Demokrasi Sebagai Prasyarat Pembangunan & Kemajuan

Di dalam semua pengkajian berkaitan dengan perkembangan dan pertumbuhan sesebuah Negara, demokrasi dianggap sebagai prasyarat kepada pembangunan, baik terkait dengan pembangunan ekonomi,teknologi ataupun sains. Pakar ekonomi yang dikenali dunia, Mancur Olsen (University Maryland) membentangkan di dalam bukunya yang bertajuk ‘Power and Prosperity’(2000) menyatakan bahawa demokrasi secara amnya membina dan berkembang sejajar dengan bentuk-bentuk pemerintahan yang ada. Olson menyatakan bahawa ketiadaan system yakni anarki hanya akan berakhir dengan kehancuran dan salah laku, manakala bentuk pemerintahan dictator, memang menggalakkan pertumbuhan ekonomi selagi mana yang berkuasa tetap berkuasa dengan harapan untuk mengaut keuntungan hasil daripada tempoh sesebuah pemerintahan. Beliau juga menyatakan bahawa di dalam demokrasi, pada pengamatan beliau, sememangnya system ini menjaga kebajikan rakyat dan membawa kepada pembangunan yang pesat disamping adanya mekanisma mengubah pemimpin melalui peti undi. Olson juga menyatakan bahawa dalam usaha untuk mendemokrasikan sesebuah peradaban ianya dapat dilaksanakan dengan memberikan apa yang diperlukan oleh sesebuah populasi. Ada kajian malah memilih demokrasi sebagai prasyarat kepada kejayaan ekonomi. Evan Rodrik, seorang pakar sains politik daripada Universiti Illinois menyatakan bahawa demokrasi adalah ‘institusi meta’ yang mana dengan keberadaan demokrasi, ianya mampu membina institusi-institusi lain dan demokrasi adalah satu-satunya institusi yang memangkin kejayaan.

Walaupun. tidak pernah ada suatu definisi universal yang diterima berkenaan demokrasi, namun ada 2 prinsip yang perlu ada pada demokrasi iaitu semua rakyat mempunyai hak dan kuasa yang sama serta semua rakyat secara amnya diberikan kebebasan dan kekuasaan. Selayang pandang pada negara yang merangkul erat pandangan ini dan terus menerus menjajah egara-negara lain dengan nama demokrasi, menunjukkan bahawa argumentasi diatas tidak dapat dibuktikan kebenarannya. Malah, secara faktanya kebanyakan negara maju dibangunkan atas dasar polisi antidemokratik dan argumentasi ini diperpanjangkan dengan ketiadaan demokrasi lebih membantu pembangunan sesebuah negara.

Apabila system pengundian mula diperkenalkan di Barat, ianya hanyalah hak eksklusif tuan pemilik tanah, dinisbahkan kepada jumlah undi yang tidak sekata, berdasarkan keluasan tanah, tingkat pendidikan, kejayaan dan umur. Di Amerika, lelaki berkulit hitam hanya diberikan hak mengundi selepas penggubalan Akta Hak Mengundi 1965 disebabkan tercetusnya gerakan hak rakyat. Walaupun mereka dibenarkan mengundi pada tahun 1870 selepas lima belas pemindaan kepada perlembagaan, maka mereka tidak akan menafikan lagi hak mengundi berdasarkan bangsa dan warna kulit. Namun, bahagian selatan Amerika tidak dimasukkan dalam pemindaan ini oleh kerajaan pusat.

Perancis pada tahun 1830 hanya memberikan hak mengundi kepada mereka yang berumur 30 tahun ke atas, yang membayar cukai langsung sebanyak 300 francs yang mana angka ini, hanya membentuk 0.02% populasi daripada 32 million penduduk. Pada tahun 1848 apabila menurunnya angka populasi lelaki, dan selepas tamatnya Perang Dunia Kedua barulah Perancis membuka ruang undi kepada wanita, selepas era industrilisasi. Jepun juga mengalami masalah yang sama selepas gagal di dalam agenda penjajahan mereka dan apabila mereka dipaksakan oleh Amerika untuk mengalihkan kuasa daripada regim sebelumnya. Amerika hanya memberikan Jepun hak pengundian sepenuhnya pada tahun 1952 dan kerajaan Jepun sendiri, memberikan hak pengundian sepenuhnya selepas 13 tahun memerintah!

Pada tahun 1800, di puncak kejayaan pemerintahan colonial Britain, hanya 3% daripada populasi penduduk di Britain yang dibenarkan mengundi. Hanya pengundi yang mempunyai keluasan tanah tertentu yang diberikan pada zaman medieval yang layak mengundi ahli House Of Commons. Sistem ini menafikan hak pengundian para peniaga, pengilang dan tenaga kerja berkemahiran yang tidak mempunyai tanah. Daerah dan wilayah yang dibangunkan beratus tahun sebelumnya, diberikan hak pengundian dan perwakilan yang tidak sekata dan melebihi had, manakala tanah-tanah perkampungan baru tidak diberikan hak itu sama sekali. Sesetengah kerusi di parlimen secara mayanya dipunyai oleh individu-individu tertentu. Pada tahun 1867, hanya 13% daripada populasi dibenarkan mengundi. Hingga tahun 1928, yakni setelah 61 tahun, barulah lelaki dan wanita diberikan yang yang sama dalam mengundi. Demokrasi secara jelas dan nyata datang setelah membangunnya Britain dan tidak pernah ikut serta dalam proses membangunkan Britain.

Negara-negara maju telah memberikan populasinya lebih hak mengundi daripada Negara membangun pada tempoh masa yang sama. Namun, untuk menyatakan bahawa demokrasi pemangkin pembangunan ekonomi seharusnya diperhatikan dengan fakta dan reality supaya kita tidak terjun kedalam kejumudan ekonomi. China, Russia dan German secara jelas dan nyata membuktikan bahawa demokrasi bukan prasyarat pembangunan ekonomi dan bukti-bukti ini menjadi bukti kukuh bahawa banyak perkara yang mampu dicapai, tanpa keberadaan demokrasi.

Russia dan China berjaya membuktikan mereka mampu berjaya tanpa mengikut acuan Barat dalam soal liberalisma dan demokrasi, malahal mencabar keberadaan model demokrasi Barat. Jadi, persoalan disini ialah, adakah sebarang perkaitan antara demokrasi dan pertumbuhan ekonomi?

Pertumbuhan ekonomi adalah suatu polisi dimana bangsa itu diindustrilialisasikan supaya hasilnya dapat diberikan kepada bangsa tersebut dan mampu membina suatu keadaan yang mana apa yang dihajatkan mampu dicapai oleh bangsa tersebut. Ini sebenarnya memerlukan suatu polisi yang konsisten yang boleh memandu sesebuah bangsa. Pemangkin kebangkitan Britain dilahirkan daripada pengabaian system gereja dan penerapan nlai liberal yang menyatukan bangsa mereka. Kemampuan kuasa golongan aristocrat yang memiliki harta dan tanah, memacu penjajahan dan sekaligus memimpin pergerakan bangsa tersebut. Soviet Union digerakkan dengan penggulingan Tsar dan tinggalannya disatukan dengan ideologi komunisma yang mana melalui beberapa tokoh komunis yang ternama, mereka membina polisi polisi ekonomi, daripada ideology komunis. Amerika bersatu dan bergerak kehadapan selepas membebaskan diri mereka daripada cengkaman Britain dan Jepun bangun setelah mereka menyedari bahawa mereka ketinggalan daripada daripada dunia luar lantas mengisytiharkan perang ekonomi untuk membangun.

China adalah satu-satunya Negara yang mana kebangkitan itu tidak didasari oleh kebangkitan ideology namun, mereka juga membangun dan berkembang mengatasnamakan status ‘great nation’.German juga, jika diperhatikan, mengeksploitasi sentiment bangsa untuk memajukan Negara mereka. Jelas, demokrasi secara mengkristal, tidak mempunyai apa-apa peranan didalam membangunkan ekonomi sesebuah negara. Malah, jika diperhatikan, tidak ada negara yang disenaraikan diatas, mempedulikan mandat dan suara rakyat.

Keterkaitan antara demokrasi dan kemajuan ekonomi merupakan suatu teori yang tidak berasas. Bangsa-bangsa yang merangkul erat demokrasi, pada hakikatnya menjadi demokratik pada tingkat kemuncak kebangkitan mereka dan model negara China secara nyata menunjukkan bahawa demokrasi tidak diperlukan untuk sebuah kebangkitan dan kejayaan system ekonomi.

notes

1 Woodrow Wilson speech at St. Louis 11 September, 1919
2 Rodrik D (1999) ‘Institutions for high quality growth; What are they and how to acquire them,’ Paper preparedfor IMF conference on ‘second generation reform’ Washington DC, 8-9 November 1999
3 R. Alan Dahl, I. Shapiro, J. A. Cheibub, The Democracy Sourcebook, MIT Press 2003 and M. Hénaff, T. B. Strong,
Public Space and Democracy, University of Minnesota Press

dialih bahasa daripada buku Geopolitical Myth www.international-issues.org

French Niqab Ban : Islam VS Capitalism

French MPs have voted to ban the wearing of burkas in public. The bill, which was overwhelming approved by France’s lower house of parliament, must now be ratified by the Senate in September to become law. If passed, it will be illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public.

A parliamentary committee in France has recommended the ban on the Burqa – the full-face veil. The committee’s 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport i.e. a ban in public places. According to French domestic intelligence services in a report in July 2009, they concluded that only 367 women in France wore the Burqa! But that’s too many for the French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He says the veils are unwelcome in France. France has been battling with the Muslim dress for the last decade.

In 2004 The Stasi commission proposed the banning of all religious symbols in public education establishments. The Commission was set up by then president Jacques Chirac to look at the application and strength of secularism in France. The banning of the Hijab in schools proved to Muslims and non-Muslims that France had a problem with Islam.

Why does France have a problem with a piece of cloth? Why is France considering legislating against what in reality is a personal decision by Muslim women to cover themselves? Across Europe anti-Muslim sentiment is running very high with nations such as Switzerland – the most insular country in the world banning the construction of Islamic symbols. There are a number of issues that need to be understood in order to comprehend the reasons why Europe is going to such extreme lengths against the Ummah.

- Capitalism has evolved into what it is today after a centuries long struggle to remove the authority of the church. Many thinkers, philosophers and writers lost their lives in the struggle to remove the arbitrary nature of the Christian Church in order to be free. The dogma of the church resulted in many of its adoptions that contradicted reality to be enforced upon the masses; any deviation from this was considered blasphemy, punishable by being burnt at the stake. This intense struggle eventually led to an intellectual revolution in Europe. European philosophers, writers and intellectuals made considerable efforts for comprehensive change in European ideas with the aim of uniting Europeans under secular liberal democratic thought i.e. Capitalism. Many movements were established and played a great part in the emergence of new opinions about life. One of the most significant events that occurred was the change of the political and legislative systems to the nation state. The spectre of a despotic monarchy gradually disappeared to be replaced by republican systems based on representative rule and national sovereignty. This had the effect of triggering the awakening of

Hence Europeans go to great lengths to explain the ‘hard fought for’ values and that any compromise with Freedom, democracy and equality is a betrayal of European history.

- The first attempt to undermine Capitalism was by the Soviet Union who emerged as a powerful nation after WW2. The Soviet Union represented an alternative way of life, with an alternative set of values and at the centre of its belief system was: communism cannot coexist with any ideology. From the moment the Cold War began, Western governments attempted to subvert Communism to create a climate of fear within their own populations, which would allow regime change and military deployments alongside the diversion of massive funds towards military industry rather than domestic industry. The possibility of a nuclear attack by the red menace was used as a basis for an aggressive attitude towards the Communist Bloc. This was exemplified by the American hysteria through McCarthyism in the early 1950’s and it’s obsession vis-a-vis Vietnam and Cuba in the early 1960’s. The West defended Capitalism though creating a number of false images of the Communist bloc. Whilst the outcome of this struggle is history, the methods used by the West are critical to understand and was encapsulated by Elaine Sciolino on the 21st January 1996, in the New York Times: ‘The Red Menace is Gone. But Here’s Islam. the Green Menace.’

- After World War II Britain needed a pool of new labour and began advertising for jobs in its colonies. As the European continent needed reconstruction a number of other European nations imported migrants from their colonies. As a result of such migration European nations today face a catch 22 situation. On the one hand, they need more immigrants from the developing world to guarantee the sustainability of their economic systems due to their ageing populations. On the other hand, every additional immigrant in Europe is turning the average European into a more nationalist and less tolerant person. As noted in a 2004 report by the RAND corporation: “the sheer number of immigrants required to offset population aging in the EU and its member states would be unacceptable in Europe’s current socio-political climate.”

- The 1990′s witnessed a number of landmark events that contributed to the politicisation of the Ummah in Europe. Events such as the reaction to the publication of the Satanic Verses in the UK, the first Gulf war and Bosnia. Other conflicts such as those in Algeria, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir and Gujarat increased activism while stoking tension. Then came the attacks on New York and Washington where Muslims found themselves unwittingly the minority group at the very centre of European politics. The bombings in Madrid and Britain turned the Ummah in Europe into Islamic extremists. This was epitomised by hostility towards, and suspicion of, Muslims.

When Muslims with European passports were found to be fighting with the Taliban against European forces a debate began on the loyalty of Muslims in Europe to their host countries. Muslim European citizens were now seen as a people apart with a vision very different to what Europe had. 9/11 brought Muslim identity, values and loyalty into question and Muslim minorities all over Europe found themselves bearing the brunt of violence and victimisation as suspicion of them rose to disproportionate levels.

- The post 9/11 climate heralded the end of multiculturalism as a model to absorb minorities, integration into Europe’s values and beliefs became essential. The climate created by the West included open attacks on Islam, such as the women’s dress, Shari’ah, Ummah and Khilafah. Journalists, writers and government ministers justified the attacks on Islam through the use of freedom of speech. When Jyllands-Posten published pictures of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Flemming Rose editor of Jyllands-Posten commented: “The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where one must be ready to put up with insults…..” André Gerin, the Communist Party legislator and mayor of Vénissieux, a Lyon suburb who initiated the motion to outlaw the wearing of the Burqa in France made it very clear what his issue is with the Ummah, which resonates across Europe, he said “The burqa is the tip of the iceberg, Islamism really threatens us.” Islam is the problem in Europe; all the various attempts at attacking Islam and banning symbols of Islam are in reality the West’s attempts at defending Capitalism. The Hijab, Niqaab and Burqa for the West represents Islam, hence wearing them is not just a mark of separation, but for many liberals, an open challenge to Capitalism – hence the hostility towards them. The French parliamentary report that recommended the Niqab ban makes this point very clear: “The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess,” the report said. The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was “contrary to the values of the republic” and proclaimed that “all of France is saying ‘no’ to the full veil”.

- The West defeated Communism through subversion by creating a variety of lies against it with their own populations that would justify actions which would otherwise be considered unpalatable. They then exhausted the USSR through a long arms and space race which destroyed its economy. The West presented their economic system as the ideal system to allocate resources and won many communists to this concept, even though wealth inequity could be seen across the West. In this same vain the West is attempting to protect its ideology through subverting Islam. The West has successfully presented the Khilafah as inherently violent and linked the call for Khilafah with violence amongst its own population. It continues to propagate many of the Islamic rules as outdated and oppressive, such as the women’s dress. In this way the debate is restricted to Islam and for Muslims to explain Islam; this ensures no discussion takes place about Capitalism’s validity, just as the strategy was with communism.

- The French established a strong state in the centre of Europe through the French revolution. The Enlightenment began in France and as a result new ideas on the role of the king and the powers of the state emerged. Many French philosophers and intellectuals gained social, political and philosophical influence on a global scale, including Voltaire, Denis Diderot and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose essay The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right and Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu described the separation of powers and were all a catalyst for government and societal reform throughout Europe. However today many consider French culture to be dead. Whilst France at the dawn of Capitalism was leading change in Europe, today most thinkers, new ideas and philosophers come from the US, this has created a very insecure France who has become very pessimistic about the future of the nation. This was the very reason the Stasi commission was created, to look at what has gone wrong with France.

- The French like much of Europe feel their way of life, which they already believe is in decline is being challenged by Islam through the wearing of Islamic symbols and through remaining loyal to the Ummah over France. In defending their ideology France has resorted to legislating against Islam rather than have anything in the way of an intellectual debate with Islam. The same can be seen across the Western world, the hatred of Islam can be seen by the constant attacks on aspects of Islam and lack much intellectual depth. Europe is going to extreme lengths to halt the wave of Islam in Europe through banning aspects of Islam, through forcing some to sign up to a code of values as in Germany in order to gain citizenship or as in the UK the need to swear allegiance to the queen to gain British citizenship.

- The attacks on Islam should be seen in a positive light by the Ummah across the world. The West is attempting to defend its deen of capitalism when a coordinated attack has not even been launched by the Ummah. Their attempts at defending capitalism rest on attacking, lying and subverting Islam in the hope of halting the wave of Islamasation that is sweeping across the Muslim world. The politasation of the Ummah will eventually lead to the Khilafah because political ideas always end with a revolution and government – this was the experience of the West. The emergence of the Khilafah is their worst nightmare, this is why the more Islamic the Ummah responds to global issues, the more intense their defence of their ideology takes place.

- The Ummah needs to stand for Islam, for all the lies the west label upon Islam they conveniently overlook the crisis they find themselves in. In the US one person is murdered every 31 minutes, raped every 1.9 minutes, assaulted every 36.9 seconds and one home is burglarised every 18 seconds. Both the US and the UK have the world’s highest rate of teenage pregnancies. 2 out of every 5 people are considered obese in Europe. Whilst Sarkozy attempts to protect Muslim women in France 3.2 million French citizens officially suffer from depression, 25,000 women in France are victims of rape every year, 400 women die every year in France due to violence, men are paid 11% more than women for the same jobs and 5400 women commit suicide every year in France. After over 200 years of capitalism Western societies are drowning in a sea of debt and social breakdown. Capitalism needs to explain why the world should adopt it, it currently has a very weak case considering its problems in convincing the Ummah to abandon Islam, this is why its defence of Capitalism is not through elaborating on its details but by debating the apparent floors in the alternative.

- The West has been able to enlist some Muslim in their attempt to undermine Islam, who unfortunately due to a variety of reasons aid the west in their campaign to demonise Islam. In January 2009 the grand Mufti of Al-Azhar, Sheikh Tantawi, said he would seek an official ban for the face veil in schools. It should be clear that the niqaab is one opinion in Islam with regard the women’s dress in public life. Allah (swt) says in the qur’an:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاء الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

“Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the woman of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies. That will be better, that they should be known so as not to be annoyed.” [Al- Ahzab: 59]Whilst there are a number of different interpretations of this ayah, when reconciled with other evidences the Burqa is one opinion, it is therefore an Islamic opinion. However this is not the argument of France or the West. Their argument is that the Niqab represents Islam and therefore is a challenge to those who believe in western values. Responding by denying the Burqa doesn’t just aid the West but is a betrayal to Allah (swt) when the West is clearly in a battle with Islam.

Various surveys, think tank reports and policy makers have all accepted that Muslims globally have rejected western values. A Gallup survey in 2006 concluded Muslim women tended to regard Western culture as morally corrupt and obsessed with sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. This represents a glaring failure on the part of the West faces no challenge to its global supremacy. This means the battle for hearts and minds and physical occupation represents a last ditch effort to salvage the emergence of an alternative system of governance. Thus defending Islam should always be undertaken from the perspective of a position of strength rather then a position of weakness.

It is in this context France is attempting to ban parts of Islam

p/s: malaysia is working towards that. we have many companies nowadays that prohibits muslims from performing solat n the friday prayer. we have many cases that companies disallow muslimah to wear headscarf/khimar. we are only proud that we have adzan, but stupid enough to deny that the secular capitalist system that surrounds us prohibits the uphold of syariah..starting from individual rituals to the form of the state. proud to be malaysian?

China : Rising Dragon or Paper Tiger

China has now officially become the world’s largest economy after the US, replacing Japan, which for over three decades held that official title. Today it has become difficult to not notice the rise of China. It has replaced Germany as the world’s largest exporter and now even consumes more Saudi oil then the USA. In the last decade many analysts have viewed the rise of China as America’s biggest challenge and some thinkers foresee China as the world’s superpower in the not so distant future.

The rapid rise of China on the global map in the last 30 years has shocked many, bewildered others and for some marks the shift of global power. Some have even touted a new model for economic development called the ‘the China Model.’

China as a nation has existed for over 4000 years. Most of Chinese history consists of internal struggles between various dynasties fighting to rule over the nation. Modern China emerged after WW2 when the Japanese who occupied large parts of China were defeated. The resultant vacuum led to civil war with the Chinese communists led by Mao Zedong, supported by the Soviet Union rising to power.

After various attempts to develop China, in 1979 reforms were initiated which would achieve self sufficiency and attract foreign expertise. China after a careful review of its strengths and weaknesses developed an economic policy that enabled it to benefit from its economic strengths and at the same time address its economic weaknesses.

China today produces most of the world’s consumer goods and for many represents an alternative to the exploitative West. Chinese economic development is leading to a geopolitical shift from the west to the east as Western economies teeter on the brink of a second recession in as many years. Many are looking to China to replace the US as the world’s leading economy in the not so distant future.

With this in mind we make the following observations:

* China does not represent a new system of governance or economic model. China today is the world’s industrial workshop; an export oriented economy totally dependent on foreign countries to buy its goods. This is a very fragile model of development.
* Whilst many have called China’s economic model a new form of economic development. The reality is China has adopted Capitalism with the government involved in a large segment of the economy.
* China’s development is intertwined with the US. The US the word’s largest consumer imports the vast majority of the goods that come of China’s production lines. As a result of this America has a trade deficit of $268 billion with China.
* Such trade means US dollars end up in China – totaling over $2 trillion today. Such huge reserves have resulted in China purchasing US treasury bonds, which funds America’s massive trade deficit.
* Like the Western Capitalist world which focuses on production rather than distribution, China’s double digit growth has not touched the lives of hundreds of millions of its population. Because of this China handled 87,000 cases of social unrest; public disturbances, demonstrations and civil strife in 2005.

Whilst China has made significant advances, we need to ask is its rapid growth sustainable.

Capitalists examples of malaise and failure are abound. The US itself pursued the same trajectory of export driven growth through the 1970’s and 1980’s, which all came to a crashing halt as its asset bubble burst. While the US is today still the world’s largest economy it is also the world largest debtor nation, deeply poverty stricken, energy dependent with a currency a fraction of its value only a few decades ago. Japan, another so-called miracle capitalist economy, has been at a state of economic loss for nearly two decades.

p/s: simple n yet meaningful analysis. just to share. been awhile for quite a time.