Global Democracy is in Jeopardy!

Omar Sindi | Exclusive to iKurd.net

Since the dawn of time and recorded history, mankind has been busy in the challenge of ideas of innovation and discovery of phenomena, whether for the good or bad of their environments, starting from the slingshot, to archey, then to the rifle, to air transportation and space exploration, chemical discoveries, industrial machinery, nuclear weapons, communications, and even to the governing of political systems; as the US President John F. Kennedy once said, “Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try [and] Those who dare to fail miserably can achieve greatly”

Liberal democracy highlights the separation of powers in government from the governing structures; in the last few decades, there have been some critics who are questioning the pros and cons of the viability of a liberal democracy’s governability. Those dissenting voices come mostly from the heads of authoritarian regimes, such as Chinese leader Xi Jinping and others… Liberal democracy is also recognized as “Western democracy, is a political ideology and form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalisms of the ”. liberal democracy in essence it’s roots dates back to “European 18th-century, or also known as the Age of Enlightenment.” -(Wikipedia) However, during the BC centuries some forms of democracy were practiced, mostly known as “Athenian democracy”.

In addition, much of the initial framework for western democracy goes to English empiricist John Locke “who refuted monarchical absolutism in his Two Treatise of Government”. Other writers, academicians, authors… have written on this subject of democratic system of governments; “It’s a representative of government democracy in which the ability of the elected representative to exercise decision making power is subject to the rule of law, and often moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities-” (Wikipedia). Also, “The rights and freedoms protected by the constitutions of the liberal democracies are varied, but they usually include most of the following- rights to due process, privacy, property, and equality before the law, and freedom of speech, assembly, and religion” (Wikipedia)

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was a Georgian revolutionary and political leader who governed the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He was the secretary-general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–53) and premier of the Soviet state (1941–53), who for a quarter of a century dictatorially ruled the Soviet Union. Photo: Public Domain.

Every decade or a quarter of a century sometimes a phenomenon occurs: In the 1920s and the 1930s, the rise of authoritarian regimes, from communism to fascism and populism/nationalism, were unpreventable; due to severe economic decline and increasing poverty in Europe and Asia, from which the biggest contributing factor was World War I. People questioned the viability of democratic systems of government and while global democracy progress was in slow motion, in the Soviet Union, upon Vladimir Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin grasped absolute power. He consolidated power through declaring a communist state; no dissent was tolerated under his rule. In the 1930’s an event known as Stalin’s “Great Purge” where many of his rivals were eliminated by his secret police state and at the urge of both Turkish President Mustafa Kamal and Ali Reza, Shah of Iran, he abrogated an autonomous Kurds region in the Caucasus, it’s known as “Red Kurdistan”, and it was also recognized as a Soviet regional state…

Italy: Benito Mussolini, when Italy was in economic decline and in political struggle, he declared he would bring the old glory back to Italy’s economy and return the military’s power to its old prestige…

Germany: Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party- After World war I, with the defeat of Germany its economy was exhausted, and in addition, German had to pay war reparations. War reparations, and massive inflation put the German people in uncomfortable economic positions and dire situations and plunged them into chaos… Hitler and his Nazi party took full advantage of this chaotic situation…

Japan: Emperor Hirohito & Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, when Japan was in economic decline, people blamed the government for their economic misery.

If a political party or governing body make grand claims about fixing the economy or bringing in sweeping policy changes and then fail to deliver, especially from both an economic or political standpoints, by any government systems or political ideology the people will become disillusioned and apathetic with that system; no paradigm or theory can explain to a dictator that the system of absolutism doesn’t work. That‘s what happened to the communist states- political systems of disarray, non-functioning governing systems and economic stagnation; they claimed they would create a “utopian society” where there was no check and balance in the government’s conductivities.

After World War II, with the defeat of all three fascist states, Germany, Italy, and Japan. These states have since been ruled by a democratic political system.

Over three decades ago, the liberal democracy was unstoppable. The Communist states were falling apart, the Berlin Wall was being dismantled; the Soviet Union was disintegrating, all the while the new era of democracies were rising from Europe, Asia/Middle East, to Africa, South central America, the South African apartheid system was collapsing, and many political pundits predicted that the Chinese communist system would change. Later on, the “Arab Spring” uprising took place where people rose against their authoritarian regimes and tyrannical rulers. Also, failures of these uprisings became known as the “Arab winter” later on.

Many political parties changed their political names to include “democratic party” or “socialist democratic party”, etc… so that it looked like the only legitimate government was a democratic system, and there were no other successive alternatives…

“The Worst Form of Government: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms of Government that have been tried from time to time” – Winston Churchill; in short, most likely Churchill was referencing democratic systems of government that are better than other systems of governing that have been tried before, and some pundits were saying maybe that’s why he lost the election after World War II…

On September 17, 1787, delegates left the Constitutional convention in Independence Hall in Philadelphia (United States), As they exited, Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government do we have? “A Republic” he replied, “if you can keep it.” Of course, there are many interpretations of Franklin’s answer, but most likely he was referencing the complexity of the democratic systems of government, along with the tolerance of dissenting views…

The whirlwind of today’s political discourse is different. Many times, democracy becomes its own victim and corruption eats its owners.

Global democracy is facing many unpredictable challenges, from rising populism within democratic states, regimes advocating religious states based on God’s order. The grim truth is that there is no substantial evidence that any various religious political forms and authoritarian regimes are compatible with liberal democracy, and it doesn’t mean that democratic states do not have problems or issues; but that they don’t resort to violence or force to solve issues; they reach a consensus peacefully among conflicting interests.

There are massive migrations from mainly Authoritarian regimes, people who are seeking shelter to settle in Western democratic states for a better quality of life, freedom, liberty, from which also these massive migrations have started causing political destabilization, from Europe to North America, long established political democratic systems…

India, the largest democracy in the world, since Narendra Modi the Prime Minister came to power in 2014, has used both Indo religions and Indo populism, in order to retain power. In Hungary, Viktor Orban took power through democratic systems, then using populism to cling onto power, ignoring all international norms.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping is critical of Western democracy, while his regime is a beneficiary of Western democracy; back in the early 1980’s, the communist government in China could not afford to have Coca-Cola (soft drink) products; until China opened their economy to Western democracy.

“Defending American democracy from Washington’s friends” Headline after headline has been coming out about attacks on American democracy by Middle Eastern states — and most of them are purportedly America’s friends.

An Israeli security firm may have spied on U.S. officials. The United Arab Emirates cultivated a Trump adviser to influence administration decisions and even insert pro-UAE language into a Trump speech. Egypt pushed the U.S. government to jail an Egyptian-American activist. Iran wanted to kidnap a dissident from New York.

Erdogan’s bodyguards attack Kurdish protesters in Washington — Erdogan’s bodyguards attack Kurdish American protesters in Washington, May 16, 2017. Photo: Twitter/VOA

These revelations are only the latest in a series of attempts by Middle Eastern states to subvert American democracy. In recent years, Saudi operatives murdered a Washington Post journalist, and the Turkish presidential guards physically attacked American protesters in Washington D.C. itself. Most of these malign influence campaigns are coming not from America’s avowed enemies, but from its allies and partners in the region, many of which receive generous U.S. support. Eighteen years after promising to spread democracy in the Middle East, the United States is now paying Middle Eastern autocrats for the privilege of undermining its own democracy…- written by Matthew Petti

United Nations: Five permanent Security Council members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Known as the P5, any single member of the P5 can veto a resolution in the international conflict(s). Which two of those P5 are Authoritarian regimes? China and Russia, who have no interest in human rights, or promoting democracy around the globe or personal freedoms,…etc. The Taliban movement has not taken power yet, and the World doesn’t know what kind of government or strategy the Taliban will pursue for the future of Afghanistan; both Russia and China have offered to help, and perhaps may recognize the future state regardless…

However, the other three of P5 have their own default in the UN too, when it comes defending their interests or their corrupt Authoritarian regimes allies, ignoring all international norms… Despite their different interests among the P5 at the Security Council, they should support the empowering of the UN’s role in Global affairs, especially on the human rights and minority rights issues…

In general terms, the difference between Democratic states and Authoritarian regimes is this: The democratic government’s people own the government through elections in which leaders are chosen, on terms set by their constituents; to ensure that those in power are unable to extend their terms without consent of the people or exceed them at all. The absence of political opposition allows the lead policy makers to govern without fear of prosecutions. For example, former US President Donald Trump issued an executive order enacting “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” because of the separation of powers built into the foundation of the governing apparatus; the US Federal courts (the judiciary) struck down Trump’s ban on Muslims coming to the United States.

Under an authoritarian system, the head of state usually has absolute power over every governing aspect of the state, and often other aspects of its citizens’ lives. 17th century French King Louis XIV is famously alleged to have once proclaimed: “L’État, c’est moi”, or “I am the State”. Many authoritarian leaders of the present and of modern history have behaved and/or do behave in this manner as well. Essentially, for whatever stated reasons they give, such as nationality or religion, they say that I’m the only or my government is the only one which is capable of leading this country. Any public dissent is deemed rebellion, and one doesn’t have to look hard to find flaws in this system…

For example, in 1958 Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong deemed that sparrows were destroying farmland by eating the grain seeds and rice, so Mao mobilized the Chinese people and declared war on these birds, slaughtering millions upon millions of them. This misguided internal policy resulted in a severe imbalance of the ecosystem. While these sparrows did feast on the grain and rice fields, they also ate insects… With no more sparrows to control them, insect populations quadrupled. Locust population increased drastically all over China, eating everything they could find, destroying crops and farmlands. This resulted in famine in China causing people to die of massive starvations.

There are various reports as to how many people died, but they estimate from 20 to over 70 million, all as result of a dictator’s misguided policy. The point of this paradigm is, this catastrophe and others like it could‘ve been avoided, if a democratic system was in place, where such aforementioned unilateral decisions would not have been set into motion. A system of checks and balances and the separation of powers would have prevented that policy’s implementation; it would have been rejected just like the United States Federal Courts rejected Donald Trump’s Muslim ban policy.

Those who think a corrupt governing apparatus will work; and why the supposedly imposed liberal democratic system of governing didn’t work in Afghanistan, the fiasco of the Afghanistan government should become their laboratory of study guidelines. There will be plenty of blame and accusations to go round in the now defunct Afghan government of the last 20 years, this failure will be the subject of future research books, cultural analysis of nepotism, political desolate, sectarian, tribes who were unable to reconcile their differences, articles, American government betrayal, ingredients of a failed state, etc. why didn’t the promise of political empowerment succeed? Why was the Afghan government unable to survive? In short, from top to bottom, corruption and the lack of transparency among the hierarchy of political polarizations in the leadership circle…

Last but not least, if I were to write this narrative from a country under an Authoritarian system of government, my life would most likely be in Jeopardy too!

Omar Sindi, a senior writer, analyst and columnist for iKurd.net, Washington, United States.

The opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of iKurd.net or its editors.