Democratic tendencies

Is Iraq moving closer to democracy while Europe is moving in the opposite direction?

The shoe-throwing incident by Muntadhar al-Zaidi in mid-December has made him a local and international hero. It's not so much in the boldness of his action, but that he did something that most people around the globe dreamed of doing, albeit with different sorts of objects. While analysts everywhere put al-Zaidi and his action in the spotlight, guaranteeing him more than his fair share of fifteen minutes of fame, the true significance behind the incident went unpronounced.

Most western observers who wrote about the shoe-flying incident did so with undertones of glee and admiration, but at the same time they were careful to not let this admiration and glee show too much. Phrases like “aalthough that action was not expressed in a civilized manner” or “although there is no doubt that the action itself was not exactly pleasant” were often used as qualifiers. Hence, most practiced a form of self-censorship, adding that they personally don't condone such behaviour. The net result of this is that feelings and actions of many in the west similar to that of al-Zaidi were thus further repressed by notions of what is considered decent and proper behaviour when personally confronting a politician.

Those who espouse the glories of western liberal democracy often forget that the modern version is missing one key element: the right to revolution and civil disobedience. One of the architects of the liberal democratic tradition, Thomas Jefferson, summed it up best when he noted that the tree of democracy needed to be nurtured with blood from time to time, as this was its natural manure. Clearly, in most contexts the reference to blood as the natural manure for democracy should be taken figuratively. However the end result is usually more or less the same: leaders should be held to account for their actions and not feel comfortable within the dictates of constitutional rules and regulations. Indeed, countries often celebrate revolutions (and some very violent ones, at that) in where tyranny was overcome. The French Revolution of 1792 and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 are merely two such examples.

In the case of the Hungarian Revolution, it's ironic that some who were involved in its suppression of the uprising ended up celebrating the revolutionary event. In fact, these same individuals have been praised by their western counterparts for the minimal role they played in the regime change of 1989. This only goes to show how perverted present day concepts of democracy and freedom really are.

It's questionable whether a revolution, such as the Hungarian Revolt in 1956, could occur once again in Europe. This is not because people aren't suppressed by a surveillance society which impoverishes them materially as well as aesthetically. The December demonstrations and protests in Greece is a perfect example of this. Nor is it because European authorities don't use violence against public demonstrations and protests: Sweden, Italy, and Hungary are just a few countries in Europe where police violence in the form of live ammunition (including the use of sharp sabres) have been employed which caused not only severe injuries but in some cases even death.

~ more... ~