In its strategic competition with Russia and China, the United States has constructed a metanarrative based on democracy versus authoritarianism (i.e. good versus evil). Such a narrative harks back to the political thinking of the first half of the 20th century which saw the fighting of two world wars.
Once again, we are witnessing a major power pushing a metanarrative based on democracy as the only acceptable form of government in the world and that countries that practice democracy share the same set of values. It contends that democracy is now under threat and will only be safe if democracies ally themselves to push back against authoritarian governments to contain them. This is worryingly reflexive of another impending world war.
The New World Encyclopedia says: “Metanarrative or grand narrative or mater narrative is a term developed by Jean-François Lyotard to mean a theory that tries to give a totalising, comprehensive account to various historical events, experiences, and social, cultural phenomena based upon the appeal to universal truth or universal values. In this context, the narrative is a story that functions to legitimise power, authority, and social customs. … The term grand narratives can be applied to a wide range of thoughts which includes Marxism, religious doctrines, belief in progress, universal reason, and others.”
The European powers, mostly members of the European Union, have bought into this narrative to the point that many have sacrificed their own economic well-being on the altar of “democracy” as defined and articulated by the United States. Germany, for instance, had a very successful industrial base fuelled by oil and gas imports from Russia. This has been compromised by waging a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.
The war was presented as a gratiutious Russian invasion, without mentioning the provocations that led to the conflict. The Nord Stream pipeline was blown up to further prevent Europe depending on Russian oil and gas. This led to an energy crisis and a level of German de-industrialisation because its products are no longer competitive without affordable energy. The gas they bought from the US was estimated to be about 30% to 40% more expensive than gas from Russia.
The “democracy” metanarrative is propagated using a paradigm of derogatory terms to describe countries that challenge US supremacy. Terms like “human rights abuse”, “expansionism”, “genocide”, and “denial of personal freedoms” were used against them, even though the practice of democracy in the US and its allies leaves much to be desired. The Assange extradition saga is a case in point. In its fight against terrorism, the US did not hesitate to use torture or extra-judicial killings using drones. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib come to mind. The middle class is shrinking and life expectancy is decreasing. Critical observers describe the US Government as a “plutocracy”.
US allies echo its accusation of human rights violations against their enemies. I am not convinced that they have any better record of respect for human rights than Russia or China. Take the US, for instance. The World Future Fund says: “America has been in 19 wars since World War II, but we will list the death toll from three of the bloodiest conflicts: The Korean War, The Vietnam War and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The total death toll of people killed by American troops in all these wars put together is over 12 million.”
No one can deny the fact that the most fundamental of human rights is the right to life. There is a real genocide occurring in Gaza at the moment and many sanctimonious “democracies” have blood on their hands.
“Democracy” is an ideal that has been practised to various degrees of success by Western powers. It cannot be a “one size fits all” for countries with different combinations of cultures, histories, social and geographical conditions, religions or demographics. While many poorer countries aspire to the democratic values of “freedom”, it is a luxury that they can ill afford when set against other more pressing needs like:
1. Freedom from hunger;
2. Freedom from illiteracy; and
3. Freedom from lack of shelter, just to name a few.
There is ample evidence that China too aspires to the ideal of democracy. China is slowly liberalising by what it describes as, “Crossing the river by feeling the stones”. Chinese people are enjoying an unprecedented level of freedom since the Mao era. Just think of the millions of tourists and students making a beeline for Western countries. Those who follow Chinese economic and social progress over time would know that soon after Deng Xiaoping opened up China, there was a great deal of talk about the form of government it should adopt. The Singapore form of government was among the most frequently considered. Singapore has a strictly controlled form of democracy often labelled as a “Guided Democracy”, a form of government particularly attractive to those transitioning from an authoritarian rule to democracy.
The late Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew has shown that the system alone cannot bring about good governance without good leaders. Singapore practised meritocracy and fought corruption. China is doing the same.
One can boldly assert that many countries in the Global South are not ready for the type of democracy envisaged and approved by Western powers. A good example of a country coming to grief as a result of a sudden change from authoritarianism to democracy is Russia. Mikhail Gorbachev aspired for a kind of democracy for Russia when he allowed the Soviet Union to break up. The country soon fell into the hands of powerful oligarchs, not a competent replacement government. Media reports at the time carried stories of Russians lamenting their loss of livelihood and calling for a return of communism. It was Vladimir Putin who put an end to the oligarchy and restored a level of “normalcy” to their lives.
As to “when” democracy will come to the economically struggling countries of the world, it is not for Western nations to decide, but for the countries themselves to work out given the latitude of time.
Teow Loon Ti was a researcher in aquaculture; and a teacher. Teow Loon Ti has a BSc.(Hon) in Zoology, an MA(Lit. & Comm.) and a PhD in Education.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
