We shouldn’t be fighting Tony Blair’s Middle East ‘battle’


Last week Tony Blair delivered a high profile speech at Bloomberg in London on the Middle East in which he placed Islamist ideologues in a ‘Titanic’ struggle with those who want to embrace ‘the modern world’ of pluralistic societies and open economies.

As with most of Blair’s speeches that I can remember, it was impressive, cogent and well-delivered. But for me it also exposed a kind of utopianism about that modern world he talked about, and a false dichotomy.

As he put it, 

“Underneath the turmoil and revolution of the past years is one very clear and unambiguous struggle: between those with a modern view of the Middle East, one of pluralistic societies and open economies, where the attitudes and patterns of globalisation are embraced; and, on the other side, those who want to impose an ideology born out of a belief that there is one proper religion and one proper view of it, and that this view should, exclusively, determine the nature of society and the political economy”.
He added:
“There is a Titanic struggle going on within the region between those who want the region to embrace the modern world – politically, socially and economically – and those who instead want to create a politics of religious difference and exclusivity. This is the battle.”

This is a battle, certainly. But it does not have to be the only battle, nor even the most important one. There is a false equation Blair is drawing here between democratic pluralism and free market globalisation. His message is that the countries of the Middle East either take on the full package of ‘the modern world’ as seen in Western societies, or get lost to religious extremism and intolerance.

It does not have to be this way though. The missing ingredient in Blair’s vision is democracy and a feeling for democratic society. Democratic societies as free societies do not have to go a certain way. They are free to choose.

Karl Popper, the apostle of ‘open societies’, thought that the only permanent restriction on democratic government should be the protection of democracy itself. He said: 

“A consistent democratic constitution should exclude only one type of change in the legal system, namely a change which would endanger its democratic character.”

Popper did not draw an equation between democracy and free markets. Indeed he thought one of the core roles of democracy was to mitigate the economic exploitation that has been a constant feature of free market economies. Democracy should mean respecting the equality of all citizens. But beyond that, Popper thought, everything should be left on the table.

He said, 

“In a democracy, we hold the keys to the control of the demons. We can tame them. We must realize this and use the keys; we must construct institutions for the democratic control of economic power, and for our protection from economic exploitation”.

This sort of vision and these sorts of principles seem to be entirely lacking from Blair’s account, and from the wider ideology of globalisation. For them, free markets come first.

Islamism has partly thrived through a distaste for ‘the modern world’ of which Blair talks in glowing terms.

I am thinking that we should not offer the people of a troubled region a choice that we have pre-prepared and pre-figured for them. The essence of democracy is that they make the choices themselves. Developed societies like ours should only place one condition on them for our support – that in conducting democracy they nurture and protect democratic institutions and democratic ways, and treat all their citizens with respect.

After that, it is up to them.

Tony Blair talks up pluralism, but prescribing a doctrine of globalisation and free markets is not pluralism. It is to offer the countries of the Middle East an entry into our world of relentless economic competition and constant change, of inevitabilities prescribed by apparently economic necessities.

An IPSOS MORI survey of more than 16,000 people from 20 countries has shown that people all over the world are anxious about the pace of change in their societies (Britons come out as one of the least anxious of those survey, but still with 62% thinking the world is changing too fast – compared to 93% in China and Turkey).




Blair’s vision is that this shiny world of change is the only way to go.

The countries of the Middle East and their peoples should at least be allowed the chance to reject this and go a different way. In Britain and other developed nations, we might do well to do the same.

Comments

Post a Comment

All comments, however critical, will be accepted as long as they are not personal and/or abusive.

Popular posts from this blog

Schopenhauer on Hegel: "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan."

There's nothing like a good insult or two, and if you're looking for insults in philosophy, you need look no further than Arthur Schopenhauer's comments on his German contemporary, the much more popular and successful Friedrich Hegel.  Schopenhauer suggested as a motto of Hegel’s philosophy some words of Shakespeare: ‘s uch stuff as madmen tongue and brain not’. He added : " Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to ac...
Read more

Why Islamists and feminists avoid confronting each other

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of our system of diversity is the way feminists and Islamists avoid directly confronting each other. Their ideologies are utterly opposed to each other, but within the system they are allies, so maintain distance and attack others. We can see this in how feminists resolutely avoid picking up on specifically Islamic-related instances of actual misogyny and discrimination in action. They nearly always stick to generalities and abstractions about the world or society as a whole, as Fawcett Society chief executive Sam Smethers does in telling Owen Jones that , “We have a very misogynistic culture in the UK.” In this version of reality, there is a single culture – or at least all the cultures we have come from the same root - and it is ‘very misogynistic’. This is the ‘patriarchy’ theory that is remarkably popular in the upper echelons of the liberal-left, just as it is among young feminists coming out of their Gender Studies courses at universit...
Read more

Immigration: our public debate misses the main point

Our public debate on immigration in Britain almost always focuses entirely on money and thereby misses the main point, a point that our political-media class finds difficult to deal with and that many regard as almost illegitimate. This is how people feel . It is emblematic of the state of democracy in Britain that any sort of negative opinions about immigration routinely get shouted down and lambasted as ‘wrong’ by the siren voices of people and institutions, most of which are on the supposedly ‘liberal-left’ side of politics. It is particularly disturbing the way that anyone who talks about negative effects of immigration is routinely attacked (often by hordes of lefty people on Twitter) as ‘racist’. These voices have a huge and in my view poisonous impact on the debate, forcing anyone who wants to make some nuanced points about immigration and identity into defending themselves against charges of racism, which is well established as one of the the worst offences one...
Read more