saghieh
Towards the end of the 19th century, and then especially after the end of the First World War, direct contact between industrial and democratic Europe and the rest of the world developed. The phenomenon that had started with the Napoleonic Wars which were waged mainly across Europe became, for the first time in history, universal: invasion accompanied by a model. Subjugation and plunder went hand in hand with a transfer of certain aspects of modernity and its social structures: early forms of administration and parliament, networks of schools and railways, the formation of parties and unions, the establishment of newspapers and integration into the global market. Most important of all is the idea of "the people" itself. This, in its totality, has become the Western model. The majorities in the nations that were invaded refused to be subjugated and plundered, and the model did not attract them, though, practically, they could not but incorporate it and interact with its citizenship, economy, and education... The minorities, especially the elites that received a Western education, considered the model to be the foundation, while looting and annexation were considered temporary. The phrase that Taha Hussein used in his book “The Future of Culture in Egypt” expressed this sentiment in an exaggerated and simplistic way: “We must become European in every way"." In competition with this model, there emerged models that did not live long enough: German Nazism, Communism in Russian and Chinese versions, and, finally, Iranian Khomeinism. There certainly are differences among these "alternatives", especially regarding their positions on the Western model: Nazism and Khomeinism rejected it absolutely, the first by virtue of its racial views and the second from a cultural-religious premise. As for communism in both its versions; it aspired to surpass this “bourgeois” model with a “proletarian” horizon when this horizon lost all its battles in western industrialized Europe, where the bourgeoisie had the upper hand. In 1913, extricating himself from Marxist economic classification of progress and backwardness, Lenin wrote about an "advanced Asia and backward Europe". In this analysis, there was a combination of jealousy and intransigence. In the Middle East, until the late 70s, enemies of "Western imperialism" said that they would resist the West in order to become like it. That is, they, theoretically at least, praised the West's model and accused imperialism of preventing us from adopting it. However, in practice, they only took actions that contradicted that model: once they held power, they would break with the constitution, dissolve the courts and institutions, nationalize the press, and ban political parties in order to establish a single-party rule. They relied on several pretexts for these actions, the most important of which is the colonial past, which took a settler form in an Arab country, Algeria; however, it was Western support, particularly America's support, for Israel that was especially taken issue with. Western invasions and interventions in the Cold War, from Guatemala and Iran in the 1950s to Chile in the 1970s and with it the Vietnam Wars and those of the rest of Indochina, tarnished this model's reputation (keeping in mind, in the eyes of most Arabs, similar actions did not tarnish the Soviet camp's image). Nevertheless, the appeal of democracy and capitalism remained stronger: building a "welfare state" after the second war, and a "Great Society" in the US during the 1960s, weakened the class and racial reservations that people had about that model: yes, there is poverty and racism, but there is social mobility and public debate that are bringing about significant change and narrowing the social gaps. Pluralistic societies, religiously, ethnically, and culturally, are only found there. Then, one could also make comparisons: West Germany and capitalist South Korea are far superior to communist East Germany and North Korea. The people of the latter pair aspire to live in the countries of the first pair, and some risk their lives while trying to do so. The Western model allows for internal opposition, while there is only dissidence in the other model. The phenomenon of Soviet dissidents dispelled any doubts. Pol Pot's atrocities in Cambodia and the "Cultural Revolution" in China could not have been much worse. In the end, the Socialist camp itself collapsed as millions of voices called out for economic capitalism and political democracy. China and Vietnam have turned from state capitalism to an economy where the market occupies a large segment. In 1992, with the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union was born, the largest union in history that takes place peacefully and democratically. Peoples are queuing to join this union or, and if they were very far away from Europe, to join WTO. However, just before winning the Cold War, the Western model began betraying itself. The decline took place in the economy, with the increase in privatization, the shrinking of the state, and breaking the unions under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The second juncture came soon after the Cold War: the West did not intervene to stop the massacre in Rowanda in 1994. During the Yugoslavia war (1991-95), Europe seemed toothless, abstaining from intervention in a European war. The United States interfered late on. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had the opposite of the desired results, while the Iraqi war created a fissure between America and Europe. Later, in Libya, the attempt to intervene backfired. Syria was left to die alone. The "war on terror", which pushes nations away, is all that remains of the principle of "humanitarian intervention". Apart from it, there is only the West's isolation and aloofness. The third juncture is the financial crisis of 2008, which was followed by the flow of millions of refugees. Both of them awakened populism that tightened its grip on Central Europe, gave birth to Brexit in Britain, and brought Donald Trump to the White House. We are now at the fourth major juncture, with Corona Virus and the economic crisis ensuing from it. Trump's figure, as the leader of the democratic model's most powerful country, and as a source of dismantling its unity, exacerbates matters. The talk of Chinese and Russian "alternatives" is growing louder regardless of its emptiness. All of this puts us, and puts the world, face to face with the very dangerous prospect of living without a model.
from Asharq AL-awsat https://aawsat.com/english/home/article/2255051/hazem-saghieh/world-without-model
No comments:
Post a Comment