Pages

Tahrir

The Uprisings in the Arab World – Reflections on Democracy

Tahrir

Tahrir Square Egypt 2011

(First published in Swedish in May 2011)

Revolution has been brewing in the Arab world for a long time. It could have started in any number of countries, each unique with its own contradictions, incentives  and history. The common denominator, however, is probably the need of a people to shape their own destiny. This is about freedom and human dignity and doing away with oppression, corruption and insensitive leaders, especially those who are puppets of Anglo-American imperialism and its Zionist masters.

The Tunisian people started the revolutionary process and the Egyptians saw it through, thus turning a page in history. However, the outcome is hardly without problems. The interests of the former despots are present in many ways and they, and their masters, are still fighting and anxious that they themselves, and not the people, are acknowledged as fathers of the revolution or at least the adoptive parents. We are witnessing merely the onset of a process, and  people should prepare themselves for the worst while fighting for the best.

The ongoing economic and moral decline of western civilisation might make it possible to create a  global unity of people to face up to the power elite that sees us only as cannon fodder, hard workers and obedient servants in a New World Order where nation states are weakened and conflicts between ethnic and religious groups are ever present. The future is in the hands of the people, but nothing should be taken for granted.

Everyone says it is about “Democracy” but what do we mean by that?

The fact that both the western neocolonial masters and the victims of their criminal wars and occupations now speak of democracy should give us food for thought. Democracy means the power of the people and can never be absolute but certainly approximate in various ways. In most cases some form of free electoral process is probably involved and more than one ruler or king. There are secular and religious states, there are multi-party and one-party systems, there can be voting for a personal candidate or parties/ideologies and there can be various combinations of all these aspects in a form of government.

What makes any discussion of democracy so indistinct is that people often – sometimes on purpose – do not distinguish between “the power of the people” and “form of government”. At the end of the day the extent to which the power of the people is reflected in the form of government is decided by reality. In other words, it is a practical matter, not an ideological one.

Western liberal democracy – parliamentarism – is a form of government that evolved in a young and growing industrialism with a capitalistic system of economy. The system intervenes little in the ownership of the means of production or in the power over the economy and the banks. We know today that this system needs the whole world as a market and has led to colonialism, imperialism and  neocolonialism, most recently directed by the UN  in Libya, and before in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, the power of the people is very limited in liberal democracies and when it comes to matters of war and peace, it is almost non existent.

It may therefore seem odd that in countries where people have suffered under western puppets, indigenous despots or occupations, there are those who, without reservation, seem to seek some form of government similar to one that caused, or allowed this. Or do they just confuse “power of the people” with “form of government”?

What about the Islamic Theocracy?

It is difficult to envisage the future of the Iranian theocracy in the wake of the uprisings in the Arab world, but it will certainly be affected. Although the Koran or Allah lay down the law, it is people who interpret and decide on its enforcement. And people are just people, with good sides and bad; the latter usually formed by tribal mentality over thousands of years, and which first came up against more humanistic orientated ideas in modern times.

Tribal mentality is a universal phenomenon, it still exists to varying extents in nation sates, regardless of form of government. Tribal mentality and hatred towards the other belong together as do humanism and love.

Tribal mentality is usually seen as something associated with the countries in the so-called third world, but it also exists in the western world. Here it is Jews and not Gypsies who are, for the time being, at “the top of the food chain” because of their dominant role in the media and economy. The Jewish mentality, de facto a tribal mentality, hereby gains much scope in practical western policies, and has become a political ideology – Zionism (1) – its  supporters widely outnumbering the number of Jews in the world, significantly because of the support it receives from Christians.

While Islam formally influences the rule of the people in, for example, Iran, Zionism has an informal influence on the rule of the people in the western world, with the exception of Sweden which is quite unique, considering the role of the state as producer of  Zionist ideology through the government agency Living History Forum (FFHL (2). However, in both cases the forms of government include free general elections and neither has a dictator.

If a reliable method existed to measure the practical power of the people in Iran and the US, free from ideological and religious smoke screens, it would not be a surprise to find that the result showed up advantageous to Iran. This, however, is material for an article in itself.

Is “Democracy” the solution to the problems of the Arab world?

Having given some thought to the concept of democracy, we may now say “yes” if a form of government evolves in the Arab world that includes considerable power of the people and is sustainable, and “no” if it is simply a form of government named “liberal democracy” or something similar with very limited power of the people. The Marxist model of government, based on “democratic centralism” has also been widely, and unsuccessfully, implemented in modern time, but I shall not go into that in this context.

The peoples of the world will surely find ways to introduce new forms of government in the fight against our rulers and their rulers. There are already signs, for example, that the young people of Egypt’s revolution have achieved much more than many realise, despite the obstacles continuously blocking the way, put there by the west headed by the US and Israel.

1) What is Zionism?

2) A governant agency for the production of Zionist ideology

Note: 

Re Jewish mentality and Israel as an excluding state, see professor of history Slomo Sand, “The Invention of the Jewish People”, Verso 2009.

Re the Jews” influence on the western world, see professor of history Yuri Slezkine, “The Jewish Century”, Princeton University Press 2004.

Original source

Share Button

4 Responses to The Uprisings in the Arab World – Reflections on Democracy

  1. searching May 24, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    democracy without sticking/adhering to the moral/ethical values is doomed to fail.
    We are observing it nowadays.
    Massive moral decline, deterioration of human spirit, decadence, nihilism.
    When people are spiritually weak, meek, confused, divided, they are a very easy target to be controled, enslaved, destroyed.
    Are we going ot be able to save ourselves, our souls??????

  2. Ariadna Theokopoulos May 25, 2012 at 4:49 am #

    Great article and the two links may well be an education for many as they were for me. One question:
    Given the alarming situation you describe in the linked article, whereby the Swedish government is eagerly producing hasbara for the indoctrination of the people, what did you mean in the paragraph excerpted by me below, when you said Sweden is an exception?

    “Zionism has an informal influence on the rule of the people in the western world, with the exception of Sweden which is quite unique, considering the role of the state as producer of Zionist ideology through the government agency Living History Forum (FFHL (2). “

  3. Lasse Wilhelmson May 25, 2012 at 7:33 am #

    A good question, as it may be difficult to differenciate between research/education and propaganda in praxis.

    http://www.levandehistoria.se/english

    FFHL takes orders direct from the government, not like universities and shools. but are doing similar things when it comes to education and research. It is a “state athority” like the ones for tax and law. A state athority for producing Hasbara (“knowledge”) about Holocaust and “anti-semitism”, and against communism, but not about Nakba or Zionism. And of course it is governed by jews.

    In Sweden this is unique, because in this case it is the state that tells you what to think about certain historical events and how to use them. It is not for debate outside the given premisis.

    The state athorities in Sweden have a very strong position. I think the production of propaganda was similar in nazy germany.

    Maybe I am wrong in saying that Sweden today is unique in this? Are there similar “state athorities” in other countries?

  4. Ariadna Theokopoulos May 25, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    No, I misunderstood that sentence. I thought you were saying that in other countries hasbara permeates the culture ‘informally’ whereas Sweden is a unique exception DESPITE the fact it has FFHL. My fault. Inattentive reading.
    Sad and scary and really 1984-ish.

Leave a Reply