Protecting the bubble of Democracy

As armies of the “civilized world” are out to turn almost every Muslim country into another West Bank and Gaza strip, it is interesting to note that both the champions and their convoluted form of democracy can hardly survive without extensive security bubbles.

George Bush’s fear to come out of his four million pound “exclusion zone in a country called the “closest ally” and his Secretary of State’s refusal to attend the 50th anniversary celebration of the Marshall scholarships in London are just recent examples of how godfathers of “democracy” are scared to face their own people.

The flag bearers of democracy cannot rule ­­this world without hiding in security bubbles. It is not so because “terrorist” hate their freedom. It is because all kinds of violence is the direct result of their words, deeds and pseudo-democracy.

According to one of the basic principles of democracy, the majority retains and exercises the policy-making and law-making initiative through their representatives, rather than being subject to it.

These representatives are servants of the people, not their masters. Their job is to listen, respond and deliver to that which is demanded by the people.

No one sees this principle in operation in any of the crusading states which are at the forefronts of bloodshed for democracy. According to an internet poll by the Independent, more than 91 percent people respondents rejected Bush’s presence in the UK. It is, in words, rejection of Bush and Blair’s policies and practice of freedom and democracy.

None of these elected dictators is willing to listen to the majority of his people. To the contrary, faithful Washington Times calls the protesters “rabble-rousers”[1] and William Safire of the New York Times calls them “anti-war crowd.”[2] Remember, “crowd” is used as a derogatory term. The most respectful of the western analysts happened to use it for the Taliban.

By this definition, a clear majority (60 percent British, questioned by YouGov), which branded Bush a threat to world peace, is a crowd. Only 14.2 per cent innocent Americans are not rabble-rousers because they still agree with Bush on Iraq,[3]

On the media front, the state of “democracy” is such that the Washington Post fully supports Bush and wishes him success. “We hope that U.S. forces fighting the Iraqi resistance will prove as steadfast as Mr. Bush says — but for now, at least, the thugs and assassins are getting a mixed message,” says its November 23 editorial.[4]

This is how an “open, accountable and diverse mass media” operates in a leading “democracy.” It considers everything fair for imposing “democracy.” However, every kind of resistance to occupation is work of the “assassins and thugs,” because its “elected” ruler says so.

If instead of Bin Laden, Bush and Blair are on the run; if despite $6.8 million “security bubble,” Bush cannot face the public and even British Parliament; if after two years and tall claims of smoking Osama out of caves, the US Secretary of State could not deliver a speech to his own people in London, it does not mean there is something wrong with Muslims or the Muslim world.

It simply means there is something wrong with the values and ideals and the way Bush and his allies are promoting these by the sword.

Majority of people around the world are considering Sharon, Bush and Blair as threat to the world peace. This however is not true. They are only representatives of a tyrannical system and totalitarian ideology, which is in fact the real threat.

Bush, Blair and Sharon are torch bearers of values and ideology that are corrupted and exploited to the core. The systems which churned them up have transformed the modern form of governance to the most perfect tyranny of human history.[5]

As long as the White House is guided by what the American billionaire Soros calls “supremacist ideology,”[6] every incumbent will be as much a tyrant as much we witness in the image of George Bush.

Words of Bush may remind Soros of the “Nazi slogans on the wall,” but we must realize that the situation is far worse than the situation in Germany under Hitler because it is not limited to a single country or a continent.

Bush and his allies are neither promoting democracy nor freedom. Otherwise, why would Iraqi’s be willing to sacrifice their lives? Thugs and assassins do not take their own lives for a cause. It only shows that Iraqis preferred life under the tyranny of Saddam than the “democracy” of Bush and Blair.

Only 1 percent of those polled said they believed the US was in Iraq to establish democracy there. According to Walter Pincus of Washington Post, three-quarters of those polled said they believed the policies and decisions of the Iraqi Governing Council were "mostly determined by the coalition’s own authorities."[7]

Bush and his “democratic” company may say that Iraqi do not know about the good intentions of the US. We might argue that most of the Americans do not know how they are taken for a ride in the name of democracy.

Even if we agree that Muslims are biased, dismissing results of polls conducted in Europe and America shows that people’s opinion is relevant no more. It means people cannot be trusted as Washington Times attempts to make us believe that the dissidents are “rabble rousers.” So what’s the use of talking about “will of the majority?” Where is democracy”?

1. Is it democracy in which “there is no possibility any longer of unpoliced contact between the rulers and the ruled–”for fear that the illusion of support for their policies so carefully cultivated by the media will be exposed as a lie”?[8]

2. What kind of democracy the US wants to establish in Iraq for which it needs taking lessons from Israel?[9]

3. In a press conference in London, Bush and Blair said they “like and respect protesters right to free speech.” Is respect alone enough for running democracies? This rhetoric of respects evaporates in the face of continued terrorism by the leading tyrannies of the world. Their actions are louder than their words.

4. What is called “Washington’s behaviour” is in fact product of the prevailing tyranny. More and more people, such as Professor Ikenberry, are realizing its oddities. The US "emerging grand strategy" for imposing democracy contains a double standard, he says. "Sovereignty becomes more absolute for America even as it becomes more conditional for countries which challenge Washington’s standards of internal and external behaviour."[10]

5. Compare Washington’s behaviour with any of the past tyrants. “As the [war] toll nears 400, the casualties remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at least when there might be a camera around.”[11]

6. For the tyrants in Washington and London, democracy means promotion of their interest at cost of others’ life and resources. “The reason the U.S. has found itself propping up royal autocrats in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf emirates and pre-revolutionary Iran, and military autocrats in Egypt, Algeria and…Pakistan is that it prefers governments that will do Washington’s bidding over the bidding of their own citizens.”[12]

7. Bush demand for a revolution in “undemocratic” Iran but loves to do business as usual with the self-appointed president in Pakistan. In reality, compared to Bush and Musharraf, the morally impressive President Mohamed Khatami was democratically elected –” and by a far more convincing majority than Bush Jr. Is this how a “democratically” elected leader should call for revolutions and invasions against those who do not share his vision of the world?

8. In a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) on Nov 6, Bush portrayed Iraqi occupation as only the first stage in a US crusade for “democracy” that will continue “for decades to come.” What kind of values are these that can only be promoted through the barrel of a gun?

9. What is the difference between Bush’s establishing a “democratic” rule by raiding and netting “whole Iraqi villages”[13] and Saddam Hussain’s killing thousands for the stability of his regime? Is not it a sign that anyone who has the force to impose his will is having a legitimate ideology? So, for democratic tyrants, the use of disproportionate force and resources is as much a key to make people feel that occupation is liberation as much it was for Saddam Hussein or other tyrants before him.

10. During the course of social evolution, the reason people preferred establishing democratic governments was to protect the exercise of preexisting rights and having a say in how the government should act. The question, again, is, How do people in leading “democracies” today ensure that the governments that are called into existence to protect people’s rights do not become the destroyer of those rights?

11. Remember, the basic inquiry was not, “Does the written or unwritten Constitution grant this particular right to the people?” but instead, “Does the Constitution grant this particular power to the government.” [14] Now that the situation has completely reversed, can we still believe those who claim to be living in democracy are promoting democracy?

The list would keep growing if we keep on adding how democracy has failed. In short, the so-called democratically elected Governments are now functioning like hereditary elites in a bubble.

These “democratic” elites can scarcely be distinguished qualitatively from non-democratic tyrants. In a democracy, the state provides protection to this bubble from bursting, providing a space for elite power. The occupancy of the space changes but each new occupant learns the rules of the game and becomes a tyrant in his turn. Whatever party is in power, the agenda is essentially the same.

The only difference between the tyrants in the East and the West is that in the former case, the elite simply comprises the same individuals for a longer period. Their domestic abuses of human rights are commonly on a much larger scale than those of “democratic” regimes in the West, but the effective support of the media and so-called scholars of the West legitimize the tyranny as the best form of government.

Writers such as Thomas Friedman and William Safire of the NY Times and Washington Post are there to make the public believe that all those who “prevent [them] from enjoying and spreading [their] values” are “terrorists.” [15] Exposing the reality of these vales and “democracy” is terrorism because awareness among a people, who are being lied to on mass scale, would hasten bursting the bubble of democracy.

Once the public is fully aware of the creeping tyranny, bubble zones would not be good enough to save the bubble of “democracy” from bursting.


[1]. Editorial, “Bush’s British support,” Washington Times, November 23, 2003)

[2]. William Safire, “Together They Stand,” New York Times, November 17, 2003.

[3]. Politics –” AFP: “One in 7 Americans agree with Bush on Iraq,” Wed Nov 5, 2003, 3:36 PM ET

[4]. Editorial, Vision and Reality, Washington Post, Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page B06. It is worth noting that the resistance to US occupation in Iraq is across the board. It is not limited to what the US media and politicians refer as “thugs, Saddam Loyalists, etc.” To see how the US is greeted in Iraq, see the Independent report that says: “The attack was unusually ferocious, even by the ruthless standards of this seven-month conflict. It dealt a blow to the US strategy of promoting the view that the majority of Iraqi civilians are on the side of the "coalition", and that its only enemy is a small number involved in armed resistance.” Iraqi mob mutilates bodies of US troops killed by guerrillas By Phil Reeves in Tikrit 24 November 2003.

[5]. Can anyone imagine the US Congress first approving invasion and occupation of two countries and then approving hundreds of billions of dollars to continue and consolidate that occupation. It shows a whole system backing up a web of tyrannical policies. Before this tyrannical system, Bush and Blair are as much helpless puppets as they treat the people they rule.

[6]. “Billionaire Soros takes on Bush, Ousting president ‘central focus of my life,” he says

[7]. Skepticism about U.S. deep, Iraq poll shows By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, November 12, 2003. The poll, funded by Gallup, was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 1,178 Baghdad residents between Aug. 28 and Sept. 4. (

[8]. Chris Marsden, “Meet the people”–”Bush and Blair style,” SWS, 22 November 2003.

[9]. Esther Schrader and Josh Meyer, “U.S. Seeks Advice From Israel on Iraq,” Los Angeles Times, November 22, 2003.

[10]. G. John Ikenberry, professor of geopolitics and global justice at Georgetown University, Washington, quoted in Altered states, by Louise Williams is a Herald journalist and former correspondent in South-East Asia. November 22, 2003

[11]. ANDREW ROSENTHAL, “Accounting for the Invisible Casualties of War Shouldn’t Be a Matter of Politics,” New York Times, November 14, 2003.

[12]. Tom Karon, “If Bush is Serious About Arab Democracy…” Time Magazine, Friday, Nov. 07, 2003

[13]. Hamza Hendawi, “U.S. Raid Nets Whole Iraqi Village,” Associated Press, Thu Oct 23, 3:29 PM ET

[14]. Read the First Amendment to US constitution carefully. Note that it does not grant people freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion. Instead, it prohibits the government from interfering with those fundamental rights. Notice that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the right of the people to own weapons, another right that exists independently of whether government exists or not.

[15]. Thomas Friedman, “The way we were,” NY Times, Nov, 23, 2003.


Abidullah Jan’s latest book "The End of Democracy" is now available here .