A turbulent beginning for the 21st century

Ishtiaq Ahmed

The 21st century has begun on a very disturbing note. Fundamentalism has won constituencies among almost all religious communities, terrorism is being carried out by clandestine groups as well as states arrogant about their killing power, globalisation is creating prosperity for some and poverty for others, and drastic change in climate seems to suggest that planet earth is not in good health. Not surprisingly the market for prophesies is thriving as self-proclaimed learned men delve deep into their holy scriptures and discover the signs of impending disaster. The end is imminent we are told.

In sharp contrast intellectual sophistication and optimism marked the founding of the United Nations after World War II to prevent the scourge of war, promote human rights and democracy and establish economic and social justice for all human beings irrespective of their national, ethnic, religious and sexual differences. Decolonisation started soon after the end of that war and by 1975 almost the whole of Asia and Africa had won their freedom and independence. An international law regime came into existence under the auspices of the UN to monitor relations between states and find just and peaceful solutions to their disputes.

Post-World War II development theory formulated by Western scholars and policymakers was premised on the assumption that the sovereign nation-state with internationally-recognised borders would serve as the organising unit of the world political system. Such theory predicted that economic development within a market framework could be realised if the Third World overcame its agrarian base and moved towards industrialisation and urbanisation. Such development was to be complemented by liberal democracy and respect for human rights.

But the capitalist model of development was challenged by a counterpoint model propounded by Soviet scholars and radical theorists. The counterpoint model envisaged the collectivist economic planning and single-party political system as the way forward for poor, resource-deficient Third World countries. The emphasis was on fighting poverty, removing class differences and creating equality. Instead of integration in the world capitalist economy unlinking with it and building a self-reliant economy was going to help prevent the wealth being sucked away by the capitalist centre. Such a model readily appealed to socialist and radical-nationalist regimes in the Third World.

In spite of the contrasting approaches to development both the capitalist and socialist models assumed that linear development based on progressive and cumulative economic growth was possible. Therefore in the not-so-distance future the huge gap between the industrialised and non-industrialised countries would narrow and ultimately disappear. The end product would be political stability, national integration and consolidation; hence prosperity and happiness of citizens.

But that did not happen. Neither model delivered the goods. The main reasons were that the Cold War pushed the concern for underdevelopment aside and instead geo-political interests of the superpowers became paramount. This was compounded by the fact that the power elites in the developing states often proved to be incompetent and corrupt. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not result in the world becoming a safer place, however. Instead territorial, ethnic and religious conflicts proliferated within states and between them.

In such circumstances, Samuel P Huntington’s so-called “clash of civilisations” thesis caught the fancy of people. He argued the competition of rival ideologies had ended but henceforth rival civilisations will enter into insoluble and intractable conflict because at the bottom of such conflict was not rational clash of ideas and values but primordial and atavistic fears between rival tribes. Huntington particularly identified intense rivalry between the West and Islam—the former being the leader of the liberal-democratic worldview and the latter of the conservative-autocratic weltanschauung. The second most intense rivalry according to him existed between the West and PR China

Because of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists there is a general feeling in the West that Huntington’s thesis has been vindicated. On the other hand, the attack on Afghanistan and the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the Bush-Blair alliance in addition to the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio have lent credibility among Muslims to the suspicion that the Christian West and Zionists have entered into a conspiracy against them.

Under the circumstances, the central question concerned intellectuals and public figures need to pose is the following: can the future of the world and humankind be left to fatalistic prophecies and pessimistic predictions based on a view of human nature that takes tribal loyalties as given and immutable?

As far as the ‘end of time’ prophecies are concerned, nothing can be done to disprove their veracity because they derive not from reason or scientific proof, but an inherently fatalistic approach to human affairs. But the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis invites an intellectual response that should call into question the idea of tribalism as the basis of civilisation. Is it really true that tribalism is the ultimate basis of civilisation and not human solidarity?

While extremism and terrorism among Muslims get most attention in the media and indeed by the scholarly community in the West, the struggles for democracy and human rights which are always going on in those societies are ignored. Also, with regard to Western societies we need to emphasise that the most advanced ideas of human dignity and human rights have been developed by them, and the task ahead is to apply them fairly so that host societies and immigrants can live together despite inherited historical legacy of differences of beliefs and cultural orientations. In other words, we have to try seriously to furnish counter-evidence to the clash of civilisation thesis. My feeling is that it exists in abundance and we need better theory to make proper use of it.

We need to take up cudgels on behalf of universal reason and human beings’ great capacity for compassion and sympathy for each other. We must probe more seriously the possibility that factors joining humankind outweigh and outscore those which divide or estrange them. Besides the political challenges we will have to work together to limit the damage that climate change is likely to cause. There would be the need to cut down drastically the use of fossil fuels and to keep water safe from toxic waste released by industry.

The dumping of industrial and nuclear waste by the West in poor Third World countries is a crime against humanity and needs to be opposed. Also, the continuous sale of arms by the industrialised nations to Third World countries needs to be regulated strictly. These and many more issues would require co-operation across regions and continents.

The writer is an associate professor at the Department of Political Science at Stockholm University in Sweden.

First published in The News International at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/news.asp?cat_id=9