by Alif Daoud
I bet that If Western powers test their citizens views on democracy, as a model without the word "Western" trotting along, the overwhelming majority would probably have been cast simply in favour of democracy.
Wriggling off responsibility of flagrant violations of human values make us distrust "Western democracies". Reality on the ground simply restates the obvious. My view, of course, hardly meant to question "Western democracies" in its own right, but rather its dealing with many cases such as the Western Sahara one.
Needless to say, one needs no study, political or otherwise, to conclude that the majority of the Saharawis are in desperate need of European democracy benefits. But they need them for their own sake, not for the sake of those, like Sarkozy and Zapatero, who wish to legitimize an occupation and to tout the virtues of a superpower.
Besides many other famous cases, Western Sahara is another admittedly impressive turnout in Western democracies. The EU spin that suggests a vote in favour of a EU-Moroccan fish agreement, prevails that the sense continues to be that the EU parliament in Brussels is a charade democracy that still has little to do with the basics of the universal human rights.
Despite EU politicians constant exhortations that they, too, wish to have the Saharawi problems resolved, their words resonate nowhere in Western Sahara, save perhaps in their fishing vessels. For ordinary Saharawis, these politicians are simply hypocrite; for others, may be, politically savvy, their values of "democracy" are a disguise of their corporate drive for power and profit.
Most of us see the paradox of Western democracies wheel in practice. In fact, we daily live the paradox. But if you find yourself engaged in a heated political conversation about this issue - most likely you will with the first one you meet - you'd be surprised to learn of a deep admiration for Western democracies. You'll hear fantastic, often exaggerated stories, of the justice enjoyed by Western citizens, justice that not many other countries can match . But the wheel of Western democracies either grinds to a halt or completely changes course once it reaches Western Sahara. Its values, style, and goals become different, even though much of the rhetoric remains constant and unchanged. So many people, like us, are very suspicious of "Western democracies" vis-à-vis their own situations.
The prevailing example of this dichotomy is the case of the human rights violations in Western Sahara. The rights, wishes and legitimate aspirations of the Saharawi people were undercut and deemed "irrelevant" for embracing a political line incongruous from an American and European perspective.
It can be considered that the modern European model of Democracy falls short of oppressed people's ambitions. It seems to me that Western Democracies are, somehow, based on economic calculations, which depicted the universe as a market, rather than a moral order.
Indeed, there are certain kind of Western democracies that would forcibly change other nations' government and impose on them faulty democracy or confrontational political systems that produce nothing but arguments, conflicts and civil wars. It appears to me that the engineers of these satanic democracies are alarmed and beginning to seek other ways to secure protectionism. So, it's expectable that roughly speaking, north and south, rich and poor could be in a major ethical confrontations. Meanwhile, western democracies have boasted itself up so high and mighty to already symbolize the only just and rightful prototype of human governance, even human ethics. Such dangerous notion is bound to turn the world into a chained reacting and revolting total mess. All traditions, social bondages and precious enlightenment of human democratic values would become subjects for questioning, while those untrue make-belief things, even state medias and schools, would enlarge to teach young generations more make-belief violence and killings for freedom and justice, such as the US democracy in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq and an "acceptance" in the case of Morocco. All these things are becoming the ticking time bombs for our daily political life. It is therefore imperative now to examine what that Democracy really stands for! before more nations would send armies and bombers to change other nations' democracy.
It is a matter of fact that the Spanish democracy, for instance, was inaugurated by the Madrid Agreement which since then confiscated the right of the Saharawi people to independence or at least self-determination.
In this particular case and which has a lot to do with us the Saharawis, the Spanish modern democracy is basically consisted of power grabbing political parties. One begins its mandate by first slitting up the nation into friends and enemies. Half the time the parties blame each other for the situation in Western Sahara and thereby may produce some limited positive and fruitful results. The other half of time, they devote their efforts to strengthen their party interests in Morocco.
History suggests that ethics, not fish agreements and strategic interests, determine fitness for democracy. And history suggests we can pinpoint what kind of ethics fit for global democracy.
The West takes it for granted that its democracy is established, but this is now seen to be based upon false economic interest assumptions. To drag the Western democracies out of the collapse, The lifting of the entropic yoke of unbalanced strategies must occur now.
--------------Este texto expresa la opinion del autor y no de los moderadores del foro.