Just prior to the recent war on Iraq one of the highpriest of democracy, Donald Rumsfeld, requested the Turkish military to intervene and override the decision of the Turkish parliament, which prevented the US forces to use Turkey as a base to invade Iraq. One can speculate as to why Donald Rumsfeld felt no shame in making such a request, which contradicts one of the basic pillars of democracy. Turkey is not regarded as an ideal example of Western democracy and considering Turkey’s Islamic character, making such a request is consistent with the norms of the ‘uncivilised’ world. The Western intelligentsia has constantly implied this derogatory reference since the events of 9/11 as it equates the notion of “civilisation” primarily with the West.
Many would argue that Donald Rumsfeld’s request was for the sake of promoting democracy (‘Liberating’ Iraq) even though it was an undemocratic action. This is similar to a priest encouraging the prostitutes in a brothel to continue to render their services so that they can contribute part of their earnings toward building of a new church. Therefore, the priest simply overlooks the use of sinful means as he is in pursuit of higher values; the end justifies the means.
However, even the above example of the priest and the brothel has its limits! The priest would certainly not escape accusations of hypocrisy and possibly heresy if he were to encourage his female disciples to participate in the brothel to raise extra money for the new Church. Similarly, the recent request made by the US government to the newly elected Spanish leader, Zepatero, to consider the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq, should have been viewed in the same light i.e. heresy or hypocrisy to say the least.
Unlike Turkey, Spain is a member of the EU, part of the “coalition of the willing” and a core member of the Western civilisation representing a genuine democracy. The previous Spanish government was cajoled into joining the fraudulent war against the wishes of the vast majority of its population, the US government is once again urging the Spanish government to disregard the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority in Spain. Why are the highpriests from the Church of democracy urging the Spanish government to behave in the most undemocratic manner?
It is for such reasons that in my previous article (1) basic question of what democracy represents was raised. What are its core values and principles? Since, unlike religion there are no divine texts for reference, and therefore the only recourse is to examine the conducts of the highpriests from the church of democracy. These highpriests have been beating their war drums, which have been growing louder by the day as they continue to issue threats of enforcing ‘democracy’ by using its military forces upon the rest of the ‘non-democratic’ world.
One obscure Internet-pundit eventually gave some level of response to the actual points raised in the article after his initial circus of claiming that migrants are not entitled to exercise any criticisms, and to do so would equate to hypocrisy. Such type of submissive thinking is expected from intellectual migrant coolies. The subsequent article (2) elaborated on the issues and clarified some of the confusion about ‘free speech’, ‘dissension’ and ‘hypocrisy’. He stated that:
“Democracy provides the basic framework for a system of government but it is modifiable as societies evolve and change. It is not static.”
He then rants about the goodness of democracy, as being “flexible” and everything else that is “static” is evil, making specific references to Islam.
It does not take a genius to workout that democracy is a system of government, and no one would dispute that. However, that is far from adequate in addressing the issues raised in the original article1 as to what are the fundamental principles and values that define democracy and why the highpriests of democracy are constantly at odds with their proclaimed principles? This is essential for one to fully comprehend and thus distinguish democracy from other systems like theocracy, fascism and communism etc.
How does the society exercise the ‘modifiable’ nature of democracy with respect to its principles and values? As for example, if the majority decided to deport all the migrants from the US, would that be consistent with the principles of democracy? Is this not what Adolf Hitler was doing in Germany with the support of the German masses? Most self-proclaimed democratic states generally agree that the consensus of the majority of its population is binding. So, if the majority wanted to build holocaust gas chambers, there is nothing embedded in democracy to prevent that. Rather to prevent it would be an act of heresy. Why is the majority decision is somehow inherently right simply on the basis of its numerical superiority! Therefore should the minorities be always at the mercy of the majority?
The latter part of the statement referring to the modifiable and the flexible nature of democracy exposes the fallacy of these types of ‘arguments’. Do we define the criteria(s) by which we can evaluate democracy or does democracy itself somehow defines its own criteria(s) being flexible in nature? Is this not like the “chicken or the egg” situation? How does one define or identify the criteria(s) for evaluating democracy when those criteria(s) itself are liable to change? One day it is democratic and next day it is not. Therefore, according to these secular-enlightened pundits, democracy can change its colours like a chameleon, and we do not know its precise meaning, as it is modifiable.
In any case, if we take his trumpeted notion of “flexibility” then surely democracy can resemble dictatorship at one instance and theocracy in another instance, depending on its status of being in a certain flexible state. So is this not a classic example of scoring an own goal? Therefore, how is the Islamic world suppose to embrace democracy if the godfathers of democracy including their pundits, coolies and the Islamic neo-moderates do not clarify as to what they mean by democracy?
The above points have already illustrated that these secular pundits have plenty of criticism where Islam is concerned but very little to offer in the way of a solution. Therefore, being vague and evasive are the characteristics of these secular pundits posing as enlightened-rationalists, and this is not a new phenomena. They express their disgust at polygamy but they have no problem in accepting and/or promoting homosexuality and other forms of sexual activities where more than two people are involved. Which can range from other human beings to animals. As they rely upon their ‘ingenious’ minds, it becomes very difficult to rationally argue for a position other than saying it is “flexible”, and do what you want.
Take incest as another example, what is the rational reason for not engaging in such practices? Surely one can argue keeping it within the family is an age-old tradition, which is very active in the freedom loving USA as shown by recent case in California where a father killed all his incestuous grandchildren.
Similarly, the secular pundit took offence to my earlier references to pig’s excrements as being sweet to its own pallet. Surely for these super enlightened-rationalists such things should be only a matter of perspective. Was it not in the secular paradise of Germany the world witnessed two mutually consenting adults engaging in the practice of cannibalism. I have been told that if you search the Internet, you can see that the phenomena have a certain level of followings within the secular democratic paradises. It is difficult to anticipate what would constitute an offence when these enlightened-rationalists do not advocate a precise position on the various issues.
When will people learn that ethics and morality is not the product of mathematical logic or scientific experiments in laboratory but it emanates from certain beliefs about life. Questions like, what is the purpose of human existence, where have we come from and where are we going? Does life simply come to an end on this earth?
Apart from lack of clarity, vagueness and evasion there is also plenty of confusion amongst these secular pundits. Some of these little minded irrational-rationalists tend to argue that Muslims as minorities in the West should not be given their rights even though they are law-abiding citizens. As an example they argued that the Muslim women in France should not grumble about the recent ban on the headscarf, whilst non-Muslims have very little rights in Muslim countries, so they claim.
The confusion here being that the point of discussion is not about international relations, as for example two states negotiating the release of POWs or negotiating the bilateral trade rules. The issue at hand is whether the respective States are treating their citizens in accordance with the principles and laws of the respective country. It is absurd to expect the West to uphold lets say Sharia rules; likewise it is equally absurd to expect Muslim countries to uphold secular Western values in its entirety. The Muslim women of France were demanding their rights as per the laws and values upheld by France, they were not asking the French government to adopt the Sharia Laws. Nor were they demanding extraordinary privileges.
It is simply bizarre to justify the violation the rights of your own citizens on the basis of the behaviour of another country. An additional point to note is that many of these pundits tend to forget, that Muslims in the West are citizens not colonisers, and they are not engaging in activities of mayhem and destruction like the invaders are doing in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan.
Notes:. Democracy is Hypocrisy http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/5047/ . ‘Intellectual’ Migrant Coolies –” Irrational Rationalists http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/5270/