Editorial-Commonwealth and Democracy
Sunday 16 September 2012
In the history of mankind, there have been only two liberal empires. One is an empire in decline, the United States of America, which undoubtedly shaped the global order more than any other world power since the end of the Second World War, and more prominently since its democratic message that prevailed during the Cold War. Though not an empire in its traditional sense, it is an empire by virtue of its sheer military power, economy, cultural influence, technological superiority, institutions of global academic excellence and the worldwide alliances it maintains.
The other empire was more explicit in its imperial conquests. Despite its moral justification that it was embarking on ‘a civilizing mission’ in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the beginning of imperial Britain was marked by commercial domination, exploitation of native communities, and a series of famines and brutal crackdowns of local rebellions. In colonial Ceylon, the imperial British killed one per cent of the native population to suppress the popular Wellassa rebellion in 1818. In colonial India, the rule of the British raj was regularly tainted by famines that killed millions of natives.
However, in the second half, the political dominance became the thrust of the colonial rule and with that emerged a marked shift towards classical liberal values and the increasing participation of locals in system of governance. By the end of the 19th Century, the colonial reform efforts gradually evolved to resemble the theoretical justification of colonial rule offered by Edmund Burke, an 18th Century British politician: “The British Empire must be governed on a plan of freedom, for it will be governed by no other.”
The British Empire abolished slave trade, introduced Westminster styled governments, universal franchise and in some places, such as in colonial Ceylon, laid the foundation of the welfare state. Free education was introduced to Sri Lanka while it was still a British colony.
By the time of its dissolution, the British Empire left a group of newly independent nations, governed by the rule of law and educated local elites capable of shaping the destinies of their new nations. It is nevertheless open to question as to whether those elites lived up to their expectations. Countries such as Nigeria, which held so much potential at the time of gaining independence were looted by their own post-independent rulers. Most of the former British colonies evolved to be imperfect democracies, while others, ranging from Uganda to Pakistan fell into the hands of despots and military dictators.
However, by virtue of its reformist credentials, the British Empire left a positive balance sheet. In moral terms, it reigned supremacy over the other imperial projects at that time – the French, Dutch, Japanese and Belgian, etc. It was a liberal empire and it managed its decline magnificently — despite occasional hiccups in certain places such as Malaysia, Kenya, Burma, etc. Its cultural and intellectual influence has withstood the decline of its economic clout and democratic institutions and traditions it introduced continue to shape the governance of its former colonies.
In the coming year, the 54 member-bloc of former British colonies will meet in Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). As a precursor to it, the Commonwealth Parliamentarians Conference was held in Colombo, last week. One proposal taken up at the meeting was the creation of the office of the Commonwealth commissioner for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The proposal championed by Canada, Australia and New Zealand was vehemently opposed by Sri Lanka and some of our Asian neighbours such as Pakistan. Sri Lankan government argued that the new commissioner would duplicate the role already played by the UN high commissioner for human rights. This theoretical opposition is both self-serving and flawed.
First, UN, on some occasions, has notoriously been slow in acting against blatant human rights violations. Rwandan genocide is a case in point and the unfolding carnage in Syria is a more recent example.
Second, local or regional blocs have proved to be far more effective in handling local situations, as the Arab League’s recent intervention in Libya indicated.
Third, human rights and democracy are universal values, which should not be the exclusive prerogative of the United Nations.
Fourth, it is obvious that the objection of countries such as ours and Pakistan to the new commissioner of human rights stems from the fear that the Commonwealth would more aggressively get involved in domestic affairs. Sure enough, both countries need to strengthen their record in human rights, good governance and democracy. Though a Commonwealth oversight on local human rights and other related issues could be an irritant for the Government of Sri Lanka, which would be hosting CHOGM next year, it would also provide an impetus for the government to reform and strengthen its democratic institutions, and respect the fundamental rights of its own people. That is more the reason why countries like ours should support the creation of the new post of commissioner for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Rage on the Arab street, and Deficit of Tolerance
The anti-Islam low budget movie, Innocence of Muslims is repulsive and deplorable, to say the least. The only objective of its creators, it appears, was to instigate Muslims and cause mayhem. Many an Islamic fanatic played into the hands of movie directors, alleged to be a group of American Christian right-wingers and a disgruntled Egyptian Coptic Christian. The American ambassador to Libya was killed by Salafist mobs inside the consulate in Benghazi, a town he helped save from a massacre by the Gaddafi regime. Anti-American protests have turned into an orgy of violence in Egypt and Yemen.
While the movie was inflammatory and highly insulting to Muslims, ensuing violence on Arab streets is a pointer to a sad, though not uniquely, Arab phenomenon, i.e. deficit of tolerance; whether such intolerance stems from cultural and religious ethos in the Arab world is open to question. The manifestations of intolerance and Islamic fundamentalism could also be a result of long years of suppression by autocratic and despotic regimes which ruled those countries.
However one thing is abundantly clear. Despite the initial fun-fair at the ouster of old dictators, the democratic project in the Arab world has only begun. It is now at the crossroads. Forces unleashed by the Arab Spring could go either way; to create moderate Islamic democracies like Indonesia and Turkey, or theocracies like Iran. One could only hope and pray that no country would opt to emulate Taliban’s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
Sunday 16 September 2012
In the history of mankind, there have been only two liberal empires. One is an empire in decline, the United States of America, which undoubtedly shaped the global order more than any other world power since the end of the Second World War, and more prominently since its democratic message that prevailed during the Cold War. Though not an empire in its traditional sense, it is an empire by virtue of its sheer military power, economy, cultural influence, technological superiority, institutions of global academic excellence and the worldwide alliances it maintains. The other empire was more explicit in its imperial conquests. Despite its moral justification that it was embarking on ‘a civilizing mission’ in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the beginning of imperial Britain was marked by commercial domination, exploitation of native communities, and a series of famines and brutal crackdowns of local rebellions. In colonial Ceylon, the imperial British killed one per cent of the native population to suppress the popular Wellassa rebellion in 1818. In colonial India, the rule of the British raj was regularly tainted by famines that killed millions of natives.
However, in the second half, the political dominance became the thrust of the colonial rule and with that emerged a marked shift towards classical liberal values and the increasing participation of locals in system of governance. By the end of the 19th Century, the colonial reform efforts gradually evolved to resemble the theoretical justification of colonial rule offered by Edmund Burke, an 18th Century British politician: “The British Empire must be governed on a plan of freedom, for it will be governed by no other.”
The British Empire abolished slave trade, introduced Westminster styled governments, universal franchise and in some places, such as in colonial Ceylon, laid the foundation of the welfare state. Free education was introduced to Sri Lanka while it was still a British colony.
By the time of its dissolution, the British Empire left a group of newly independent nations, governed by the rule of law and educated local elites capable of shaping the destinies of their new nations. It is nevertheless open to question as to whether those elites lived up to their expectations. Countries such as Nigeria, which held so much potential at the time of gaining independence were looted by their own post-independent rulers. Most of the former British colonies evolved to be imperfect democracies, while others, ranging from Uganda to Pakistan fell into the hands of despots and military dictators.
However, by virtue of its reformist credentials, the British Empire left a positive balance sheet. In moral terms, it reigned supremacy over the other imperial projects at that time – the French, Dutch, Japanese and Belgian, etc. It was a liberal empire and it managed its decline magnificently — despite occasional hiccups in certain places such as Malaysia, Kenya, Burma, etc. Its cultural and intellectual influence has withstood the decline of its economic clout and democratic institutions and traditions it introduced continue to shape the governance of its former colonies.
In the coming year, the 54 member-bloc of former British colonies will meet in Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). As a precursor to it, the Commonwealth Parliamentarians Conference was held in Colombo, last week. One proposal taken up at the meeting was the creation of the office of the Commonwealth commissioner for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The proposal championed by Canada, Australia and New Zealand was vehemently opposed by Sri Lanka and some of our Asian neighbours such as Pakistan. Sri Lankan government argued that the new commissioner would duplicate the role already played by the UN high commissioner for human rights. This theoretical opposition is both self-serving and flawed.
First, UN, on some occasions, has notoriously been slow in acting against blatant human rights violations. Rwandan genocide is a case in point and the unfolding carnage in Syria is a more recent example.
Second, local or regional blocs have proved to be far more effective in handling local situations, as the Arab League’s recent intervention in Libya indicated.
Third, human rights and democracy are universal values, which should not be the exclusive prerogative of the United Nations.
Fourth, it is obvious that the objection of countries such as ours and Pakistan to the new commissioner of human rights stems from the fear that the Commonwealth would more aggressively get involved in domestic affairs. Sure enough, both countries need to strengthen their record in human rights, good governance and democracy. Though a Commonwealth oversight on local human rights and other related issues could be an irritant for the Government of Sri Lanka, which would be hosting CHOGM next year, it would also provide an impetus for the government to reform and strengthen its democratic institutions, and respect the fundamental rights of its own people. That is more the reason why countries like ours should support the creation of the new post of commissioner for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Rage on the Arab street, and Deficit of Tolerance
The anti-Islam low budget movie, Innocence of Muslims is repulsive and deplorable, to say the least. The only objective of its creators, it appears, was to instigate Muslims and cause mayhem. Many an Islamic fanatic played into the hands of movie directors, alleged to be a group of American Christian right-wingers and a disgruntled Egyptian Coptic Christian. The American ambassador to Libya was killed by Salafist mobs inside the consulate in Benghazi, a town he helped save from a massacre by the Gaddafi regime. Anti-American protests have turned into an orgy of violence in Egypt and Yemen.
While the movie was inflammatory and highly insulting to Muslims, ensuing violence on Arab streets is a pointer to a sad, though not uniquely, Arab phenomenon, i.e. deficit of tolerance; whether such intolerance stems from cultural and religious ethos in the Arab world is open to question. The manifestations of intolerance and Islamic fundamentalism could also be a result of long years of suppression by autocratic and despotic regimes which ruled those countries.
However one thing is abundantly clear. Despite the initial fun-fair at the ouster of old dictators, the democratic project in the Arab world has only begun. It is now at the crossroads. Forces unleashed by the Arab Spring could go either way; to create moderate Islamic democracies like Indonesia and Turkey, or theocracies like Iran. One could only hope and pray that no country would opt to emulate Taliban’s Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
