 |
Kathmandu Thursday January 31, 2002 Magh 18, 2058.
|
Commercialisation of democracy
By Dr Shreedhar Gautam
These days there are no blocks or groups of countries in
terms of ideology as in the days of the ‘Cold War’. Of course, there are still
groupings of countries, but they are based purely on economic and business interest. In
the past, the dignitaries of various countries would exchange goodwill visits, but now
political leaders pay visits to other countries for commercial purposes. Not many years
ago, the then British Prime Minister John Major after his visit to India gave an important
speech in the British parliament regarding the outcome of his talks with Indian leaders .
He felt proud while declaring that his visit had brought almost 30,000 jobs to British
citizens because India had agreed to purchase a huge amount of industrial goods and
weapons from Britain. John Major felt assured after the visit that there would be less
pressure from industrial groups for a change in the leadership of the Tory Party.
Former American President Bill Clinton had, soon after his
election as President, expressed the desire to lift sanctions against Iraq because during
his election campaign he had vehemently criticised George Bush’s economic policy,
which he thought made the country economically vulnerable. But soon after the swearing-in
ceremony, he changed his stand and vowed to continue Bush’s tough policy against
Iraq. He had to reverse his earlier stand under the pressure of the US weapon industry.
Had Clinton adhered to his earlier commitment, the US would have forgone the millions of
dollars that it earned selling armaments to Middle East countries in the name of taming
Saddam Hussein.
In the backdrop of the US attack on Afghanistan, fear was
initially expressed that the majority of Arab countries could go against the American
action in the name of Muslim brotherhood. Except for some mild voices of disagreement from
countries like Iran, and of course, Iraq, no other Arabian government registered any
significant protest against the US attack. The governments of other Middle East countries,
including Saudi Arabia, do not want to antagonise the US. They are heavily dependent on US
military support for their survival and fear peoples’ uprisings against their
anti-people policies. These instances show that the business interests, rather than any
ideological or religious thought, guide governments. It also reveals the growing gap
between the aspiration of the people and the policies of the concerned governments.
It is common knowledge that Pakistan backed the Taliban
regime and Osama bin Laden, and it was privy to all things happening in that country,
especially activities related to the Al- Quida group. So, western countries were sceptical
about Pakistani support for the American-led raid on Afghanistan. But finally General
Musharraf sided strongly with the Americans, proving the point that what counts is
business interest, not beliefs when an eventuality arises. The Pakistani President, a
shrewd politician, took the opportunity to legitimize his own military rule as well as to
gain more American aid in lieu of the support extended to the US led alliance.
Very recently General Musharraf made a U-turn in Pakistani
politics, deciding to ban ultra-sectarian outfits, obviously under pressure from the US.
Till the other day, Pakistan was a real haven for religious fundamentalists, but today the
Pakistani President has become the biggest danger for such groups in Pakistan, not because
of a change of heart but because of fear of US ire, and also because he sensed the danger
for his own survival. For America too, General Musharraf has become overnight the messiah
of secularism, though he was the most despised dictator till the other day. Again this
change in the American line is not for any ideological reason, but for the sake of its own
overall business interest in South Asia and countries which have become independent from
the former Soviet Union such as Tajikistan.
Commercialisation of politics has widened the gap between the
ruling elite and common people. Now the electorates in various countries, including the
developed ones, do not take elections seriously because they know that what counts in
elections is not the role of ordinary people but the money power of business tycoons. In
America, of late, there has been gradual decline in the percentage of people going to the
polls. In the last general election, George W Bush was elected the candidate of the
Republican Party mainly because of his powerful links with top US corporate sector. He had
been projected as the best representative of the business community. The election of Bush
as president lacks legitimacy in the eyes of common Americans because they know Al Gore
received more votes. In Britain the Labour Party no longer cares for the cause of women
and labourers. Tony Blair is guided purely by the overall interest of the British
corporate sector, not by the interest of British farmers. All this evidence shows that the
process of globalisation has rendered the common people less and less powerful, unlike the
claims made by the advocates of capitalism. Though one of the fundamental strengths of
democracy is empowerment of individuals against all sorts of tyranny and exploitation, the
growing cult of business has reversed the situation dramatically.
The present development is not only a great setback but also
an affront to the concept of individual freedom and justice. During the Cold War between
the US and former USSR., the marginalisation of the common people was not as bad as it is
today. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has remained unchallenged in
global affairs with its own partisan agenda. It was only with the demise of the USSR, that
the then US President George Bush gave forth the slogan of ‘World Order’ which
he wanted to establish everywhere. The basic motive behind the so-called ‘World
Order’ was to expand American business policies worldwide in the name of
liberalisation and globalisation. George Bush was so confident that he hoped soon after
the demise of the former Soviet Union that the entire world would support his plan, though
his dream got shattered once he lost his election bid for a second term in 1992.
Now the process of liberalization has made people less secure
than in the past. Even in China people feel less secure and more wary all the time about
their future, let alone the people of corrupt and poor countries like Nepal and Bangladesh
where the political leaders are notorious for amassing wealth by hook or by crook.
Moreover, with the expansion of the globalisation policies, rich countries are in a
position to influence the policy of poor countries without making their physical presence
felt.
Other Stories
|
