Has democracy had its day?

DEMOCRACY is in crisis. We must save democracy. 

It is a familiar chant of Western politicians. The reality is that while it may make a good soundbite to motivate a flagging electorate shouting about how much trouble democracy is in serves no purpose.

Part of the problem is that no-one actually seems to know what democracy is any more. I am not talking about a historical definition here but a subjective philosophical one.

Is democracy that which Western states decree? An excuse for war? A path to extremism and xenophobia? Is it even the removal of freedoms from some in the name of the "greater good".

Democracy has become a hot topic once more this week as Britain marks 750 years since its first parliament was elected.

This year also marks another key anniversary in the history of democracy, 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta. Even this most notable document in the evolution of Western democracy does not reflect the governance we currently have today.

Democracy is at its ideological core about allowing all people to have a voice, however, as declining voter turnout has demonstrated, less and less people are actually taking the opportunity to have their voices heard.

Ostensibly interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya were, at least tentatively on paper, part carried out to bring democracy. What democracy though? 

Western imposed democracy forcing different cultural and sociological ideals on countries provided that they elect governments who will be more malleable to American and British interests in the region.

The elections may have had the look of being free and fair but how much does this really matter if everyone knows that the winner must support the West or face removal and the whole process being repeated. It is a global power politics version of a teacher keeping the class behind until everyone gets it right.

In the West several commentators have warned that the latest crisis to face democracy is the rise of the populist movement. I have no love for Britain's United Kingdom Independence Party, America's Tea Party movement et al. They play on fear and disillusionment. They use blame games and the politics of hate to entice the dispossessed. 

In a democracy though we must face that parties such as this may gain power. It is not that democracy is in crisis, this is democracy in action.

If more mainstream parties want to put the threat to democracy to rest then they must debate effectively and challenge the principles of hate which are fuelling these parties.

There is a wider question though. Has democracy had its day? Is it time for a new political system. Eight hundred years since the Magna Carta. It is nothing more than a flash in the pan of political institutions. While it's very principle may have started with the Greeks its implementation has proven a long and arduous journey.

Not everything lasts. Religion, politics and art fade away over time. As we increase surveillance on our citizens, denigrate our opponents, dismiss ideas and hide from principles of unity. As we sacrifice morals and ethics on the great altar of Western democracy and bury culture and systems which have survived for millennia because they don't fit anymore, is it not time to consider that the future of freedom may be what is truly in crisis. A crisis caused in no small measure by our blind approach to democracy.

Whose in the right in humanitarian intervention?

THE idea of humanitarian intervention is, and indeed should be, a contentious issue. It revolves around the principle of assuming that one group of individuals are better suited to solve issues and decide what is right rather than another.

By its very nature it speaks of an unevenness in the international system and the implication that some states are unable to manage their own affairs. 

There is an argument to be made that intervention, particularly in recent years in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya et al, has been conducted via a British and American led concept of imposing westernised thinking on the rest of the world. It is a post-colonial argument that we have never stopped seeing ourselves as the saviours of the rest of the world.

There is another argument, however, that due to our past involvement with much of the world we have left the foundations for current crises. This does not necessarily mean historic involvement though. 

In the case of Iraq it seems inevitable that we will once again deploy ground troops. When we invaded in 1990 it started a chain of events which has by clear and predictable means led to the situation whereby much of the country is ruled by terrorist insurgents and it balances dangerously on the precipice of becoming a failed state.

Both invasions into Iraq, led by Bush and son inc, served no purpose in increasing US, or another nation states, power. Indeed they could arguably seen as diminishing power by demonstrating weaknesses in American long term foreign policy, particularly in regards to divisions between the Republicans and Democrats outlooks. On a separate front it has opened America, and the West as a whole, to a new wave of terrorism which weakens them domestically.

The recent interventions, and lack of intervention in some places, has additionally highlighted the failure of liberal ideology and the use of international agencies. 

The US had overruled the United Nations on a number of occasions to launch interventions under the pretext of defence of self interest. In other instances opportunities when intervention may genuinely be justified it is blocked by the self interest of member states with the power of veto. Likewise individuals in an increasingly networked society may be under the illusion that they have the power to shape the choices and identity of states. Evidence in the international system at present, think new order in Egypt as a crucial example, proves this wrong though, with non-state actors having a transitory effect at best. Protests for or against intervention may gather a few extra viewers for the news, and add a couple of column inches, however if it truly had an effect then we would not be back working with Iraq.

As such humanitarian intervention cannot, and should not, be seen as something which can be covered by one particular mindset. No single theory can cover the multifaceted issues which surround the moral and legal justifications for intervening in the affairs of a sovereign state. As Lebanon buckles under the sheer volume of refugees from Syria, and in turn finds itself under threat of civil war, it is clear though that for the sake of a global society we must do something to help our fellow human beings. What higher justification can be needed than to preserve the basic human rights of our fellow beings?

Uncertain future for a free Afghanistan

WHEN British troops pulled out of Afghanistan last week, ending a 13 year conflict which has claimed the lives of 453 British service personnel, it was hailed as a moment of change in the country.

In a display of marked solemnity the flag was lowered over Camp Bastion and once again the future of Afghanistan was left in the hands of the Afghanis. 

Despite the reassuring rhetoric of Western leaders it is an uncertain future at best. British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted at the time: "I made a commitment that I would get our Armed Forces out of Afghanistan by 2015 and today sees the end of combat operations in the country.

"We will always remember the courage of those who served in Afghanistan on our behalf and never forget those who made the ultimate sacrifice." 

There are few who seem the rate the likelihood of the Taliban rising to power again as a likelihood. Too much has changed in the intervening years. For people given a taste of freedom, with girls now being educated in allied built schools and the ability to live their own lives without threat of brutal reprisal, returning to a life under Taliban rule holds little. 

The Taliban are not defeated, however, they still hold power in large parts of Afghanistan and its neighbours and for many they offer a form of stability and security preferable to the now uncertain future without them.

Warning of the threat still posed by the Taliban Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of defence think tank the Royal United Services Institute, was reported as saying that it was still "a very capable organisation".

"What we have to do to prevent the country slipping back is support the Afghan state - the civilian side, making sure that teachers and doctors and nurses are paid, but also critically the armed forces," he said.

"The Afghan army has come a long way in the last few years but they're still dependent on foreign money to pay their wages and right now there's a question mark over how long that will continue."

Even without the threat of the Taliban Afghanistan is far from being the bastion of peace and freedom which politicians led people to believe that it would be 13 year ago. Afghanistan is ranked as the third most corrupt country in the world. Not a position which was hoped for when Western forces stepped in to install democracy in the country. It has a weak government which many believe unable to provide coherent governance from a centralised location for the whole country. This just adds to the likelihood of disparate groups springing up around the country. If a group similar to the so called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria does not make itself known then the opportunity for powerful militia leaders to set up their own fiefdoms may prove too compelling for some.

When Russian forces were forced out of the country in the 1980's America declared that it was a new period of freedom for the people of Afghanistan. A century earlier the same had been claimed of the disastrous British route from the country. If diplomatic efforts are not increased and support still provided then for Afghanistan it may all just be a little bit of history repeating.