Between the Black and White
The ‘No’s’ have it. Hugo Chávez suffered a marginal defeat this weekend in a referendum on proposals to reform the Venezuelan constitution. The Bush administration is clearly relieved, if not jubilant. “We congratulate the people of Venezuela on their election and their continued desire to live in freedom and democracy,” declared the National Security Council spokesman yesterday. We can only assume that these congratulations were offered for the result, rather than the process. The descent into dictatorship remains evident to many and the issue of democracy in Venezuela is clearly “black and white”. The descent into dictatorship is evident to many. Prior to the referendum vote, Donald Rumsfeld warned in the New York Times, that a “Si” victory would have offered Chávez the opportunity to “obliterate the few remaining vestiges of Venezuelan democracy.” The Venezuelan leader, Rumsfeld charged, is an “aspiring despot” who poses a threat to his country and its neighbours.
The former Secretary of Defense suggests that “the smart way to defeat tyrants” like Chávez is to support friends and allies like Colombia. The Bush administration’s support for the questionable government of Alvaro Uribe has made it difficult for many to swallow the “black and white” of democracy in the ‘Free World’. Like the Sandinistas acceptance of democratic defeat in 1990, the fact that “the people spoke their mind” in Venezuela creates further strain in the Washington view of the world. Rumsfeld is in no doubt, however, on who the U.S.’ friends and allies are and how the U.S. should assist them. He proposed curbing Congressional oversight of the Bush administration’s budget to build up the military capacity of “partner nations” such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld also called for a reorganisation of the U.S. public diplomacy apparatus, in order to counter pervasive anti-American myths and present the world with “the truth.” It is perhaps, however, American claims to a universal truth alongside some of its choices of friends in the “with us or against us” construction that make anti-Americanism so enduring.
Such statements are as allaying to some as they are anathema to others. Many people have a view on Venezuela; almost everyone has an opinion on the U.S. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Venezuela, the permeation of U.S. hegemony seems to polarise many observers. It is evident to me that the constructed Manichaean world of the Bush administration leads many young students into their first undergraduate class on international relations or world history with a predetermined pro- or anti-American sentiment. Surely, it is the role of academia to introduce shades of grey to knee-jerk black or white reactions. To look around much of the academy however, is to see support for the imagined world that saturates the media. The formation of what can be perceived as a ‘conservative-liberal’ consensus leaves only a few to counter the dangerous simplification of the international environment and the role of the U.S.
In his inaugural podcast for the launch of Libertas, Professor Scott Lucas cautioned against the “false step that says you can take up no position regarding Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, China; you can take up no position without this being considered to be either a pro- or anti-American position.” As scholars and students of the U.S., it has occupied a central position in our analysis of the international environment, but it is not, as Lucas adds, “centre to all of our concerns.” Taking a critical position on the U.S. should not necessitate qualifying this in morally equivalent terms of other countries; nor should a position on the diverse nations of the world need to be taken in relation to U.S.’ interests and ideals. “None of us speaks the language that America speaks,” Lucas concludes, “because there is not a single America.” We can not be ‘with’ the U.S. anymore than we can be ‘against’ it. The same is true of Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. The dichotomous rhetoric of Bush and Chávez cast each other and their governments as the negative agents to freedom. The universal declarations of liberal-democracy and ‘21st century socialism’ conceal fundamental heterogeneity. It is essential to engage with the grey that is found between the ‘red’ on one side and the ‘red, white and blue’ on the other.
Professor Lucas proposes that we can only speak from our own perspective. Diverse perspectives, even if they offend should be engaged rather than derided or ignored as they are by those in the ‘conservative-liberal’ consensus. We must be free, as Slavoj Žižek insists, to question the predominant ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology that underpins this American ‘truth’, or freedom of speech simply means nothing. American exceptionalism and the naivety, or even evil, of its adversaries cannot be accepted without question. A simple reversal however, is not enough; the conventional diatribe of the U.S. as the epitome of tyranny should also be rejected. Similarly then, the emerging ‘socialist’ ideology promoted by the Chávez government must also be open to question. In an article earlier this year, Michael Hardt not only made these points, but calls for a reinterpretation of the concept of democracy. It is a useful starting point to promote discussion on the complex nature of U.S.-Latin American relations.
Democracy, Hardt suggests, is a difficult word to pronounce today. Those who fly the banner of democracy often promote something like the opposite. The term democracy has been so abused by many ideological traditions that many have abandoned its use altogether. Hardt insists on a different approach of reinterpreting these ideological traditions, recognising the conflict and tensions within them, and identifying the concepts that are still of utility. Looking for new meanings of contemporary relevance in the original words of political thinkers, rather than how they were interpreted by successive political leaders is of vital importance. Indeed, Žižek similarly argues that despite the monstrous failure of Lenin’s plans, there is still a “utopian spark in it worth saving”. It is essential to distinguish between what Lenin did and what he effectively opened up and the opportunities he missed. Hardt argues that the constructions of the American Founding Fathers should be analysed in a similar way to those who have had less enduring success.
Hardt’s deconstruction of Jefferson’s ideological views reveals important features of American democracy. Understanding the fundamental tensions within the ‘liberal-democratic’ discourse is essential for those of us wishing to develop a radical reinterpretation of liberty and democracy. In reality, Jefferson’s formula for democracy is, to a degree, analogous to Lenin’s concepts. More importantly, Hardt suggests, is that each of the necessary elements of democracy identified by Jefferson posed practical problems that remain unsolved today. The contradiction between the ideals and actions of Jefferson, the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, are well documented elsewhere, but of prime importance to new interpretations are some of his constructions of equality, freedom and republicanism.
Firstly, the reading of Jefferson’s notion that equality could not be based on sameness or identity resonates in current socialist strategies. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe emphasise that a new discourse of radical democracy cannot be one of the universal. There can be no singular social identity and without it any attempt to base equality on it will lead to expressions of difference and exclusion. The shaky foundations of our social identity have led to the numerous antagonisms that are evident today. Hardt notes Jefferson’s recognition of this and his idea of a totally inclusive social equality based upon the fact that all life was singular and unique, yet common to the same natural system. If we are to struggle against inequality we must do so then, in the understanding that there is equivalence in our individual and collective struggle.
The rights and freedoms of the individual however, have dominated ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology. The liberal doctrine has focused on the idea of negative liberty – to be free from interference. The reduction of state influence then has been central to the idea of individual liberty. Democracy and the state, Laclau and Mouffe suggest, has been regarded as a tool “only to safeguard that which legitimately belongs to us.” It discredits the idea, that has had more influence through Latin America, that there must be some ‘positive liberty’ – to have the capacity to keep open real choices. Central to the Venezuelan proposal for an inter-American Social Charter is the idea that poverty and lack of education a denial of such positive liberty. The logical conclusion of positive liberty is a real equality that extends beyond the political into the economic sphere as well. Despite Hardt’s exposure of Jefferson’s belief in positive liberty, the ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology has dismissed the notion that economic equality is separate and unnecessary for political equality.
The notion that political equality can exist without real economic equality can only be short-lived though. The apparent tension between democratic equality and the intrinsic inequality of liberalism will face mounting pressure for justification. It can only be found in a belief that social inequality can be separate from political equality. Jefferson did not accept this and neither should we. As noted above, a proclamation of real equality, not just equality of opportunity, does not remove the idea of difference between individuals. Yet this has been the vestige of the liberal – imposing equality must mean an unnatural homogenisation, which in turn can only be interpreted as totalitarian. As Laclau and Mouffe charge, this “right to difference” is a fallacious one. The defence of individual liberty should not underwrite a gross social and economic inequality.
For Jefferson, freedom is inseparable from positive equality. Liberty is not only the right to be left alone, but also the right to determine the actions of government. In this task, it is essential to have a genuinely equal participation of the citizenry. Unlike James Madison, Jefferson argued that a republic was not just any government with representation. Hardt describes Jefferson’s support for councils of participatory democracy that were in direct conflict to Madison’s construction of representative democracy that was ultimately presented in the Constitution. Whilst the Chávez government has been criticised for its ‘un-democratic’ attempted to implement more direct citizen participation within Venezuela, the notion of representative democracy promoted by the U.S. was clearly formulated by Madison as a means not only to link the people to government, but also to separate them. For many of us living in representative democracies, we have no clear representative of our views. Again, the numerous campaigns for democratic reform are well documented elsewhere. At the heart of Jefferson’s thinking was, according to Hardt, the idea that the form of government should be constantly revised to allow for the multitude to govern itself autonomously.
This is the fundamental line of demarcation for all interpretations of democracy. Are we, as the people, capable of self-governance? This is a question that we must all ask ourselves and I can only answer for myself. My belief in the capacity of man is probably derived, in part, from the fact that I am a product of a cleric father and working-class mother. My early experiences were lessons in liberation and power (or the lack of). I soon rejected the dogma of institutionalised religion, but as with political thought, that is not to say that spurious interpretations of ambiguous texts should negate some of the original thought. Various denominations teach the linkage and equality of all life. Individual liberation cannot be separated from the concept of the common fate of man. At the same time, the inequality that was manifest evoked my sense of justice and pursuit of equality. That the social position of my family was commonly rationalised as a failure to seize the opportunities that were equal to all did not tally in my eyes. The benevolence, acumen, and ability that were apparent to me were not recognised by society. In that case, it was a short step to extrapolate this to those who I did not know.
After teen radicalisation in an alternative music scene I find myself, more usefully, in a quest for understanding real equality, liberty and justice. I am surrounded by minds far greater than mine. For many of them, their position is a confirmation of an intrinsic social hierarchy. The fact that liberals have joined conservatives in rationalising this inequality has only exacerbated the problem. They seek only to attack the conservative view of a birthright to inequality. To attack the system of meritocracy, as to jeopardise it, would attack their belief that they have successfully seized the opportunities available that demonstrate their superiority. There are many available radical denunciations of the inequality bred from equality of opportunity, so I move only to say, that like Jefferson, I believe that through participation we are all capable of self-governance. Jefferson proposed that the radical experiment should be to explore new ways of guaranteeing the education required for individual positive liberty. If our caravan is to travel the wilderness together then we must help the slowest.
Perhaps separated from the majority of the real people, many of the ‘experts’ – both liberal and conservative, left and right – have been less accommodating of such a view. Žižek even criticised Lenin’s declining faith in the capacity of the masses and reliance on ‘experts’. Although there have been limited attempts in Venezuela reverse some of these trends, the contemporary situation in the industrialised nations to move many decisions from the public to the private domain has mirrored such sentiment. This has happened to such an extent, Laclau and Mouffe argue, that the concept of democracy has not only been attacked, it has been emptied of its meaning. Liberals may criticise the rejection of divine right and inherited privilege, but do not expect a radical reinterpretation of an equality of the people.
Democracy can only be understood as the sovereignty of the people. However, the rejection of a single sovereign based upon divine right has removed a significant unifying factor of society. Any attempt to restore unity through claims to a universal identity that represents all people leads to a totalitarian path. The assertions that 21st century socialism represents the predestined ‘way of the future’ are as totalitarian as the declarations of universal identity in the ‘End of History’ based upon the American way of life. Neither Bolívarianism nor liberal-democracy are whole concepts that can unite people under a shared identity for they are unable alone to reconcile social antagonisms.
The logic of equality and liberty in a radical reinterpretation of democracy demonstrates our innate differences that cannot be denied by any universal ‘truth’. No individual, institution, or state can lay claim to be the exclusive carrier of truth, whether it is the American Creed, Hugo Chávez, or an exceptional U.S. Progress towards a new order must come, not only from our opposition to such impositions, but also through the independent construction of our own identities. How to steer a course between individual and common emancipation will need a genuine engagement with each other. I certainly do not know the direction. These are only nascent thoughts of a searching mind. I only hope that constructive engagement with others will help me to reconcile the contradictions I regularly discover. Only such engagement will lead to a fuller understanding of all the shades of grey between the black and white.
The ‘No’s’ have it. Hugo Chávez suffered a marginal defeat this weekend in a referendum on proposals to reform the Venezuelan constitution. The Bush administration is clearly relieved, if not jubilant. “We congratulate the people of Venezuela on their election and their continued desire to live in freedom and democracy,” declared the National Security Council spokesman yesterday. We can only assume that these congratulations were offered for the result, rather than the process. The descent into dictatorship remains evident to many and the issue of democracy in Venezuela is clearly “black and white”. The descent into dictatorship is evident to many. Prior to the referendum vote, Donald Rumsfeld warned in the New York Times, that a “Si” victory would have offered Chávez the opportunity to “obliterate the few remaining vestiges of Venezuelan democracy.” The Venezuelan leader, Rumsfeld charged, is an “aspiring despot” who poses a threat to his country and its neighbours.
The former Secretary of Defense suggests that “the smart way to defeat tyrants” like Chávez is to support friends and allies like Colombia. The Bush administration’s support for the questionable government of Alvaro Uribe has made it difficult for many to swallow the “black and white” of democracy in the ‘Free World’. Like the Sandinistas acceptance of democratic defeat in 1990, the fact that “the people spoke their mind” in Venezuela creates further strain in the Washington view of the world. Rumsfeld is in no doubt, however, on who the U.S.’ friends and allies are and how the U.S. should assist them. He proposed curbing Congressional oversight of the Bush administration’s budget to build up the military capacity of “partner nations” such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld also called for a reorganisation of the U.S. public diplomacy apparatus, in order to counter pervasive anti-American myths and present the world with “the truth.” It is perhaps, however, American claims to a universal truth alongside some of its choices of friends in the “with us or against us” construction that make anti-Americanism so enduring.
Such statements are as allaying to some as they are anathema to others. Many people have a view on Venezuela; almost everyone has an opinion on the U.S. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to Venezuela, the permeation of U.S. hegemony seems to polarise many observers. It is evident to me that the constructed Manichaean world of the Bush administration leads many young students into their first undergraduate class on international relations or world history with a predetermined pro- or anti-American sentiment. Surely, it is the role of academia to introduce shades of grey to knee-jerk black or white reactions. To look around much of the academy however, is to see support for the imagined world that saturates the media. The formation of what can be perceived as a ‘conservative-liberal’ consensus leaves only a few to counter the dangerous simplification of the international environment and the role of the U.S.
In his inaugural podcast for the launch of Libertas, Professor Scott Lucas cautioned against the “false step that says you can take up no position regarding Iran, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, China; you can take up no position without this being considered to be either a pro- or anti-American position.” As scholars and students of the U.S., it has occupied a central position in our analysis of the international environment, but it is not, as Lucas adds, “centre to all of our concerns.” Taking a critical position on the U.S. should not necessitate qualifying this in morally equivalent terms of other countries; nor should a position on the diverse nations of the world need to be taken in relation to U.S.’ interests and ideals. “None of us speaks the language that America speaks,” Lucas concludes, “because there is not a single America.” We can not be ‘with’ the U.S. anymore than we can be ‘against’ it. The same is true of Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. The dichotomous rhetoric of Bush and Chávez cast each other and their governments as the negative agents to freedom. The universal declarations of liberal-democracy and ‘21st century socialism’ conceal fundamental heterogeneity. It is essential to engage with the grey that is found between the ‘red’ on one side and the ‘red, white and blue’ on the other.
Professor Lucas proposes that we can only speak from our own perspective. Diverse perspectives, even if they offend should be engaged rather than derided or ignored as they are by those in the ‘conservative-liberal’ consensus. We must be free, as Slavoj Žižek insists, to question the predominant ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology that underpins this American ‘truth’, or freedom of speech simply means nothing. American exceptionalism and the naivety, or even evil, of its adversaries cannot be accepted without question. A simple reversal however, is not enough; the conventional diatribe of the U.S. as the epitome of tyranny should also be rejected. Similarly then, the emerging ‘socialist’ ideology promoted by the Chávez government must also be open to question. In an article earlier this year, Michael Hardt not only made these points, but calls for a reinterpretation of the concept of democracy. It is a useful starting point to promote discussion on the complex nature of U.S.-Latin American relations.
Democracy, Hardt suggests, is a difficult word to pronounce today. Those who fly the banner of democracy often promote something like the opposite. The term democracy has been so abused by many ideological traditions that many have abandoned its use altogether. Hardt insists on a different approach of reinterpreting these ideological traditions, recognising the conflict and tensions within them, and identifying the concepts that are still of utility. Looking for new meanings of contemporary relevance in the original words of political thinkers, rather than how they were interpreted by successive political leaders is of vital importance. Indeed, Žižek similarly argues that despite the monstrous failure of Lenin’s plans, there is still a “utopian spark in it worth saving”. It is essential to distinguish between what Lenin did and what he effectively opened up and the opportunities he missed. Hardt argues that the constructions of the American Founding Fathers should be analysed in a similar way to those who have had less enduring success.
Hardt’s deconstruction of Jefferson’s ideological views reveals important features of American democracy. Understanding the fundamental tensions within the ‘liberal-democratic’ discourse is essential for those of us wishing to develop a radical reinterpretation of liberty and democracy. In reality, Jefferson’s formula for democracy is, to a degree, analogous to Lenin’s concepts. More importantly, Hardt suggests, is that each of the necessary elements of democracy identified by Jefferson posed practical problems that remain unsolved today. The contradiction between the ideals and actions of Jefferson, the principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence, are well documented elsewhere, but of prime importance to new interpretations are some of his constructions of equality, freedom and republicanism.
Firstly, the reading of Jefferson’s notion that equality could not be based on sameness or identity resonates in current socialist strategies. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe emphasise that a new discourse of radical democracy cannot be one of the universal. There can be no singular social identity and without it any attempt to base equality on it will lead to expressions of difference and exclusion. The shaky foundations of our social identity have led to the numerous antagonisms that are evident today. Hardt notes Jefferson’s recognition of this and his idea of a totally inclusive social equality based upon the fact that all life was singular and unique, yet common to the same natural system. If we are to struggle against inequality we must do so then, in the understanding that there is equivalence in our individual and collective struggle.
The rights and freedoms of the individual however, have dominated ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology. The liberal doctrine has focused on the idea of negative liberty – to be free from interference. The reduction of state influence then has been central to the idea of individual liberty. Democracy and the state, Laclau and Mouffe suggest, has been regarded as a tool “only to safeguard that which legitimately belongs to us.” It discredits the idea, that has had more influence through Latin America, that there must be some ‘positive liberty’ – to have the capacity to keep open real choices. Central to the Venezuelan proposal for an inter-American Social Charter is the idea that poverty and lack of education a denial of such positive liberty. The logical conclusion of positive liberty is a real equality that extends beyond the political into the economic sphere as well. Despite Hardt’s exposure of Jefferson’s belief in positive liberty, the ‘liberal-democratic’ ideology has dismissed the notion that economic equality is separate and unnecessary for political equality.
The notion that political equality can exist without real economic equality can only be short-lived though. The apparent tension between democratic equality and the intrinsic inequality of liberalism will face mounting pressure for justification. It can only be found in a belief that social inequality can be separate from political equality. Jefferson did not accept this and neither should we. As noted above, a proclamation of real equality, not just equality of opportunity, does not remove the idea of difference between individuals. Yet this has been the vestige of the liberal – imposing equality must mean an unnatural homogenisation, which in turn can only be interpreted as totalitarian. As Laclau and Mouffe charge, this “right to difference” is a fallacious one. The defence of individual liberty should not underwrite a gross social and economic inequality.
For Jefferson, freedom is inseparable from positive equality. Liberty is not only the right to be left alone, but also the right to determine the actions of government. In this task, it is essential to have a genuinely equal participation of the citizenry. Unlike James Madison, Jefferson argued that a republic was not just any government with representation. Hardt describes Jefferson’s support for councils of participatory democracy that were in direct conflict to Madison’s construction of representative democracy that was ultimately presented in the Constitution. Whilst the Chávez government has been criticised for its ‘un-democratic’ attempted to implement more direct citizen participation within Venezuela, the notion of representative democracy promoted by the U.S. was clearly formulated by Madison as a means not only to link the people to government, but also to separate them. For many of us living in representative democracies, we have no clear representative of our views. Again, the numerous campaigns for democratic reform are well documented elsewhere. At the heart of Jefferson’s thinking was, according to Hardt, the idea that the form of government should be constantly revised to allow for the multitude to govern itself autonomously.
This is the fundamental line of demarcation for all interpretations of democracy. Are we, as the people, capable of self-governance? This is a question that we must all ask ourselves and I can only answer for myself. My belief in the capacity of man is probably derived, in part, from the fact that I am a product of a cleric father and working-class mother. My early experiences were lessons in liberation and power (or the lack of). I soon rejected the dogma of institutionalised religion, but as with political thought, that is not to say that spurious interpretations of ambiguous texts should negate some of the original thought. Various denominations teach the linkage and equality of all life. Individual liberation cannot be separated from the concept of the common fate of man. At the same time, the inequality that was manifest evoked my sense of justice and pursuit of equality. That the social position of my family was commonly rationalised as a failure to seize the opportunities that were equal to all did not tally in my eyes. The benevolence, acumen, and ability that were apparent to me were not recognised by society. In that case, it was a short step to extrapolate this to those who I did not know.
After teen radicalisation in an alternative music scene I find myself, more usefully, in a quest for understanding real equality, liberty and justice. I am surrounded by minds far greater than mine. For many of them, their position is a confirmation of an intrinsic social hierarchy. The fact that liberals have joined conservatives in rationalising this inequality has only exacerbated the problem. They seek only to attack the conservative view of a birthright to inequality. To attack the system of meritocracy, as to jeopardise it, would attack their belief that they have successfully seized the opportunities available that demonstrate their superiority. There are many available radical denunciations of the inequality bred from equality of opportunity, so I move only to say, that like Jefferson, I believe that through participation we are all capable of self-governance. Jefferson proposed that the radical experiment should be to explore new ways of guaranteeing the education required for individual positive liberty. If our caravan is to travel the wilderness together then we must help the slowest.
Perhaps separated from the majority of the real people, many of the ‘experts’ – both liberal and conservative, left and right – have been less accommodating of such a view. Žižek even criticised Lenin’s declining faith in the capacity of the masses and reliance on ‘experts’. Although there have been limited attempts in Venezuela reverse some of these trends, the contemporary situation in the industrialised nations to move many decisions from the public to the private domain has mirrored such sentiment. This has happened to such an extent, Laclau and Mouffe argue, that the concept of democracy has not only been attacked, it has been emptied of its meaning. Liberals may criticise the rejection of divine right and inherited privilege, but do not expect a radical reinterpretation of an equality of the people.
Democracy can only be understood as the sovereignty of the people. However, the rejection of a single sovereign based upon divine right has removed a significant unifying factor of society. Any attempt to restore unity through claims to a universal identity that represents all people leads to a totalitarian path. The assertions that 21st century socialism represents the predestined ‘way of the future’ are as totalitarian as the declarations of universal identity in the ‘End of History’ based upon the American way of life. Neither Bolívarianism nor liberal-democracy are whole concepts that can unite people under a shared identity for they are unable alone to reconcile social antagonisms.
The logic of equality and liberty in a radical reinterpretation of democracy demonstrates our innate differences that cannot be denied by any universal ‘truth’. No individual, institution, or state can lay claim to be the exclusive carrier of truth, whether it is the American Creed, Hugo Chávez, or an exceptional U.S. Progress towards a new order must come, not only from our opposition to such impositions, but also through the independent construction of our own identities. How to steer a course between individual and common emancipation will need a genuine engagement with each other. I certainly do not know the direction. These are only nascent thoughts of a searching mind. I only hope that constructive engagement with others will help me to reconcile the contradictions I regularly discover. Only such engagement will lead to a fuller understanding of all the shades of grey between the black and white.
0 comments:
Post a Comment