| |
Clash of the
super-systems
By Ken Sanes
If you look at the world through the eyes of a
political scientist, it quickly becomes apparent that it
is crowded with all kinds of systems and movements that
are vying with each other for power. There is everything
from Chinese market communism to weak Arab nationalism
to new strains of Christianity that are sweeping through
Latin America, Africa and Asia. But, from among this
welter of systems and solutions to life's problems,
there are three that are, in fact, shaping much of the
politics on the planet. If we want to understand
everything from the emergence of terrorism as a global
force to the intricacies of domestic politics in
America, it is these three systems we have to pay
attention to.
Instead of super-powers, one might
call these three "super-systems" since they are all
global in reach. Among a number of things they have in
common, all share a missionary zeal that leads them to
want to re-create the world in their own image.
It will come as no surprise to readers that one
of the three systems is militant Islam, which burst into
the world stage on September 11 with the horrific attack
on the World Trade Center. It is now waging a terrorist
war against the other two systems, as well as against
anyone else it perceives as an enemy.
The other
two systems are American-style corporate capitalism and
statist liberalism. These two systems are fighting each
other for power as well, although mostly by trying to
win elections and using the media to influence public
opinion, instead of hijacking airplanes and targeting
civilians. They are also working together in the fight
against Islamic terrorism and other dangers, although
statist liberalism includes a powerful anti-war movement
that has already caused it to break ranks with corporate
capitalism on Iraq.
Of course, these three
systems aren’t the only factors shaping world politics.
The other factor that is most notably influencing events
is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
which recently entered a new and more dangerous phase.
These weapons haven't only increased the danger posed by
Islamic terrorism, which is trying to add them to its
arsenal. They have also allowed two brutal dictators,
Saddam Hussein and the mercurial Kim Jong-il of North
Korea, to assume a menacing global role. Both represent
failed states and systems that are being discarded by
history. But they have been inflated beyond their true
size by the danger that they could use technology to
destroy human life on a mass scale.
Unfortunately, the danger posed by these weapons
doesn’t end there. In addition, a vast region of Africa
and southern and central Asia, which includes the
Islamic culture region, is the site of often intractable
conflicts that can easily draw in the rest of the world.
Among those conflicts, Christians and Muslims are
fighting in Nigeria; Palestinians are fighting against
Israel; and Pakistan is playing a game of nuclear
brinkmanship with India in the fight over anti-Indian
terrorism and the disputed territory of Kashmir. Throw
in the nuclear ambitions of Iran and it is obvious that
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in this
region has the potential to bring about a calamity that
would directly affect everyone.
It is these
elements that are now most profoundly shaping global
politics. With this in mind, lets look at the three
global super-systems referred to earlier to get a sense
of the role they will play in the more dangerous world
that is now emerging.
The most volatile system,
of course, is traditional Islam and its aggressively
intolerant and expansionist wing, militant Islam, which
has mobilized anti-Western activists in large parts of
Africa and Asia. Inspired by visions of a stern God of
the kind that once animated Western societies, its goal
is to create a world of true believers governed by a
strict Islamic code. Mosques, madrassas (Islamic
schools), and the media are its centers of education and
indoctrination, and Mecca is its spiritual center.
As is well known, militant Islam represents a
set of values that are almost the precise opposite of
the values held dear in the West. In Afghanistan, it
imposed a state of virtual slavery on women and a system
of oppressive social control on everyone else. It also
used Afghanistan as a base of operations for Islamic
terrorists who believe mass murder and suicide are
spiritual acts.
The question is, how extensive
can this system become? President George W. Bush, among
others, claims that it represents only a small group of
people amid a sea of moderate Muslims. But a recent survey
by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
paints a very different picture. It found that a large
number of Muslim respondents in many nations with
significant Muslim populations "believe that suicide
bombings can be justified in order to defend Islam from
its enemies". In Pakistan, which is America's nominal
ally in the war on terror, 33 percent said suicide
bombings are justifiable, while 43 percent said they
aren't. In Nigeria, 47 percent said they are justifiable
while 45 percent said they aren't. In Bangladesh, it was
44 to 37 percent. Even in Indonesia, while 70 percent
said suicide bombings aren't justifiable, a sizeable 27
percent said they are. These are all nations with large
populations that make up a significant portion of the
Islamic world. In two frontline states in the
Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon and Jordan, the
percentage saying suicide bombings are justifiable was
73 percent (!) and 43 percent.
The existence of
such a large, untapped, reservoir of support for Islamic
terrorism suggests that militant Islam has the numbers
it will need for a takeover in at least some Muslim
nations. Such a takeover might proceed by populist
uprising, force or elections, as we have already seen in
Iran, Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier Province in
Pakistan. The nations that are vulnerable include
Bangladesh, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and Egypt, the most
populous Arab state and another frontline state in the
war with Israel.
But a takeover by Muslim
militants may turn out to be only an early stage in the
development of the global system of militant Islam. We
could also see the emergence of a mass movement that
crosses national borders, and the forging of new
alliances, as militant Islamic states band together
against the West, much as terrorists from different
Islamic nations have coalesced into a single fighting
force. It is even possible we will see the emergence of
a leader who will bring together the charisma of the
dictator with the fervor of religion, mobilizing masses
of supporters, breaking down borders and creating a new
Muslim empire on the way to a holy war with the West.
The admiration many Muslims have for Osama bin Laden
suggests that there is a widespread yearning for such a
leader. And the history of Islam is replete with just
such empire builders and conquerors.
When you
add these factors together, they suggest that we may be
dealing with a global movement that could confront the
West not for years but decades. And, as we saw in
Afghanistan, once Islamic terrorists have a territory
they can use as a base of operations, they become more
effective at launching attacks, even if they also become
more vulnerable to attack themselves.
Of course,
it is also possible that the governments in many Muslim
nations will continue to keep militant sentiments under
control, as the Bush administration hopes. And it is
possible that most of these nations will slowly evolve
into more open societies as they interact with the West.
But, as militant Islamists aggressively push their
agenda in many countries and large numbers of Muslims
respond angrily to the war on terrorism, this sanguine
view seems increasingly unrealistic.
But the
Islamic world also includes a region that has been
influenced by the West, which could become a source of
moderation. For that to happen, we would need to see the
replacement of Saddam Hussein in partly secularized Iraq
and the overthrow of the reigning mullahs in Iran, with
its increasingly Westernized population. We would then
have a mostly contiguous region of moderate states in
western Asia that would also include Turkey, Kuwait and
a number of smaller Gulf states. It would link up in the
east with what presumably will be a moderate
Afghanistan. Such a region, open to market forces, would
likely go through a period of rapid development that
would offer a very different model to the Muslim world.
Given its proximity to Europe, it would function as an
extension of freedom into western Asia.
We now
turn to the second system that is inspiring people
across borders: American-style democratic corporate
capitalism, which militant Islam sees as a threat to its
way of life. Unlike militant Islam, which appeals to the
desire to be part of an ethical system that governs
society and the universe, corporate capitalism appeals
to the selfish desire to live well and have the power to
create one's own world. In place of a society of true
believers, it creates a society of product-hungry
consumers, along with workers, investors and ambitious
entrepreneurs, imbued with the profit motive and
strongly influenced by commercially-controlled media.
And, in place of the mosque and madrassa, it is
based on the marketplace and democratic institutions,
with Wall Street, Hollywood (or, at least, the
entertainment industry), and the government buildings
around the National Mall as its centers in America.
Where militant Islam violently represses
opponents, corporate capitalism's first choice is to
co-opt potential enemies with the promise of wealth and
power. In place of a unitary system based on a religious
book, it appropriates the elements of all cultures,
flattening them out and converting them into media
fantasies and consumer products.
Like militant
Islam, it is globalist in philosophy and practice. Its
goal is to create a single world in its own image, which
means it would supplant traditional Islam in Muslim
nations if given the chance, just as it largely
supplanted Christianity as a political force in the
West. It is driven to expand by the constant quest for
new markets and new sources of materials and labor
while, at the same time, it clones itself by inspiring
people in other nations to join in the quest for wealth.
Although this system can exist in dictatorships,
it tends to produce the kind of open democracies that it
needs to prosper, just as it creates a base of affluent
individuals who are inclined to claim their rights. But
the political system it produces is strongly influenced
by corporations, which have the money to effectively
lobby elected officials and manipulate public opinion.
This system also tends to create self-oriented cultures,
as the media and other market forces play to desires for
sex, status and spectacle, and newfound wealth lets
people indulge in the kind of lifestyles that were once
available only to a few.
Before September 11,
this system seemed like the only one with the power to
shape the world in its own image. Then Islamic
terrorists, led by Osama bin Laden, exploited the fact
that advanced societies have to bring together large
numbers of people to achieve efficiency and maximize
profit, in cities, malls, office buildings and
transportation. The terrorists turned that strength into
capitalism's Achilles' heel, converting office buildings
and airplanes into what have been referred to as
technology traps. What had been a source of power and a
boon to prosperity suddenly became an engine of death
that people were unable to escape.
Then came the
second shock: the belated realization that a far worse
fate might befall the West if the scale of attack were
raised a level and weapons of mass destruction were used
to turn cities into the same kind of technology trap. As
a result, America and other nations now find themselves
in a radically altered world, fighting Islamic
terrorists and trying to contain the threat from
dangerous weapons, simultaneously. If they fail or if
there is a prolonged threat to use nuclear weapons,
producing something like an extended version of the
Cuban missile crisis, we could see a new path of
development for many nations, particularly in the West.
In place of densely populated metropolitan areas and
relatively open societies, we could see depressed
economies, dispersed populations, which make less
inviting targets, and the evolution of national security
states, along with a darker mood that would give the
decadence of the West a morose, post-apocalyptic feel to
it.
In addition to militant Islam and democratic
corporate capitalism, the third system that has the
ability to inspire people across borders is statist
liberalism, which is based on the effort to contain
capitalism within a bureaucratic state dedicated to
equality and social justice. The focus of this system is
on using money generated from taxes to minister to
people’s needs and defend them from unfair treatment,
which means they become consumers of government
services. It too relies on the wealth generated by the
market, but it is definitively shaped by welfare
bureaucracies and liberal/left interest groups. Like
corporate capitalism, which it is typically in
competition with for power, it is joined together with
democracy.
Also like corporate capitalism,
statist liberalism in America and Western Europe is a
secular product of the Enlightenment. But the shared
values of the two systems often have a very different
spin to them. Statist liberalism tends to be
anti-consumerist and relativistic in ways that assert
the equality of outcast groups with those who have
dominated society. And it rejects much of American-style
media, which it sees as a tool of corporate manipulation
that produces compliant consumers and voters. This
system’s attitude toward the individual and society can
be succinctly described as "We're all in the same boat,"
as opposed to corporate capitalism's attitude of
"Everyone for him (or her) self."
Statist
liberalism also has some surprising things in common
with militant Islam, despite their obvious differences.
Both appeal to people's desire to feel like they are
part of a larger group that is on the side of right.
Both would also use strong governments to achieve their
goals and undo some of the effects of corporate
capitalism. But militant Islam would destroy Western
corporations and media, which it sees as a form of
cultural imperialism pushing secularism, individualism
and decadence. By contrast, statist liberalism has grown
along with modern capitalism in the West, attempting to
reduce its excesses and protect those it perceives as
victims.
Readers won't be surprised to learn
that the political base of statist liberalism is the
Democratic Party and the left in America, along with
Western Europe's left-leaning governments, where welfare
state policies have the upper hand. By contrast,
corporate capitalism finds a political base in the
Republican Party in the United States.
Nor will
readers be surprised to learn that the two systems have
important differences in the way they want to deal with
the world situation. More specifically, statist
liberalism is the home of a burgeoning anti-war movement
that has opposed military action in Iraq and the policy
of engaging in preemptive attacks against governments.
Statist liberalism’s anti-war sentiments are partly
based on the perception that American policies are often
motivated by the quest for wealth and power. In
addition, liberalism seems to have a greater faith in
the international rule of law, while the emphasis it
places on humane values and compassion leads it to have
a higher threshold for approving of military action than
democratic corporate capitalism. Its views on this were
influenced in America by the defeat in Vietnam, which
elevated the anti-war McGovern wing of foreign policy to
power in the Democratic Party. Similar views in Europe
have been shaped by German guilt and the devastation of
World War II.
Instead, it is the Republican
Party, motivated by a desire to protect the security and
wealth of the West, and imbued with the values of market
competition and traditional Western religions, that
wants to use force against Iraq. A far smaller group of
Democratic leaders hold the same views. Which philosophy
governs the presidency in America could decide war and
peace, and the fate of nations.
These are the
three systems now contending for the hearts and minds of
people around the world. Each has its own geographic
centers. And each sees itself as the engine of history
that is using the process of globalization in a
different way, bringing about prosperity and personal
freedom or social justice and equality or a world in
which humanity lives by the requirements of Allah.
But, even while these systems are fighting each
other for power, it is interesting to note that they
also have something in common: they are all genuinely
multiracial in philosophy and practice. Islam would
bring all peoples together under Allah just as it
physically brings them together in Mecca. And whatever
one may say about the terrorists who crave mass death,
they don't discriminate in their own ranks based on
race. For its part, statist liberalism glorifies
diversity, including racial diversity, as an antidote to
the white traditionalism of the West. Corporate
capitalism is ultimately inclusive, as well, since it
pulls everyone into its orbit in its quest for new
markets. It does divide people up, on the basis of money
rather than race.
All of this is a
simplification, of course. As we get closer to events,
we begin to see all kinds of nuances and complications.
For example, all three systems have more moderate and
more extreme versions, as we see in Islam, which can be
militant, relying on intolerant expansionism, or
traditional in a way that still makes co-existence
possible.
Another complicating factor can be
found in the fact noted at the beginning that the world
isn't limited to these systems. There are also simple
dictatorships and socialist and communist governments,
as well as the secularized and more traditional forms of
Judaism in Israel, the global organization of
Catholicism and Hindu fundamentalism in India.
When we take these elements into account, it
becomes clear that governments and societies are a mix
of different systems. America’s Republican Party, for
example, is a mix of social conservatism, corporate
capitalism and a willingness to maintain elements of the
welfare state, although its soul is with corporate
capitalism. The Democratic Party includes elements of
corporate capitalism and statist liberalism, which is
one reason many on the left see it as an imperfect
vehicle for their politics. Even militant Islam is a mix
that adapts some elements of other systems to its own
needs.
Nor will these three systems necessarily
continue to monopolize the world stage over the coming
years and decades. In fact, there is at least one other
trend going on right now that could create one or more
new global systems which will shape the politics of
nations and perhaps entire regions. It can be found in
the new forms of Christianity that are sweeping Latin
America, Africa and Asia.
Here is a description
of some of the changes being wrought by this new wave of
Christianity, which comes from an article by Philip
Jenkins in the October,
2002, edition of The Atlantic Monthly. It offers a
vision of one possible future in which new global
systems founded on Christianity are vying for power. The
reference in it to Southern churches refers to churches
in the "Third World" countries of Africa, Asia, and
Latin America.
"The booming Pentecostal churches
of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are thoroughly
committed to re-creating their version of an idealized
early Christianity (often described as the restoration
of 'primitive' Christianity). The most successful
Southern churches preach a deep personal faith, communal
orthodoxy, mysticism, and puritanism, all founded on
obedience to spiritual authority, from whatever source
it is believed to stem. Pentecostals - and their
Catholic counterparts - preach messages that may appear
simplistically charismatic, visionary, and apocalyptic
to a Northern liberal. For them prophecy is an everyday
reality, and many independent denominations trace their
foundation to direct prophetic authority ... Of course,
American reformers also dream of a restored early
Church; but whereas Americans imagine a Church freed
from hierarchy, superstition, and dogma, Southerners
look back to one filled with spiritual power and able to
exorcise the demonic forces that cause sickness and
poverty. And yes, ‘demonic’ is the word. The most
successful Southern churches today speak openly of
spiritual healing and exorcism."
Jenkins
believes the emergence of these new forms of
Christianity could contribute to a global clash of
religions, including a clash with Islam:
"Across
the regions of the world that will be the most populous
in the twenty-first century, vast religious contests are
already in progress, though so far they have impinged
little on Western opinion. The most significant conflict
is in Nigeria, a nation that by rights should be a major
regional power in this century and perhaps even a global
power; but recent violence between Muslims and
Christians raises the danger that Nigerian society might
be brought to ruin by the clash of jihad and crusade.
Muslims and Christians are at each other's throats in
Indonesia, the Philippines, Sudan, and a growing number
of other African nations; Hindu extremists persecute
Christians in India. Demographic projections suggest
that these feuds will simply worsen. Present-day battles
in Africa and Asia may anticipate the political outlines
to come, and the roots of future great-power alliances."
Seen from this perspective, it appears that the
relatively quiescent period we went through after the
fall of the Soviet Union was just an interlude rather
than the beginning of an era of peaceful co-existence.
The globe is once again an arena for conflicts between
powerful systems that would reshape the world in their
own image. But the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction gives this contest a new level of danger
that is unique in history.
Ken Sanes
is a writer living in suburban Boston, US. Please visit
his website at www.transparencynow.com.
(Copyright 2003 Ken Sanes)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
