Democracy Experiments

Notwithstanding my erstwhile colleague’s noble attempt to generate debate, I feel that he is completely mistaken in his assessment.

It seems that Prashant is trying to argue from a Baudrillardian point of view, that whatever that we have seen with regards to the Orange Revolution has been, in his words, “manufactured.” Jean Baudrillard proposed that the first Gulf War did not take place, in the sense that the idea of a war fought to liberate Kuwaitis was a farce. Now, Baudrillard is not denying that something happened on the ground in Iraq. One of the marvellous things about the first Gulf War was the introduction of the viewer as a spectator, and therefore a participant of the event. Thanks to the night-vision induced scenes of “warfare” courtesy of CNN, Baudrillard argues that our conception and remembrance of the Gulf War was seeded and developed by the media. WYSIWYG…

While I cannot argue that the “corporate media” would have us believe certain things, Prashant has muddied reality with his analysis. One: the choice, while perhaps forcing the voter to opt for the lesser of two evils, was not artificial; voters ultimately have a third option: abstention. That voter turnout was 77% indicates a good number of Ukrainians chose not to go to the polls. Two: their consent was not manufactured. Yanukovych still managed to get 44.19% of all votes cast; had Yushchenko won in a landslide, we would be having a different debate. Three: the Ukrainian populace selected a leader without electoral interference – the reason why the first vote was denounced as illegitimate, and why the December 26 run-off was called.

In fact, what happened in Ukraine is a perfect example of democracy as an experiment. In an interview with The Globalist, Cornel West said, "Democracy is not just a system of governance, as we tend to think of it, but a cultural way of being." As he details in his book, Democracy Matters:

We should not be seduced by the simplistic and self-serving statements from the Bush administration about the commitment to instill democracy … as though democracy is something that can be so easily imposed from the outside...

While the above passage refers to Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East region, that same sentiment can be applied to any country on the world. Democracy is an experiment to be developed by a country’s citizens. While this may irk some (as China’s Hu Jintao did last September, stating that “indiscriminately copying western political systems is a blind alley for China”), what’s good for the goose, may not necessarily be good for the gander.

A Year of Change and Spontaneity

While winter is making its final tour of the great white north, leaving me with salt-stained jeans and slush-soaked cuffs, the rest of the world witnessed a rash of resignations – from Togo (Faure Gnassingbe), to Hong Kong (Tung Chee Hwa), to Lebanon (Omar Karami). In fact, the global community has recently been riding the wave of political change and electoral success – Ukrainians and Palestinians selected their respective leaders, while Iraqis began their process of rebuilding their country. This is certainly not the year for despots and dictators – if things proceed at the rate that they have already, 2005 may be known as the Year of Change.

One thing that seems synonymous with change (particularly the political flavour) is the presence of the crowd. Protestors in Lomé clashed with the police, objecting to the unconstitutional instatement of Gnassingbe’s replacement. Martyrs Square has been filled with Lebanese since the assassination of Rafik Hariri, calling for the end of Syrian influence and interference. There is something seductive about a focused crowd, intent on achieving its objective. It entices us on a primal level, sending shivers down our collective spines as the mob chants their incantations. Whether it is political, festive (outdoor concerts) or just plain destructive (riots following sports events), we cannot help but watch in awe at the power of the crowd.

Is this the exhibition of the power of the masses, that the gathering of people can affect change? Consider that a spontaneous protest not only requires a shocking event, but must manifest where there are deep-rooted sentiments. When the event is juxtaposed against the Zeitgeist, therein lies its birth. The Cedar Revolution has shown that the sudden gathering of people can make a difference.