a couple of years ago, during a summer, I met a young politician who worked for a European foundation in the Middle East. Although the objectives of the Foundation included the promotion of peace and democratic values, the young diplomat surprised me with a comment that, years later, I have to share: "The last thing you need to Jordan is a democratic government. With democracy, the most radical Islamists would take power and stability of the country and the region would be endangered. "
Where democracy does not dim with liberalism (protection of individual and minority rights, separation of powers, religious freedom charter, property Private ...), the resulting system can be hell for the minority loses. The religious factor also counts. As the political philosopher Pierre Manent , the correlation between Christian societies and liberal Democrat is no coincidence: Christianity, unlike Islam, it presupposes a separation between the kingdom of God and men. The kingdom of Christ, in fact, not of this world. Islam, however, blurs the distinction between civil law and religious law. For Manent typical political form of Christianity is the nation-state, while the political form of Islam is the rule.
Without the despotic mandate Mubarak is a dictator, or without the fragile balance between religious sects in Lebanon can be seen, pure and simple democracy would put in power the more radical (the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, respectively). This, once again highlights the taboos advanced by controversial political scientist Carl Schmitt , who saw democracy as a regime based on homogeneity. Liberalism has allowed us to live in ethnically heterogeneous democratic societies, but to be seen whether a majority government to advocate the conflation between civil and religious law is able to respect minorities nonbelievers or followers of other faiths.
Digressions
political theory aside, what really attracted the attention of experts in political communication is the role of new media in the revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt, both for its use within the respective countries, for their alleged effect snowball throughout the Middle East. Interestingly, they agree on the market two books that, to some extent contradictory. The first, more likely to judge the Internet as a means of democratic liberation, is due to Philip N. Howard: The origins of digital democracy: Information technology and Political Islam (Oxford, 2010). The second, entitled The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom (PublicAffairs, 2011) and written by Evgeny Morozov, says the network has become a tool for authoritarian regimes to suppress and now able to monitor more effectively with civil society.
A careful reading of these volumes certainly provide a more weighted on the true role of new technologies in the alleged wave of democratization in the Middle East.
Recommended Links:
- Web Project on Information Technology and Political Islam.
- article Philip Howard for the Huffington Post.
- Interview to Philip Howard on his new book .
- Video of Philip Howard conference at Duke University.
- Morozov's review of the book by Craig Calhoun , professor of sociology at New York University.
- Morozov's review of the book in The Economist.
# # #
0 comments:
Post a Comment