|
|
|
|
|
|
19.09.07
|
Two Systems Colliding – Again
|
|
|
Comment by Georgy Bovt
|
Why is Militant Islam Increasing in Popularity?
After Sept. 11, 2001, when the new era of terrorism had already begun, it seemed impossible to think that six years later, Osama bin Laden, who had organized the most impressive terrorist act in human history, would still be casually addressing a multi-million strong global television audience, giving his latest message, as always, in a very didactic style.
In 2001, right after the first shock of the collapse of the World Trade Center had passed, it seemed that in a matter of very little time the world’s number one terrorist would be captured, tried and duly punished. Especially given that at that moment, very different world leaders are united around the idea of fighting terrorism. For a brief period it seemed that this idea could help overcome all other differences and arguments between those countries that consider themselves civilized and enjoy claiming leadership in certain spheres. After all, it was a question of saving, at the least, the whole Christian civilization, which had been so boldly called to arms. It was also a question of saving democracy in the form it had taken since the European Age of Enlightenment.
Today, however, bin Laden has turned into a constantly active and almost routine player in world politics. He is its newsmaker. His latest television address was not limited to threats against the United States or even the Western world. He expressed his thoughts even about global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the U.S. mortgage crisis and the country’s “crippling taxes.” He has his own “philosophical point of view” about Noam Chomsky’s writings and the latest anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He urged Americans and other Westerners to convert to Islam, if only because there are no taxes involved, except for “zakat,” which doesn’t exceed 2.5 percent.
Most importantly, he, Osama bin Laden, announced the bankruptcy of the western model of democracy. And the biggest paradox of the last six years is probably the fact that, contrary to the hopes entailed after Sept. 11, today the number of people all over the world who would agree with bin Laden’s thesis is larger, not smaller.
In the blood-soaked aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, many people believed that the West, along with the post-Communist world, would close ranks in the face of the Islamist terrorist threat, united by common values of freedom and democracy. Many people believed that the “progressive” part of mankind would take special steps to strengthen the democratic model and to promote it in countries that have not adhered to democratic values. However, no export of democracy took place: the scale did not even slightly tilt toward the democratic model offered by the West in any of the countries that militant terrorist Islam considers as its “natural” environment. On the contrary, militant Islam is more and more often seen as the alternative, and an ever more widely attractive model for social development. The most striking example of the spread of this tendency is the victory of the Hamas movement in the Palestinian elections, as well as this movement’s strengthened position in neighboring Lebanon through Hezbollah. This group has been strengthened to such an extent that during the military conflict with Israel last year, the Islamic forces were not defeated.
The appeal of the democratic model of social order has actually decreased in the eyes of many people and nations that had been promised a logical way of development through the democratic model.
The attempts made by Russia’s official theorists to develop a specifically Russian form of democracy, the so-called sovereign democracy, also indirectly reflect a certain dissatisfaction – dissatisfaction with the present state of classical democratic institutions in the whole world in general as well as with their specific implantation onto Russian soil. They have the impression that something is wrong with classical democracy; but what exactly is wrong is not quite clear to anyone yet.
Different versions of theories on how not all nations are equally “ready for democracy” are formulated as a defensive reaction. There are attempts at establishing a correlation between the standard of living and the level of democratic development. On the other hand, the spread of, and increase in popularity of, a militant Islamic ideology in the Arab world is explained by poverty, unresolved social problems and lack of civilization prospects for those populations. However, it seems that, so far, all of these explanations cover only part of the problem; they are not able to clearly explain why Islam in its militant, terrorist form is more and more attempting to establish itself as a real civilizational alternative to the democracy of the Western and Christian world. And why has classical democracy, which had been able to withstand the no less “charismatic” Communist ideology during the Cold War, suddenly stopped its triumphant procession around the world. It would seem there must really be something wrong with it.
Georgy Bovt is a Moscow-based political analyst. |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
