Report on the Anti-Democracy Agenda Symposium 2010: Setting the example for the debate of the future

The first event held by the Geneva-based Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) in conjunction with its "Anti-Democracy Agenda" blog, the Anti-Democracy Agenda Symposium 2010, took place to great acclaim on 8 and 9 November 2010 at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich.

Keynotes to the symposium were contributed by Professor Doh Chull Shin, a native of Korea, director of the Korea Democracy Barometer, and core partner in the Asian Barometer Survey (an ongoing research project monitoring democratization in Asian countries), who is based in the Department of Political Science at the University of Missouri, a leading public research university in the United States, and Professor Kuldip Singh, Head of the Department of Political Science at Guru Nanak Dev University in Amritsar, India.

The Anti-Democracy Agenda Symposium 2010 attracted twelve papers submitted by participants from institutions such as the National University of Singapore, the University of the Philippines, the Technical University of Lisbon (Portugal), Ankara University (Turkey), the University of the Punjab, Quaid-i-Azam University (both Pakistan), the University of Central Oklahoma (USA), and the Islamic Azad University (Iran). Other countries and territories of origin or residence represented include Palestine, Hong Kong, New Zealand, the UK, Switzerland, Nigeria, Korea, and India.

Participants – from doctoral candidates to full professors – came from the disciplines of Political Science, Philosophy, Political Theory, Islamic Studies, Defence and Strategic Studies, Law, and Media Studies, giving theoretical as well as empirical presentations under the titles "Is Confucianism Anti-democratic?", "Islamic Philosophy and Criticizing Democracy", "Against Liberal Democracy", "Anti-Democracy Is Created By Means of Media", "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World", "A Critique of Western Discourses of Sovereignty and Democracy from Chinese Lenses", "Reflecting on Anti-Democracy Forces in Arab Politics", "'Democracy' in Kazakhstan: Political System Managed from Above", "Pakistan’s Road to Democracy: Islam, Military and Silent Majority", "Democracy: A Form of Government or an Instinct?", "The Role of Ethics in Shaping Democracy: An Examination of Unethical Actions among House of Assembly Members in Nigeria", and "Pekan Anti Otoritarian: Some Observations on Anarchist Gathering at Indonesia".

After a workshop on "Anti-Democratic Thought" in Manchester in 2007, this was the second symposium on anti-democracy organized by the Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society and, once more, it opened up new frontiers for the study of anti-democratic thought and practice. Bringing together scholars from both sides of the debate, advocates of democracy as well as critics and opponents, it set the example for the proper academic conduct of a discussion that does not take place anywhere else, yet. Focusing on twenty-first century anti-democracy, rather than historical expressions and criticisms, it shone the way toward the most important debate of the near future. Asia will play as central a role in that debate as participants from Asia did in our symposium.

The Anti-Democracy Agenda blog and the Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society will continue to be at the forefront of these developments.

Articles: Pakistan: What price democracy?

The article, "Is honeymoon with democracy over?", by Kamran Rahmat, an Islamabad-based resident editor of the Pakistani daily newspaper "Express Tribune", appeared on 30 September 2010 on the website of the daily newspaper "Gulf Times", operating out of Doha, Qatar.

The full text of the article can be read free of charge here:

www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=388927&version=1&template_id=46&parent_id=26

Excerpts: "Rumours have abounded about the imminent fall of government [....] 30 months after a transition to democracy from a long bout of military rule, the average Pakistani citizen wonders if that is what street battles in 2007 were waged for. [...] At the first glance, it seems to have gone all horribly wrong – the dream of a functional, sustainable democracy replaced by a sense of foreboding and despondency that seems all too familiar. But is it? Is everything really unravelling and devolving to the inevitable last-hope lure of the khakis doing another turn at 'saving' the country? Is all in the country headed for a point of no return that will usher in the much talked about political change; or is this merely a clever perception that is part willingly and part unwittingly being promoted by the media to a point where it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? An independent, pluralistic media that played a spectacular role in mobilising and achieving the transition to democracy was supposed to reflect and strengthen the citizens' aspirations and perspectives after popular governments were in place. And yet turn on a private current affairs TV channel any time of the day and the staple fare is prophecies of doom and predictions of a change.

"Not on a single private TV channel is an assertion of faith (or even hope) discernible any longer in the very democracy that the media had valiantly pushed for in 2007, along with other civil society actors. The honeymoon with democracy for the media seems to be over. Agreed the governments in both the centre and the provinces have been found woefully inept and wanting in delivering the dividends that democracy was supposed to usher in for all and sundry. [...] But what is more transparent than the disappointing performance of the governments and political parties now is the growing sense of entitlement of the media that it is the final arbiter of this performance [...]. For sure, they have a right to offer analysis and venture opinion on what is going on but this can only be based on news and events, not conjecture and theory [...]. This is exactly the kind of milieu that provides a space for the anti-democratic forces to manipulate the media and through it the perceptions that people end up embracing. [...] Instead of focusing on the citizens and their grassroots and street perspectives and being their voice, [...] today's media in Pakistan has gone from being a watchdog of public interest to being a virtual attack dog for undemocratic forces."

An example of this tendency may be provided by an undated column by one Khalid Saleem, "What price democracy?", published recently on the website of the daily newspaper "Pakistan Observer".

The full text of the article can be read free of charge here:

www.pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=44095

Excerpts: "Democracy is the buzzword these days. [...] Ever since the then US President, George W. Bush, announced in his message to the Iraqi people on the eve of the Iraq invasion that, 'We are determined to bring (read: thrust-down-your-collective-throats) democracy to your country', the word 'democracy' has become something of a sine qua non in all statements emanating from the West. [...] Our own herd of liberal intellectuals has been weaned on Western propaganda. [...] In their estimation, any person wishing to be counted among those fit to be counted must needs be an admirer of the Western type of democracy or else. [...] Democracy, thus, is at best an over-rated system of government. Hullabaloo about the 'virtues' of democracy appears to have been blown out of all proportion. The Western propaganda notwithstanding, there is hardly any doubt that a system of government can be only as good, or as bad, as those administering it. Given dedicated, honest and well-meaning leaders, any system worth the name would be workable. On the other hand, if the leadership does not measure up, then no form of government will deliver the goods, whether democratic or otherwise! Come to think of it, what matters in the long run is how well a people are governed and not how the government in question came into being."

I can't figure out whether either of these articles appeared in print too.

Report: Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians

"Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians" is a report that was published in June 2009 by Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia – all of them US-funded advocacy bodies set up to promote democracy around the world.

The full report can be read free of charge here:

www.underminingdemocracy.org/files/UnderminingDemocracy_Full.pdf

Like all bad reporting, it is very tendentious, in particular demonstrating precisely the one-sidedness of which it accuses the media in authoritarian nations.

Some excerpts: "Russia is advancing a new form of authoritarianism, with methods of control that are significantly more sophisticated than the classic totalitarian techniques of the Soviet Union. [...] China, like Russia, has modernized and adapted its authoritarianism, forging a system that combines impressive economic development with an equally impressive apparatus of political control. [...] [T]he[se] systems [as well as those of Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan] are poorly understood in comparison with the communist regimes and military juntas of the Cold War era. As a result, policymakers do not appear to appreciate the dangers these 21st-century authoritarian models pose to democracy and rule of law around the world. [...]

"The authoritarians examined in this study are pursuing a comprehensive set of illiberal policies that are contesting democracy in practical terms, as well as in the broader battle of ideas. Increasingly sophisticated and backed by considerable resources, these efforts are challenging assumptions about the inevitability of democratic development. [...] Modern authoritarian governments are integrated into the global economy and participate in many of the world's established financial and political institutions. And while they tolerate little pluralism at home, they often call for a 'multipolar' world in which their respective ideologies can coexist peacefully with others. [...]

"[A]s Beijing grows more aggressive in its promotion of the antidemocratic China model, it risks becoming the mirror image of the Western powers it criticizes; it will be 'intervening' in other countries' internal affairs, but to squelch rather than to promote democracy. [...] The elected government that succeeded Musharraf sought to bolster Parliament as the supreme source of power and legitimacy, but it is far from certain that Pakistan will be able to break free of the antidemocratic inertia that permeates large parts of the polity and even the media. [...] Russian efforts have come amid an ascendant antidemocratic zeitgeist in much of the developing world; Russia's role in this trend is as much follower as leader. [...]

"Using social spending as a foreign policy tool has allowed Chávez to win two types of international allies: other states, which are loath to cross him if they benefit from his [oil] largesse, and intellectuals on the left, especially in Europe, who feel that the aid empowers the poor more than the elites. Behind this shield of open or tacit international supporters, the regime is able to pursue its more belligerent and antidemocratic policies with minimal criticism."