DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY
vol.9, no.2,
(July 2003)
Editorial
The criminal ‘war’ (if the military suppression of a
vastly inferior army could be called a war) on Iraq, which,
for the first time since the second world war, took the form of a
preventive war followed by a brutal invasion and full military occupation of a
country in order to integrate it into the New World Order, was not of course
unexpected. In fact, it was perhaps one of the most anticipated wars in History,
as the decision for it had in fact been taken long before the launching of the
invasion, notwithstanding the pure theatre that went on in the Security Council
for months before. D&N was going to press when the war began and therefore
we are able only to initiate the discussion on this crucial matter in this
issue, which will definitely affect the world for many years to come.
The discussion on the war theme opens with my contribution (Takis
Fotopoulos) whose aims are fourfold.
First, to show that the present invasion and occupation of Iraq is in fact the
culmination of a campaign that began with the war in the Gulf in 1991 and
continued with over a decade of constant bombardment and embargo, with the
overall aim of establishing a
client regime in Iraq as a means of achieving a number of important economic and
geopolitical aims. Second, to discuss the role of the UN in the New World Order
and the change in its role between the ‘Clinton doctrine’ and the ‘Bush’
doctrine’. Third, to discuss the criminal invasion itself and the dubious
character of the ‘victory’ claimed by the transnational elite, all the
members of which, directly or indirectly, took part in this campaign and,
fourth, to examine the role of the Left in relation to the war.
The second contribution on
the war is ‘An open letter to European Peoples’ by John Gerassi which, although written just before the launching of the
invasion, is still highly
topical as far as its analysis and conclusions are concerned. This bright
polemical text not only accurately describes the type of political and economic
‘democracy’ that has been established by the leading member of the
transnational elite, the American elite, in its home place and, through its
overwhelming military power, is being exported today all over the world—the
latest victim being Iraq-- but also raises some important questions concerning
the European peoples, whose elites have not as yet managed to completely
eradicate (apart perhaps from Britain) all remaining vestiges of social controls
over markets. Of course, the answer to these questions, could not be given in
terms of advocating the return to some kind of social democracy and welfare
state-- an approach which, as D&N has attempted to show all these years, is
both ahistorical and utopian-- but in terms of attempting to build on the
socialist and democratic aspirations of European peoples (which are still much
stronger than those in the USA) in order to create a new antisystemic movement
for a genuine political, economic, and ecological democracy.
Damon Young’s
paper opens the discussion on the second theme of ‘paideia
and democracy’, continuing the discussion opened in the last issue. In
a very interesting contribution, the author stresses that the Chorus of
classical Greek tragedy ‘creates the conditions for individual, organic
self-development’. Although no one would of course dispute the crucial role of
culture-- part of which was expressed in the Greek tragedy-- in the reproduction
of democratic institutions, still, one could not ignore the even more important
role of the democratic institutions themselves. Clearly, the existence of
ecclesia
was the necessary condition for the development of democratic culture and,
in this sense, it is the ecclesia that was even more crucial in creating the
conditions for individual, organic self-development. Similarly, when the author
states that ‘tragedy was crucial to the successful actualization of a good
democracy’, one may point out here that some sort of reversal of causation
seems to be involved, since it was the democratic paideia
institutions and particularly the direct participating of Athenians in
decision-making that created the culture reflected in tragedy and its chorus
rather than the other way round, as this statement seems to imply. Finally, one
may raise some reservations about Young’s point that ‘we embrace our
narrative traditions because they show us what can be’. However, sometimes we
have to break with tradition to create a new system of social organisation.
There was, for instance, no democratic tradition before the Athenian democracy,
nor is there a democratic tradition today—unless what is meant by this is the
historical evolution of representative‘democracy’, which however has almost
nothing to do with democracy.
Alexandros Gezerlis’
paper powerfully continues the
discussion on education in relation to a democratic paideia that we opened in
the last issue. The author is particularly critical of the individualistic trend within the
libertarian movement on education, which began with Max Stirner and sees today a
strong revival, following the general
retrogression
of the libertarian movement towards individualism. Gezerlis, after going through
a strong argument against the libertarian claims of some of the approaches
proposed by supporters of libertarian education, concludes that we need a new
democratic conception of education in which paideia is seen both as civic
schooling and personal training.
The Platonic views on paideia
are commonly being taken as a guide to the contours of democratic paideia.
However, although it is not disputed that some of Plato’s insights on
education are useful, it should not be forgotten that Plato was in fact an enemy
of democracy and of democratic politics—the very foundation of democratic
paideia.
Yorgos
Oikonomou’s paper is
very useful in this connection since it gives a comprehensive view of
Castoriadis’s powerful critique of the Platonic ideas, clearing up in the
process a widespread misunderstanding, whereby Plato is believed to be
the cornerstone, or the foundation of Greek political thought and its
representative par excellence. As the
author stresses at the outset, ‘for Castoriadis, Plato is the total
negation of Greek thought and indeed of political thought’.
Oikonomou then goes on to show in detail how Castoriadis’ critique
demonstrates the effective Platonic concealment and distortion of important
classical Greek beliefs, chiefly beliefs
concerning politics and democracy.
The thematic part of this issue concludes with
George
Skoulas’ insightful paper on the theoretical dimensions of
authoritarianism, which is relevant to both the two themes of this issue. It is
relevant to the ‘paideia
and democracy’ theme when it highlights the
psychological,
philosophical, social and political dimensions of authoritarianism, as the
negation of democracy— which is the basis of paideia. But, it is equally
relevant to the present ‘war’ against terrorism (although not analysed in
the paper) since this war is nothing less that the contemporary form of
authoritarian rule, as exercised by the transnational elite. Although the paper
is based on a critical theory analysis of authoritarianism, as the latter
appeared in the authoritarian regimes of the interwar period, still, many of the
characteristics of this ideal type of authoritarian rule apply to today’s’
reality as well. This is not surprising, given that the foundations of
authoritarianism are founded in the concentration of political and economic
power at the hands of various elites—a process which has been accelerated in
the present neoliberal globalization. Furthermore, the market economy and its
values, particularly individualism and the related positivist logic, are even
more dominant today than in the prewar period. Of course, the forms
authoritarian rule takes today are very different from the traditional forms of
authoritarianism—a fertile theme for further investigation
Finally, the Dialogue section hosts an interesting intervention by
Omer
Caha on the ‘The
End of Traditional Antisystemic Movements’ theme. His point of reference is
the contribution of the feminist movement in
humanizing the
Turkish
political and economic system—a good point of departure for
a
more general discussion on the significance of such movements in the South.
Takis Fotopoulos,
Editor