Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
French President Emanuel Macron in an address to the European Parliament last week articulated truths that resonate across the regions beyond the Atlantic. He warned that "nationalism and authoritarianism are on the rise. Democracy as an ideal and practice seems under siege. The United States, traditionally a beacon for freedom, has dimmed the light, at least for the time being". He cautioned that Europe is being torn by the rise of "national selfishness and negativity" and a growing "fascination with the liberal". In particular, he singled out the kind of anti-migrant authoritarianism on display recently in Hungarian elections and fashionable among the far-right parties in Europe.
The resurgence of nationalism is not only posing grave challenge to the unity of the international community to confront racism, religious bigotry and occupation of territories but distracted the liberal policy makers and intellectuals on the rise of autocracy in different parts of the world. Many countries known for their commitment to democracy seem to have acquiesced reinstatement of autocratic regimes in order to secure their commitment to fight extremism dismissing the fact that autocracy, through its ruthlessness, has been advancing the cause of fundamentalism.
During the cold war autocracy flourished as both the democratic world and communist bloc courted dictators as long as they embraced their hegemony. Washington and Moscow provided economic and military assistance to the countries ruled by the dictators ignoring how the resources were being used and how much benefits people were reaping.
The region from Morocco to Iraq and Sudan to Turkey was in the grip of the autocrats who ruled ruthlessly for decades. The situation in Asia was not much different. Iran, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand and Indonesia remained under autocratic rule for a long period.
In 1960s, the emergence of the middle class coupled with the spread of education enabled people to raise voice on the pattern of governance and on the outcome of donor-driven development programmes. They resented concentration of wealth in the hands of the elites at the expense of the working class. People complained growth was not followed by distribution. Rulers downplayed the situation and blamed infiltration of communists in society determined to impede economic progress. In the countries under Soviet bloc, people would not dare to come out in the streets but demands for civil liberty and economic liberalisation were construed as attempts of the bourgeois and agents of imperialists to overthrow the governments. In both scenarios, the autocrats had upper hand and people were subjected to exploitation.
In Indonesia, President Sukarno was replaced by General Suharto in 1966 but the system of governance remained unchanged. In Thailand, quo d'états frequently changed the military rulers providing no space for public representatives to participate in the governance of the country. The military in Myanmar firmly established itself in the government and kept it isolated from international community.
In Pakistan, Ayub Khan despite being loved by Beijing, Moscow and to some extent by Washington, stepped down in 1969 in the face of student-public unrest. Ayub's absurd political system of Basic Democracy virtually eliminated people's representatives' participation in the governance of the country. Ayub ruled the country with the help of the army and bureaucrats. The absence of people's participation in the governance of the country and growing income inequality of the people in the two wings made the Ayub regime largely irrelevant. His successor presided over the dismemberment of the country.
Though a civilian elected government assumed power in Pakistan in 1972, autocracy remained in place. Prime Minister Bhutto would not tolerate dissents even in his Cabinet. Hundreds of politicians belonging to opposition parties were put behind bars and they were released only after the superior court declared their detention illegal. His own Cabinet minister was assaulted at home along with his son for allegedly being "disrespectful to the prime minister". The prime minister attempted rigging the general election to his party's favour which provoked popular unrest all over the country. The unrest culminated in military's taking over power in 1977. The siege of power by the military caused no consternation in the Democratic capitals.
India has been a home of parliamentary democracy since it won freedom in 1947. Pundit Nehru, the first prime minister, pursued unfettered parliamentary democracy in the country. He separated the ruling party from the government. His daughter Indira Gandhi altered the system and remained as the party chief while holding the portfolio of the prime minister. She increasingly became authoritarian and in mid 1970s imposed "Emergency rule" in the country. Hundreds of politicians and journalists critical of her government were imprisoned. To quell the insurgency in Punjab, she stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Sikh Holy Temple, reportedly without seeking approval of her Cabinet. President Giyani Jaila Singh, a Sikh by faith, later on expressed remorse that he was not consulted by the prime minister prior to raiding the temple.
The storming of the Golden Temple had far-reaching consequences. There were protests. Many Sikh soldiers and officers deserted the army - unprecedented in the history of Indian army.
The Shah of Iran ruled the country with iron fists showing very little regards for rule of law and human rights. Those who could not come to terms with the suffocating situation emigrated and many took refuge in neighbouring Iraq. Ayatollah Khomeini was among them. People in southern Iraq, who were mostly Shia Muslims, welcomed Khomeini. He settled in Najaf, one of the holy cities of Shia Muslims and continued to oppose the rule of Shah. Following the Algiers Agreement, Khomeini moved to Paris and returned to Tehran in 1979 and installed the Islamic government. In terms of rule of law and human rights, Khomeini's administration was no better than that of the Shah. Many officials, army personnel, political activists affiliated with Shah Regime were executed following hasty trials.
The end of the cold war and disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 emancipated a number of countries from autocratic communist rule. However, after a short span of time, the former communists' rulers returned to power under different banners. Many of them are still in power (in Central Asia) with abysmal records of human rights and rule of law.
What is disconcerting is the conduct of the United States under President Trump. His policy of disengagement, reversal and refusal to champion democracy, rule of law and human rights has given impetus to autocracy in the globe. Following the end of World War II, the United States welcomed the immigrants from Europe and the regions where people were denied political, religious and cultural freedom. After the fall of Saigon, the United States again opened its gates for the Vietnamese whose lives were endangered at home. Now the United States has refused to accept refugees from the conflict zones. Even travellers from six Muslim countries are prohibited to enter into the United States.
In this vacuum, it is reassuring that French President Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have courageously come forward to champion democracy and denounce the resurgence of narrow nationalism and autocracy in the globe. They condemned shutting the doors for the refugees fleeing from the war-torn zones and rebuked the selfishness of nationalist leaders for ignoring the sufferings of the displaced and dispossessed. Macron declared, "Faced with the authoritarianism that surrounds us everywhere, the answer is not authoritarian democracy, but the authority of democracy".
The determination to safeguard democracy and denounce autocracy by President Macron and Chancellor Merkel resonate the lofty ideals held by billions of people on both sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific. Both leaders have an opportunity to fill the void created by the abdication of US's democratic leadership role by President Trump.
Abdur Rahman Chowdhury is a former official of the United Nations.