Arrogantly Imposing Eurocentric Values under a Democratic Veneer amid Dreams of Empire

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

"Democratic Imperative":
Arrogantly Imposing Eurocentric Values under a Democratic Veneer amid Dreams of Empire

"The Democratic Imperative" was the title given by the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to the key-note speech he delivered at the third Aung San Suu Kyi lecture at St Hugh’s College, Oxford University, earlier this month. In the course of the lecture, the Foreign Secretary attempted to justify the so-called "export of democracy" by military and other means by the Anglo-American alliance and the other big powers, even though he acknowledged that following the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan there was now increasing opposition to such undemocratic and warmongering activity.

According to the logic of the Foreign Secretary, "We should not let the genuine debate about the 'how' of foreign policy obscure the clarity about the 'what'," by which he apparently meant that the end justifies the means. Although he claimed that "we cannot be self-satisfied about the state of our own democracy", and "we cannot impose democratic norms", his speech was an attempt to justify the export and imposition of the Eurocentric model of representative democracy throughout the world, behind the smokescreen of acknowledging "the diversity of cultures".

Miliband’s lecture was held to honour the Burmese Nobel peace prize winner and activist, Aung San Suu Kyi, who formerly studied at Oxford University and he began his lecture by asserting that what he called the "civilian surge" of recent opposition to the military government of Burma was in fact part of a more global phenomenon that should be supported. In Miliband’s words, "We should back demands among citizens for more freedom and power over their lives – whether that is reforming established democracies, or supporting transitions to democracy. We should be on the side of the civilian surge." Miliband stressed that the end of the Cold War has not led to "the end of history" as some predicted. Therefore there is now a need to redouble efforts to establish representative democracy and the multi-party system by all means. As he put it, "The goal of spreading democracy should be a great progressive project," in which both "hard" and "soft" power should be utilised.

Of course, Miliband attempted to present a universal definition of democracy based on the premise of "government by the people" while ignoring that fact that in Britain the people are not sovereign, do not exercise decision-making power, and do not select the candidates who are to stand for election. In fact, everything connected with government is in the hands of the big parties, and increasingly decisions are not even made by Parliament but by the Prime Minister exercising the Royal Prerogative. It could be concluded that Miliband should therefore be more concerned with "spreading democracy" in Britain before arrogantly pontificating about how it might be exported elsewhere.

The fact is that behind an expressed concern with "democracy" Miliband is actually concerned with the imposition of representative democracy and the so-called "universal values" promoted by the Anglo-American alliance on behalf of the big monopolies. Miliband deliberately associates the global striving and demand of all peoples for sovereignty and the right to determine their futures with the bankrupt political system that currently exists in Britain and elsewhere, which denies these rights and represents nothing more than the dictate of the monopolies embellished with parliamentary forms.

Miliband’s assertions that "democracy is the best custodian of trade" or that "established democracies are less likely to fight each other" and that "democracy provides a way of resolving competing interests and claims on resources in a peaceful way" are simply not borne out by the facts of history. On the contrary, history has shown that under monopoly capitalism "trade", if it can be called such, is dominated by the big monopolies. Far from being conducted between equal partners, such "trade" is in the narrow interests of the monopolies and is based on plunder and exploitation. The monopolies have no concern for those who are wealth producers; rival monopolies are continually in conflict and therefore contention and wars between the big powers are inevitable; and the big powers operate on the basis that might is right and openly attack the less powerful, even on the grounds that this is how democracy is promoted.

For Miliband and the government the aim is clear, to promote the "universal values" and political system best suited to neo-liberal globalisation and the dictate of the monopolies – this is his "imperative". To this end Miliband calls for greater economic integration of the economies of China, India and elsewhere, applauds the global expansion of the BBC and British Council and calls for more funding for NGOs which can promote such values. At the same time he stresses that "aid" can be used for economic leverage and international organisations used for political and military pressure. The EU in particular, Miliband argues, should be used to exert pressure and influence throughout the Balkans, in Georgia and the Ukraine and even in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. But Miliband also declares that there will be situations where in order to "promote democracy" the "hard power of targeted sanctions, international criminal proceedings, security guarantees and military intervention will be necessary".

In short, Britain and the other big powers may use any means to achieve their aims, and give themselves the right to interfere in the internal political affairs of others. At the same time, despite such professed admiration for democracy, the Labour government is daily centralising power in Britain and trampling on its citizens’ most basic democratic rights. What is clear is that it is the people themselves that must take up the task of democratic renewal in society, by establishing the mechanisms to empower themselves and become the ultimate decision makers. It is also vital that there are no illusions about the democratic pretensions of the Labour government abroad. Rather, its "democratic imperative" must be resolutely opposed and exposed for what it is, an attempt to impose the Eurocentric values and institutions of the monopolies throughout the world. It must not pass!