Politics
Economic
Democracy, World Government, and Globalization
By Roar Bjonnes
From a political
and moral perspective, the US-led war against Iraq was an unjust war.
While military force against a brutal tyrant like Saddam Hussain may
be justified, it should always be a last resort, after all diplomatic
means have been exercised. Moreover, if such a military action is finally
undertaken, it should be led by a world body, such as a reformed UN,
or a World Militia under the auspices of a World Government. This time,
however, it was led by a superpower with vested economic, political,
and religious interests in the Middle East region.
The current
global political and economic climate is imbalanced and unstable. Western
democracies, while philosophically guided by the principles of modernism
(equality, fraternity, and liberty) are often not emphasizing the same
principles when global economic policies are drafted.
More precisely,
the globalization forces promote political democracy while often using
undemocratic means when dictating economic policies. Driven by the profit-hungry
forces of neo-liberalism, or economic globalization, policies set in
the West--through institutions such as the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF)--have often bypassed local democratic institutions
and proven to be economically counterproductive and devastating to the
so-called developing nations. "Theirs is not an ideology of freedom
and democracy," writes William Finnegan in Harper's magazine. "It
is a system of control. It is an economics of empire."
Even in
countries with a tradition of political democracy, such as in South East
Asia, and in South America, the neo-liberal policies have often been
economically disastrous. Argentina, for example--for a long time the
poster-child of economic globalization--is today suffering the worst
economic crisis in its history. In short, economic democracy is still
a far cry for most developing nations. Indeed, economic democracy is
also only a dream for millions of poor in the rich Western nations.
As PROUT
founder P. R. Sarkar writes, economic democracy is the "birthright
of every individual." To achieve economic democracy--or what author
and PROUT activist Dada Maheshvarananda calls "a dynamic economy
of the people, by the people and for the people"-- economic power
must be vested in the hands of local people, not foreign corporate interests.
The
Fist of Free Trade
Economic liberalization has now reached all corners of the world, but has yet
to take hold in the Middle East. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, President
George Bush drew several rather surprising links between the need for free trade
liberalizations and a "free Iraq." Here is a quote from a National
Press Conference:
" I
appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. That
society -- free speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq. Secondly, I've
seen all kinds of protests since I've been the President. I remember
the protests against trade. A lot of people didn't feel like free trade
was good for the world. I completely disagree. I think free trade is
good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. But that didn't change
my opinion about trade. As a matter of fact, I went to the Congress to
get trade promotion authority out. "
No surprise
then that free trade and the messianic vision of market fundamentalism
was an important part of The National Security Strategy of the United
States, issued by the White House in September 2002. "We will actively
work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free
trade to every corner of the world," the Strategy claims. "The
possibility that the Marines and high altitude bombers might need to
be involved in spreading the good news about free trade does not, in
context, seem far-fetched," writes Finnegan.
No, it does
not seem far-fetched. As New York Times columnist and economic globalization
advocate Tom Friedman wrote in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree:
"The
hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's
cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas... And the hidden fist that
keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is
called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps."
In other
words, the war against Iraq was more about fostering the freedom to make
a profit on hamburgers than about finding WMD's. It was more about McWorld
vs. Jihad than it was about Bush vs. Saddam.
Free trade
and corporate globalization--whichever way it is implemented--has not,
however, been a boon for the world's developing countries. While the
US and Europe has increased its wealth, most people in developing nations
have become poorer. Indeed, even the IMF recently reported that their
policies have failed in lifting these countries out of poverty. Even
in the US, globalization has had negative effects on peoples income.
Real wages have fallen 4 percent since 1973, while economic growth has
averaged 3 percent. In contrast, during the decades prior to globalization--between
1947 and 1973--economic growth averaged 4 percent and wages increased
by 63 percent. So, why should Iraq celebrate a future designed by the
warriors and free traders in Washington?
Now that
the high altitude bombers have finished their work in Iraq, and the US
promises the "liberated" Iraqi people that they will soon bask
in the glory of democracy, this promise does of course not include the
promise of economic democracy. For free market fundamentalism and real-life
economic democracy are not mutually inclusive. Just ask the people of
Bolivia. Although rich in natural resources, it is the poorest country
in South America. Why? Most of the resources are utilized by foreign
corporations. "The World Bank is the government of Bolivia," a
Bolivian newspaper editor claims. So, how can the US promise Iraq what
the Washington strategists cannot even provide millions of its own citizens,
not to speak of the impoverished people in the third world?
A "free
Iraq" must therefore not only mean the political freedom to vote,
but also freedom from poverty, and the freedom to choose the path of
economic self-sufficiency. A truly liberated people should be able to
exercise both political and economic democracy. Most of all they should
feel secure that no foreign economic power can dictate their economic
future--that they are not victims of the "dictatorship" of
foreign economic powers.
There are
many stated and unstated reasons behind the US-led coalition's war against
Iraq. Most of those reasons--to protect US national self-interest, to
prevent future attacks by Iraq and other terrorists, to stop the proliferation
of the not-yet-proven Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, to ensure US
geopolitical control of the Middle East, and to ensure trade liberalization
in the region--do not meet the high moral aim of simply liberating the
Iraqi people from an unjust tyranny.
The economic
sanctions will soon be lifted so that Iraq, and thus the whole Middle
East, can open up for the commercial and cultural hegemony of Western
corporations. Aid will also be flowing in. And with this aid, for the
hungry and painful bodies of Iraq, will also come aid for their souls.
The Messianic message of Billy Graham, his son, and many other Christian
evangelical preachers will soon be heard all over the dusty towns of
this ancient, Muslim country. For, as there is a holy alliance between
McDonald's and McDonnel Douglas, there is also a holy alliance between
US-born capitalism and Born Again Christians, between fundamentalist
Christendom and fundamentalist economics.
World
Government and Economic Democracy
Unfortunately, we have a UN without a spine and a global economic system without
a soul. What we need instead is a World Government with a militia, and a global
economic system that fosters economic democracy, or people's democracy.
As the civilizational
and economic conflict between the North and the South, between the rich
and the poor, increases, there will be a growing need for both a World
Government and for economic democracy. The people of the world will soon
be tired of the US operating as the World's Cop. There will thus be demands
for a world authority governing from a higher moral ground than both
the UN and, especially, the US is currently operating on. In the words
of philosopher Ken Wilber:
" My
own belief is that, in the coming century, we will see the present United
Nations peacefully replaced by the first move toward a genuine World
Federation, driven particularly by threats to the global commons that
cannot be handled on a national level (such as terrorism, global monetary
and economic policy, and environmental threats to the global commons)."
" This would mean, for example," writes Wilber, "that America
is allowed to despise Iraq (in the privacy of its own...national, cultural space).
America is not, however, allowed to attack Iraq."
What are
some of the benefits of a World Federation or World Government? Sarkar
suggests four main benefits:
1. The huge
expenses of maintaining a militia in each country will be reduced, and
these savings can be used to benefit people's needs.
2. There
will be a great reduction in psychological tension.
3. There
will be less bloodshed.
4. There
will be free movement of people from one corner of the globe to the other.
While Wilber
has been primarily preoccupied with blueprinting the cultural and political
landscape fostering a more benign world, Sarkar has also mapped its economic
aspects. Sarkar believed that political democracy cannot fulfill all "the
hopes and aspirations of people or provide the basis for constructing
a strong and healthy human society. For this the only solution is to
establish economic democracy."
According
to Sarkar, the following guidelines are needed to establish economic
democracy:
--The minimum
requirements of life must be guaranteed to all. The minimum requirements
of a particular age -- including food, clothing, housing, education and
medical care -- should be guaranteed to all.
--Increasing
purchasing power must be guaranteed to each and every individual.
--Local
people will control economic power, consequently local raw materials
will be used to promote the economic prosperity of the local people.
This will create industries based on locally available raw materials
and ensure full employment for all local people.
--Outsiders
must be strictly prevented from interfering in the local economy. The
outflow of local capital must be stopped by strictly preventing outsiders
or a floating population from participating in any type of economic activity
in the local area."
Paul Hawken,
an author whose writings and talks envisions a world of economic democracy,
cultural vitality and ecological sustainability, was recently asked by
a journalist: "Aren't you just dreaming?" He replied: "Absolutely
I'm dreaming; somebody's got to dream in America." Indeed, somebody's
got to dream of a better future, and not just in America, in all countries
of the world.
So, in the
spirit of Paul Hawken, Ken Wilber and P. R. Sarkar, let us all dream.
Let us all dream of a better future for Iraq, and a better future for
the world.
