CC BY
9
L. Skvortsov,
D.Sc. (Phil.) Deputy Director of the INION RAS
RECONSTRUCTION OF GLOBAL (PLANETARY)
DEMOCRACY: CIVILIZATIONAL
CONSEQUENCES
1. The Phenomenon of "Global" (Planetary) Democracy"
The phenomenon of planetary democracy emerges as a consequence of defeat of Fascism in the course of the Second World War and the following disintegration of the colonial system. The victorious war of the united forces of the allies - the Soviet Union, the U.S. and the Great Britain against Fascism owing to logic of counteraction against racism and Nazi dictatorship attached universal meaning to the principles of democracy. It had a great impact on the whole spiritual situation after the war. The ideas of priority of civilizational value of equality of rights of the peoples, their freedom and independence became the catalyst, which resulted in the accelerated collapse of colonial empires.
The emerged global trend could not help influencing the characteristic of shaping international organizations. The question is, evidently, the Organization of United Nations. In essence the Organization of United Nations became a peculiar democratic world inter-governmental center with versatile and simultaneously rather
efficient powers of solving emerging problems of inter-state relations by mutual concessions, of preservation of peace and security of the peoples.
The global opposition of the two world systems formed as a policy and conception after the known speech of W. Churchill in Fulton started to carry on in the form of peaceful competition and "cold war". The "cold war" periodically put the world on the verge of nuclear catastrophe. The Caribbean crisis was a kind of its paroxysm. The comprehension of a real threat of annihilation of the mankind changed social psychology: it became evident that the way to "victory" of one or other social system was laid through "hot war" with the use of all destructive means. Such "victory" turned out to be equal to the total defeat of humanity.
The mere seemed search for a compromise, for a "middle way" between capitalism and socialism could not give any real outcome. And the parties lacked adequate intellectual and moral-political forces for the actual compromise. As a result, the "cold war" disappeared only as a result of "perestroika", the unilateral retreat from civilizational positions of socialism, the renunciation of "the final aim", which determined the strategy of policy and life of the Soviet Union.
As a result, the Soviet Union disintegrated. Side by side with its disintegration took place a radical change of the whole international situation, which determined stability of post-war global democracy as a co-existence and relatively coordinated peaceful reciprocal action of appeared and appearing sovereign states becoming the real foundation of liability and lively activities of the Organizations of United Nations. The documents worked out and adopted by the Organization of the United Nations determined the democratic status of the states, which received equal right of vote at the General Assembly of UN, irrespective of their territorial size, economic and military might, as
well as the human rights becoming the guidance in the struggle against all forms of discrimination for reasons of racial, social, national, ethnic and gender distinctions. At the same time, there was realized the policy aimed at preservation of cultural destiny, spiritual property of peoples of the world. The UNESCO programs made as a property of the whole world the vast cultural riches developed outside the original regions. The world culture as an organic mutual action and mutual enrichment of local civilizations' cultures forming the global entity started to transform into reality.
The rising sense of cultural dignity, the growth of spiritual influence of various cultural centers, of civilizational self-consciousness and self-determination started to shape a global social-psychological trend. The radical change of political forces' balance connected with disintegration of the Soviet Union created real chances for a new global order. This process was promoted by aggravation of contradictions connected both with the trends to intensification of global economic and military-political inequality and with the aggravating problems of ecology, energy, resources, as well as food and demographic crisis. The advantageous situation appears for the alliance of the western countries: they may restore their dominant imperial role in the contemporary world. It seems that, given the present military and economic might of the West, nothing may hinder attainment of this aim.
However, the international organizations, such as the Organization of United Nations, the Security Council of United Nations, UNESCO, based on equal representation of sovereign states, carry out their activities. The right of sovereign states, fixed in the UN documents, for determination of the strategy of their development and for non-interference in their internal affairs, makes it possible to counteract against aspirations for establishing international relations
with imperial one-sided influence. On the other side, some politicians regard establishment in these organizations of a new one-sided influence not only as a vital need but also as inevitability.
The organizations of this type should either change their strategic orientations or disappear from the sphere of global political game. The West can not admit such trend of world events' development, when it would be dependent in terms of energy and resources on the countries, which not long ago were colonies or were in the situation of fundamental political dependence.
The situation of equal bilateral position and more so the situation of one-sided dependence is regarded by the countries of the West as completely unacceptable, since in this case not only the foreign policy but also the internal political situation of the western countries might radically change: they will cease to be the civilization's orientation, the sole center of global attraction with all related consequences. The following question is quite logical: is the idea of restoration of global imperial relations not absurd under conditions, when western countries constantly consolidate the principles of democracy as "a political sacral cow" with unquestionable status.
The restoration of imperial global relations is possible, if this process is given a form of "reconstruction" of global democracy aimed at liberation of the world from despotic regimes and consolidation of models of western democracy all over the world. The global dream will be targeted in the following way: it is sufficient merely to wish and to express the will, and it would be possible to live like Americans or West Europeans. The perception is being spread that a new world order may be born. The aspiration for a probable new world order is spread in this way. But the natural consequence of formation of this order becomes the change of the formula of global democracy. Just the change of this formula may be presented as a grand project, as a wave
of the future to enter comfortably this future or, on the contrary, to be "washed away" from historic arena.
The emergence of such dilemma is a peculiar form of efficient psychological dictate: either you agree to the new global rules of game or you will be "dropped" from it. The destiny of local civilizations should be determined exactly by this game. One can not help seeing that the sovereignty of the states appeared in the post-colonial era became a kind of charter of immunity of civilizational specificity, which in its turn became the spiritual basis of protection of state sovereignty of the countries liberated from colonial dependence.
At present, the task seems to be as follows: to present the global democratic process of taking decisions not as a system of common participation of actually existing sovereign states with equal rights but as adoption in the world by "the league of elite" of the best principles of life, which are known for these states and are used as guided directions. Just they personify "true democracy". Evidently, the following question arises: what is "the league of elite" and how does it intend to establish "true democracy" in the world?
2. Autocratic democracy
It is evident that the notion "true democracy" includes separation of the whole space of democracy. It supposes existence of "inferior" states in terms of democracy. Global democracy as a sum of sovereign states should be subject to a kind of "revision". It means that the sense of "the league of elite" in relation to the system of international relations consists in its limitation functions. Not all states may be included in the group of "elite".
But in which way from the point of view of conception and political reality may be interpreted the limitation functions relating to the historic legal international system of sovereign member-states of the
Organization of United Nations? This sense may be interpreted, if world democracy "is made nearer" with the forms of international organizations including the power dominant in the world as a shaping reality of the consolidated economic, political and military might. Similar situation is seen in the principles and mechanisms of activities of the organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organizations, leaving aside the military organization NATO. But is it possible publicly to proclaim formation of a new international order reducing the sphere of activities of the system of global democracy and covering the actually existing sovereign states? How to correlate it with the principles of life and activities of the Organization of United Nations?
It seems to be possible, if you admit "coexistence" of various types of democracy. It seems that priority of such admittance belongs to John McCain, a candidate of the Republican Party to the presidential post. It took place in the U.S. in the course of presidential election campaign of 2008. In the course of the campaign John McCain advanced the idea of World League of Democracies, which did not repudiate existence of the United Nations Organization but existed side by side with it and allegedly rendering assistance to it for efficient solving of global problems. As a Republican Party candidate to the presidential post John McCain proclaimed as democratic allies of the U.S the soldiers of Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Spain and Turkey, as well as the forces of Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Philippines and South Korea. But since these forces are not engaged in systematic work for realization of diplomatic and economic strategy, NATO should fill in this gap by forming partnership with grand democracies in Asia and in the world. McCain asserted that the U.S. should go further and combine democratic nations in one common organization: in the World League of Democracies,
which would not resemble the doomed W. Wilson plan of creating universal League of Nations. According to him, the League of Democracies would be the league of selected organizations and its objective should be formulated as follows: to be "the unique server of freedom" but not a universal organization.
Thus, side by side with the "inadequately efficient" Organization of United Nations, which resembles due to its universality the "doomed" to failure League of Nations, the efficient Union of democracies with identical thinking should appear. In its time, side by side with the League of Nations and more precisely instead of it, there emerged limiting unions of states, which used electoral political and geometric terminology, and it resulted finally in the global catastrophe of the Second World War. The question arises: is the World League of Democracies, if not a "triangular", a "multangular", i.e. again a "geometric figure", which actually creates limiting barriers between itself and the other world?
How to interpret the sense incorporated in the notion of "the World League of Democracies"? If the universal, in its essence, United Nations Organization is impossible to be regarded as an efficient global democracy, the functions of global democracy should be given to a new "non-universal" international organization. This is the hidden "logic" of deliberations of John McCain ("Foreign Affairs", November/December 2007, p. 26).
It is evident that the comprehended repudiation of universality is not totally democratic, more precisely - not democratic at all - step. Democracy means combination of differences. If the World League of Democracies selects civilizational and political adepts in order to unite them, it looks like a world plot of the movement in the direction of the totalitarian union. The specific shadow of civilizational diversity of the contemporary world is placed on it to justify this movement. It seems to
be "relict", not corresponding to the flow of the stream of the historic future. Certainly, it is possible to be engaged in abstract deliberation about noble aims of the League of Democracies - about alleviation of hardships, the struggle against AIDS, counteraction against ecological crisis, ensuring free access to markets for those, who consolidate economic and political freedom. But if the nearest democratic allies of the U.S. are the soldiers of various countries, if partnership with the grand democracies forms NATO, we get the formula of collective global dictatorship drawing the boundary of freedom only for itself. It is not a global democracy but a form of power ignoring a fundamental principle of democracy - the principle of freedom of civilization's subjects. The reduction of the civilization's space of freedom by freedom for one person means that it is not freedom in exact meaning of the word.
The other fundamental principle of democracy is equal representation in the organs of power. The global democracy demands recognition of reality of equal rights of civilization subjects in the international bodies of governance, if they claim for creation global structure as a form of universality. Another question emerges in this connection: is global democracy consistent with individual leadership of one power? This question has both the legal conceptual aspect and the aspect of actual policy. If the world leadership of one power is established in terms of conception, this consolidation contains the claim for the individual adoption of practical decisions with global meaning.
Is any constitutional limitation of individual global leadership possible? The world society is not aware of it. This fact creates a critical situation for principles of democracy. The present international military actions demonstrate that reality of individual decisions on military actions of international significance may be attributed to American foreign policy. For instance, the Administration of George
Bush alone took decisions on the beginning of military actions in Iraq without any sanction of the Organization of United Nations, without common consent of American allies. But this action concerned the key problems of international security and not only in the region of the Near East. The individual leading function is not subject to discussion and adoption by the international community. It is proclaimed and is agreed by it.
The mechanisms of "capture" of the leading functions are most actively discussed in the course of election campaigns. At the same time, it becomes clear that the global leading functions do not get sanctions by the voters, and this circumstance engenders significant negative political consequences. For instance, Hillary Clinton testified to the fact that the Administration of George Bush put the American people before the false option: force against diplomacy, unilateralism against multilateralism, hard power against soft power. In other words, Bush proposed to use the U.S. might for realization of political will by his individual choice.
Hillary Clinton, unlike Bush, considers that there is time for individual use of force and there is time for multilateral diplomacy. The foreign policy of the U.S. in certain situations should be guided by priority of multilateralism using unilateralism in the case, when it is absolutely necessary to defend security of the country or to prevent a probable tragedy. Hillary Clinton proceeds from the supposition that the world still appeals to the U.S. for leadership, that the American leadership is wished by the world and that American friends are everywhere in the world and want to unite with the nation, which by its values, leadership and force inspired the world in the past ("Foreign Affairs", pp. 4-5). It is sufficient to recall the American war in VietNam to question the assertion that the American force was a source of inspiration for the whole world. But one may forget about it today.
Hillary Clinton correctly considers that soldiers do not respond to all questions. Sometimes it is better simply to keep a big baton than use it. However, to keep a big baton over the world without corresponding ideological veil means to engender an unwanted global resonance. For instance, this situation was created, when it became finally clear that the pretext for military intervention to Iraq turned out to be false. Thus, the world leadership as a justification of individual decisions on the basis of false arguments and arbitral aspiration creates the unfavorable atmosphere for realization of foreign policy decisions. The collective participation is needed to create an alleged legitimacy of the unprovoked aggression. To ensure collective participation in not a good action it is necessary either to have or to create "sufficient justification". Since the Administration of George Bush made a mistake, it was necessary to bring back the situation to the original position. Hillary Clinton considers that it was necessary to withdraw American forces from Iraq. She thinks that this step will restore the trust of the world to the American leadership. America should become again a great country basing not only on the military force, on the size and wealth of the nation but also on the American idea. What idea makes people be Americans? One of the last American ambassadors in Russia considered that it is the support given to democracy and human rights not only in America itself but all over the world. In this sense the government of the U.S. may judge any country. Citing Hillary Clinton, the ambassador asserted that this feature of Americans is incorporated in the genetic code of DNA, and that Americans and Russians often have different opinions on this sphere of problems.
Due to the fact that the idea of democracy and human rights is within DNA of Americans, nobody may judge them: it is impossible to judge the Nature, since the Nature can not be different.
Why the leadership of one great power is identified by the whole world as the spread of democracy? Did Rome in its time of the republic, which conquered the world, spread democracy? In reality, the republic executed the imperial governance over other peoples and states. Finally, it itself transformed in the empire.
The appropriate question emerges: is global democracy possible to exist, if one superpower has established its leadership in the world? The global leadership of one superpower transforms into a kind of fig-leaf the democratic procedures in all countries, which become satellites but not equal in rights partners of the superpower. The superpower starts to create a global military structure, which should serve as "the sufficient basis" for understanding by all other countries of their second-rate place in the global world, where it would be better for them to obey voluntarily than to revolt and to kneel before the prevailing greater might. This situation resembles the phenomenon of autocracy in the global extent, of autocracy arrayed in the democratic cloth.
3. Cosmopolitan democracy
It is possible to say that practical realization of the idea of the World League of Democracies leads to formation of "autocratic democracy". The autocratic democracy is internally contradictory and, naturally, can not help confronting critical attitude to it both on the part of internal and external political forces. The strategic aim of the successful reconstruction of global democracy demands creation of an attractive image of "true" democracy, in any case, a more attractive than the autocratic democracy. In this way there appears the idea of an alternative to the autocratic democracy repudiating absolute individual leadership. The essence of this alternative is in the equality of all participants in the league of democracies fixed by unanimous adoption of decisions within the league.
The historic experience shows that in order to ensure such collective nature it is necessary to acquire organic economic reciprocal action making it possible to form common market, to ensure free movement of goods, services, labor force, to carry out common customs policy and to introduce the united visa regime and one common currency. The collegial democracy should strive for recognition by the population of various countries of their common values. It should keep traditions of high culture. All this taken together may transform it in "the beacon", which throws light upon not only local but also global ways and routes of civilization's evolution. For keeping the status of the global beacon collegial democracy should open its boundaries for representatives of various ethnoses providing them with a chance to prove by their experience the high civilizational status of the collegial democracy.
What international entity in the contemporary world may actually claim for the status of such global beacon? Naturally, it is the European Union, which possesses its own parliament and its government - the European Commission. At present, they start to analyze the activities of the European Union from the point of view of contemporary international policy. The democratic mechanisms of work of the European Union, where the individual power of the leader is not recognized, may be regarded as a specific counterpoint to the American model of the World League of Democracies. At the same time, the European Union is, evidently, the model restricting the model of global democracy. Not all but selected by certain indexes countries are invited to take part in activities and life of the European Union.
Thus, both American model and the model of the European Union restrict the circle, where the principles of "true" democracy are realized. A peculiar "gray zone" emerges outside this circle, and the principles and laws of democracy are not spread there. The American
and the European models coincide in this respect. This coincidence finds its evident expression in organization and strategy of NATO.
At present, NATO arranges military operations far away from its borders actually in the whole world. At the same time, for these operations there are selected the regions, which can not deliver the equivalent responsive blow against the member-states of NATO. The American foreign policy is aimed at creation in various regions of the world of such structures, which guarantee primarily the U.S. territory to avoid a responsive blow. The creation of such structures will allow extension essentially of the borders of "gray zone" outside the territory subject to functioning of principles and laws of its own democracy. The following question arises: is it possible to make some academic appraisal of the political trends directed to "reconstruction" of global democracy formed after the Second World War, the defeat of Fascism and collapse of colonial empires? It is evident that the academic discussions on these problems represent not only a theoretical but also a lively practical interest.
In this connection of certain interest is the theoretical dialogue between David Held, a professor of political science of London School of Economy and Political Science, the author of publications "Democracy and Global Order" (1995), "Model of Democracy" (3d ed., 2006) and Heikki Patomaki, a professor of international relations of Helsinki University, the author books "Democratizing Globalization" (2003) and "Probable World: Democratic Transformation of Global Institutions" (2004, in cooperation with Teivo Teivanen).
Heikki Patomaki notes the characteristic feature of industrial developed countries of America and West Europe. They positioned themselves as national sovereign states (nation-states). If it is the attribute of the democratic feature of the state, the spread of democracy should be considered as an establishment of all states in the world as
nation-states. But somehow the countries freed from colonialism had to be engaged in the long and consistent struggle for getting the status of nation-states equal in all respects to the participants of international procedures of taking decisions. It should be mentioned that these restrictions were valid particularly in relation to the Soviet Union and further the Russian Federation. It is enough to recall the procedure of abrogation of Jackson-Vanik amendment or "history" of Russia joining the WTO. The key to the explanation of such situations is in the hidden non-acceptance of the conception of equality of the subjects of global international policy. This problem appeared immediately after creation of the Organization of the United Nations.
The first discussions on the character of planetary democracy were marked by a hope that the principles of planetary democracy might be and should be universal and equal for all. However, for the years of "cold war" the opposite interpretation of principles of democracy was formed. Consequently the discussion on the character of universal planetary democracy died out.
Heikki Patomaki considers that the theme of common planetary democracy emerged again for the 1970s, when "the third world" advanced the demand of a new international economic order. The United Nations declared that all states had equal legal rights and as equal members of the international community have the right to participate fully and efficiently in the international process of adoption of decisions on the world economic, financial and monetary problems. The demand of the state sovereignty in the process of decolonization created the legal platform for the struggle against imperial governance and exploitation endured by the majority of the mankind outside the boundaries of the countries representing the key regions of the world economy. It was not accidental that the democratic aspirations in the world were articulated in terms of inter-governmental relations.
Heikki Patomaki considers as well that it was the time of flourishing of the state sovereignty and of the first common exit of "the third world" countries out of the governance of industrial capitalism and European empires. The natural question is as follows: was it possible to regard the shaping wave of global democracy as an insurmountable wave of the future? Or is the faith in full equality and indestructibility of sovereignties of new national states a reversible process?
The shaping global social-psychological situation seemed to open a wide way for the final consolidation of universal principles of democracy for all. Actually, the processes of globalization and termination of "the cold war" presented the theme of universality of planetary democracy in its new aspects. There were no evident political hindrances in order to reduce planetary democracy to "a common denominator". Under the influence of the policy of reconstruction, the system of international relations was marked by asymmetric processes. The organization of Warsaw Treaty was dissolved, the defensive structures of the Soviet Union were disassembled, and the USSR disintegrated. In parallel with this process, the military might of the U.S. and of NATO was growing.
At the same time, the cherished hopes for the final planetary victory of universality of democratic principles turn into a dangerous illusion. The question is that the slogan of establishment all over the world of the principles of true democracy might be utilized as a battering-ram to violate state sovereignty of the states receiving independence after the Second World War and disintegration of the colonial system.
The new situation created conditions, when under the banner of consolidation of democracy it was possible to start realization of geopolitical aims. But was it possible to attach to this process an
outward appearance of the planetary march of democracy? It is characteristic that for these years a radical change of correlation of forces took place on the world arena, and the system of "cosmopolitan democracy" was advanced. David Held developed this theory in his article "Democracy, State - Nation and Global System" (1991) and further in the book "Democracy and Global Order" (1995).
Heikki Patomaki regards that as a result of it the significant revelations were made. It turned out that just creation of the European Union may be presented as a result of overcoming of Nazism and dilemmas of inter-state relations by means of integration. It means that not the collapse of the colonial system and formation of sovereign states, not global democracy represent a productive response to the historic experience of the XX century, but exactly the European Union did it. But in reality, did the creation of the European Union mean that it presented a chance to liquidate aggressive actions among the member-states of the Union? But did it signify the emergence of a chance to put aggressive actions outside the Union? Will the block of NATO become a device of such use of this outside move? How may one apprehend the sense of "cosmopolitan democracy" in the context of these questions? Is it possible to regard that theory of "cosmopolitan democracy" has universal meaning and may be used relating to non-European states? It turns out to be quite possible but only as a moral justification of the dictate of the rules of internal structure for the states, which, as it occurs, may not be regarded as valuable nation-states. But are there also democratic principles, which in hands of the European Union may claim for the global status?
David Held considers that there are eight all-embracing principles of "cosmopolitan democracy", which let assert that "cosmopolitan democracy" may call for the global status. They are as follows: equal for all value and dignity; active participation in
democratic actions; individual responsibility for taken decisions and accounting; achievement of agreement; collective decisions by means of procedure of voting; inclusion of all and support of the majority; prevention of significant damage for taking decisions to settle practical issues; preservation of integrity of society. At the same time, rationality of cosmopolitan principles depends on recognition of two fundamental metaprinciples or organizing notions: the cultural-historic metaprinciple of autonomy and the philosophic metaprinciple of impartiality.
These principles, undoubtedly, are good and universal in their abstract universality. But why are they realized only within the space of the Union? Do bombardments of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya correspond to the principle of non-admittance of a significant damage? Is it possible to speak about inclusion of all in case of execution of Saddam Hussein and of massacre of Muammar Qaddafi? Where is here a collectively taken decision by means of voting procedure? Where is responsibility of Jorge Bush for taking the decision on military intervention to Iraq on the basis of the evidently false justification? What kind of preservation of society's integrity may be discussed, if the military forces of NATO supported only one side in the civil war in Libya?
Thus, the following question remains not responded: are eight democratic orientations of behavior and two metaprinciples the orientations of internal application within the boundaries of "cosmopolitan democracy" of the European Union or are they applied in the great number of sovereign states emerged after the Second World War? If these orientations are set aside for the closed European area, the "cosmopolitan democracy" may acquire imperial qualities.
The imperial qualities potentially include probability to repudiate the principle of taking unanimous decisions. This trend appears in the situation of economic crisis, when its burden is accepted in a different
way in various member-states of the European Union. The need of change of unanimous taking decisions for the principle of qualified majority decision appears in this situation, probably, further by simple majority. If the simple majority is unable to ensure an agreed decision, the way to dictatorship of the federal government or the way to disintegration of the Union is quite possible.
But what sense is in principle to arrange the struggle against dictatorships in other countries? Or is it only the pretext for achievement of the geopolitical aims? What theoretical appraisal should be made of military invasions of the military forces of the U.S. and of the block NATO to different countries of the world? Partially, this appraisal is determined by the consequences of military operations. What is the result of it?
The wave of terrorism grew in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Libya, in the country, which got freedom from Muammar Qaddafi, as the true ideas of life they proclaimed not the principles of "cosmopolitan democracy", but the Shariah dogmas. In Egypt, as a result of democratic voting, Muslim Brothers and Salafits came to power. The fundamental conceptual problem appears: why the principles of democracy born by the western political tradition and accepted as an example of absolutely universal strangely start "to skid" in civilizational sands of the Near East and North Africa?
The above question equally concerns both the truths of American Fathers and the theoreticians of "cosmopolitan democracy".
4. Philosophic dilemmas
It is a common secret that the U.S. as a rule comes forward as an initiator of military interventions for the sake of establishment of democracy everywhere in the world. It sees in it its leading role. At the same time, in the context of emerging military-political and economic
consequences of reconstruction of global democracy confronted by the U.S., the following question arises: do the presidents of the U.S. have the founding strategy (grand strategy)?
Daniel Drezner, a professor of international policy in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Taft University, notes that as a result of military intervention to Libya there emerged acute debates on probability of existence of Obama strategic doctrine. The chorus of foreign policy observers started to complain on the supposed strategic incompetence of the U.S. Administration.
Daniel Drezner cited the meaning of an observer of newspaper Washington Post, who considered that the lack of a Grand Strategy or strategies was the feature of the American Administration. The analogous point of view is shared by other political analysts, who considered that the key reason of misfortunes of America were adoption after the war of the incorrect strategy. The "National Magazine" asserted that actually Obama doctrine is in general absence of any doctrine.
Daniel Drezner disagreed with these points of view and stressed two aspects of Grand Strategy of Obama Administration. First of all, this is the restoration of positions of America by reduction of its involvement in foreign operations and by replacement of its burden on its global partners. Second, it is establishment of influence of American ideals and interests in the world by means of counter blows in case of challenges on the part of other states. These political points could hardly be characterized as "founding strategy". They rather characterized tactic of foreign policy of Obama Administration.
The problem of global political strategy is connected with the true interpretation of the way based on the truth of political constants, the universalities, which explain the direction of political actions and the moral pathos of state leaders. They are the original philosophic
truths, which are moral and legal justification of specific political actions. Obama used these universalities as an original pre-condition of his policy.
B. Obama made the following remark about his decision to start intervention in Libya: repudiation American responsibility as responsibility of the leader, more significantly our responsibility for our brothers - human beings under such circumstances might mean a treachery to us themselves ... The people striving for freedom far and wide will make their friend of the United States ("Foreign Affairs", July-August 2011, p. 66). Evidently, B. Obama was basing himself on human identity as an urge towards freedom. In other words, he considers as his friend only the "others", who demonstrated their political identity with American identity. If it is human identity, all those, who lack such political identity, may not be considered as a part of the mankind. This philosophy, which explains America's military-political actions, represents the spiritual basis of its leadership in the contemporary world, including use of military force.
The point of view expressed by Hillary Clinton is quite characteristic. As a State Secretary she asserted that by means of the correct balance of civil and military force the U.S. would be able to advance its interests and values, to direct and to support other nations for solving global problems. And she added that the U.S. might enhance its importance up to the challenges of the XXI century and to stand the test of American global leadership ("Foreign Affairs", November/December 2010, p. 24).
These assertions are marked by the conviction in the exact knowledge and in personal possession of the truth of human being and of the truth of civilization's life. This truth is directed to all, and everybody urges towards its realization.
This perception is supported by the evident common original principles of western democracy. They may be defined in the deliberation of the essence of cosmopolitan democracy. But how should one explain its universality, i.e. its allegiance to any civilization's conditions and any historic circumstances? If we assume that the contemporary principles of western democracy - the principles of freedom, electoral formation of ruling powers, impartiality of judicial decisions etc. - are the principles of wisdom, while wisdom is universal, in this case the man as a Homo Sapiens irrespective of his ethic, racial and civilizational peculiarity should accept these principles as an absolute truth.
If from this point of view, one considers metaprinciple of autonomy (MPA, by interpretation of David Held), the democratic culture in western perception establishes conception of the individual as a citizen, who from the beginning is free and equal and in these roles is understandable for others. This is the identity of human being. Thus, the specific western perception of true essence of human being is established as a criterion of universality.
However, the eastern tradition as a criterion of universality considers the spiritual perfection achieved as a result of the long process. Owing to this circumstance, the individuals can not be identical in terms of their real qualities; they are different, since they occupy different stages of spiritual development.
If we accept the western perception of human identity as a constant in general, we should consider the main part of the people's history as a deviation from the truth: actually, slavery, serfdom and forced exploitation turn out to be outside the true history. In this sense, the eastern tradition legitimizing inequality of individuals may be regarded as a philosophic apology of history.
The following question may be asked: what should be the foundation of pure reason in the process of comprehension of truth -the abstract identity of human being in general or the experience of real history? In this case, we confront another paradox. Thinking of the West traditionally is regarded as a dynamic and lively antipode to any inertness, while consciousness of the East is considered to be conservative and "stagnant". However, in the process of interpretation of the internal world of human being the East traditionally sticks to the position excluding constant perception of qualities of "the man in general". If you recognize the constant spiritual characteristic of "the man in general", you should regard him as a member of the profane mass of people, who mechanically repeat the ritual forms of behavior. There exist for this mass of people only such rules of "free game", which brings results within the established limits. Those, who work out these rules, always turn out to be "more equal" than the equality of rest of the people. But what should be done with inequality of individuals? May we in real life ignore this inequality? If all of us are equal, why should we exert our efforts and spend time for the search of the best and of the most dignified option? But the essence of democracy consists in the election procedures. It occurs that democracy itself is based on the internal contradiction. At the same time, the following logical question arises: did the western tradition always consider the metaprinciple of autonomy (i.e. the urge towards freedom) as a starting point of construction of true society?
The sole answer to this question may be negative. Let us mention as an example the principles of life of the Pythagorean union. It was characterized by the determined and stable order including all aspects of life, submission of thinking to principles of the dominant doctrine, rigid discipline and rating of the society's members. It is known that the Pythagoreans considered each other as equal to blessed Gods and
thought little of others. These representatives of blessed Gods were greedy for power and wanted to be the pastors of peoples. This example resembles something from the modern life's experience.
Certainly, it is possible to contest it and to mention the fact that the Pythagoreans were persecuted and exiled from Great Greece. But it did not mean that these principles used by the Pythagorean Union were eradicated. These principles are still alive. The Pythagorean principles are used by Vatican. Why B. Obama did not order to subject Vatican to bombardment? Probably, because the American Administration considers itself, like Vatican, to be equal to blessed Gods, wants to be the pastor of the peoples and thinks little of others. It means the actual repudiation of identity of the human being in general as equal and free. But in this case one should recognize that metaprinciple of autonomy is not universal even as applied to society of the West. The legitimate moral and legal justifications for utilization of military force against societies living in the other way and on other foundations disappear in this case. The evident question is as follows in this respect: what attitude should be taken in relation to founding strategy of life in countries of the East?
From the positions of historic cultures of the East, the perception of identity and mutual "perspicuity" of individuals as equal and free citizens from their births - is the original and the greatest delusion. The man from the beginning passes as a human being the stages of consolidation and self-formation as well as learning his essence. The individuals are not equal in this process. They can not be equal, since even the highest stage of self-formation can not be taken for the final truth. Meantime, the achievement of the truth proceeds for the whole life of the person or even for the period of his many lives.
The initial equality of identity of all and of everyone is the legal postulate of western thinking, but it does not concern the actual non-
identity of people. May we ignore as false the laws, which form the basis of traditional life of civilizations in the East? Did John McCain, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton respond to this question put by them themselves? It is difficult to say. But their political positions evidently lack any reflection concerning civilization's peculiarities of peoples in the contemporary world. Just therefore their universality in principle is not different from universality of George Bush, who gave birth to a threat of transforming occupied Iraq into "a black hole" of American economy.
The historic experience demonstrates that the rules of public game may be different. They are formed on the basis of civilizational traditions. Who should define what tradition is better? For instance, in Great Britain the priority of the right of succession of the royal power belonged to men. However, in 2011 the equal rights of men and women in succession of the royal power were recognized. The new tradition was adopted. But why is it better than the old one? Who should take the final decision on this question? What opinion would express the citizen of Great Britain, if only the Japanese monarchy would make the true decision on this matter? The appropriation of the exclusive right for establishment of the public game's rules is not democratic in essence.
Just therefore it remains not clear how the U.S. under the banner of democracy intend to lead other nations to solve global problems? How the XXI century will be able to terminate the test of the American global leadership of democracy, if in the beginning of this century there emerged the internal contradiction between the conception of autocratic democracy based on the leadership of one superpower and the principles of cosmopolitan democracy excluding individual governance? What democracy is true? Or does the sole true democracy not exist at all? But can the epistemological basis exist for the individual global leadership in the contemporary world?
If this basis does not exist, it will be a strategic mistake to ignore the civilizational diversity bringing its specific truths. These truths are formed for the historic period making the unity of the people's qualities as a civilization's subject and of the circumstances of life. It is possible to make a certain analogy of perceiving by the people of their civilization's truth and of the individual's process of perceiving the truth of his being. The man, who with definite perception passes certain stages of his self-perfection, starts to comprehend that the achievement of complete perfection is not merely a long process but in essence ad infinitum.
The constant determination attached to the man by the Fathers-Founders in its literal meaning may become a source of misfortunes in strategic thinking. David Held had to recognize that metaprinciple of autonomy was better protected within the context of citizenship, i.e. the reduced context, where autonomy is conditioned by the characteristic of civil society emerged in the epoch of modern. And it means that it has historic limitations. Those, who are unable to participate and take actions in life of this society, are in need of protection. Hence, the principles of "cosmopolitan democracy" may efficiently function only within one community with fixed boundaries.
However, David Held considers that the principles of "cosmopolitan democracy" may be regarded as universal, if it is admitted that all people adhere to the idea of equal individual freedom and should have the sense of joy as a result of equal freedom. But how one may determine the adherence of all people to the state of equal freedom, if you take into account the people of the past and of the future, whom you can not already or can not yet put the question? Nobody has yet questioned all people living at present in the world about this matter.
The hypothesis that each person would like to be engaged in his own business without mediators and undesired interference seems to be true. However, it is not clear whether there exist age, gender and profession distinctions in the definition of rights and liabilities of people in family, industrial, social and political cultures. It is difficult without explanation of the aspects of the problem to formulate clearly the definition of universal meaning of metaprinciple of autonomy and of "cosmopolitan democracy" at the same time.
The review of universality of the proposed principles seems to be consisted in "thinking from the point of view of others". The conceptualization is needed from the impartial moral point of view, which makes it possible to evaluate and to correct individual forms of practical thinking. The arbitration court should occupy impartial position. But such arbitration court may function only in case, if among its members there are no representatives of individual groups and countries, which possess their own ideological positions and interests. The judicial proceedings of the contemporary international courts clearly demonstrate that this situation is probable only in exceptional cases. As a rule, the particular private interest of dominant political alliances is realized in the principles, which acquired universal sense.
However, David Held considers that mataprinciple of impartialist Reasoning (MPIR) opens the way for moral perspective, which may serve as the device to concentrate our thoughts and our actions in the direction of inter-subjective value of common good comprehension. And this is the way of utilization of principles, norms and rules, which may give a reasonable command for achievement of common consent. However, as it seems, philosophic dilemmas contain impossibility of voluntary agreement of all participants. If "common consent" is understood as an establishment of dominant influence in the world of autocratic or cosmopolitan democracy, we will confront a new era of
resistance and struggle for preservation or restoration of planetary democracy.
5. Is it possible to keep planetary democracy?
If from the philosophic point of view there are no justifications for reconstruction of planetary democracy, it means that its main motive has been mediated by economic and political interests. From the point of view of social realities, preservation of planetary democracy is primarily a problem of economic influence. If the U.S. and the West Europe raise their economic superiority in the world, the global positions of autocratic and cosmopolitan democracy will consolidate. At the same time, the process of civilization's unification and erosion of social ground of civilization's diversity will go on.
The situation of total advance of consumers' society ensuring the universal process of production and consumption of goods for global markets creates the needed conditions of constant growth of profits of transnational corporations, which covered the whole world by their industrial, communicative and informational connections.
The consolidation of global function of the transnational subject creates the requirement of universal culture opposing historically shaped unique cultures, which form the basic foundations of moral, esthetic and philosophic perceptions and consequently images of life. At the same time, of great significance becomes the issue of the place and functions of local civilizations in the context of globalization processes and trends of emergence of the universal civilization's subject. Does globalization means a start of the transition period in direction to the world order, which pushes out the system of sovereign states with equal rights and local civilizations? Is it possible to consider transnational corporations as a social-economic basis of universal subject with the right of repudiation of truth of life of sovereign states
and local civilizations? This kind of law recognized by the international community does not exist. The lack of the legal and moral justifications of such law demands its appropriation by the way of raising and consolidating the military might, which not only by action but also by its capacity should neutralize any self-dependent oppositional force. The elaboration of strategy for creation of military-technical infrastructure corresponding to the demands of solving this problem is needed to attain this aim. What is necessary to do to make this process psychologically acceptable? It may be made acceptable in the following case: if you "put down" the system of existing human relations to the level of mutual action of biological species.
When the united natural essence of inter-ethnic and inter-racial relations is taken out to the surface of civilization's life and is presented as the priority, there emerges the perception that only "culture of survival" corresponds to this essence. This "culture" makes utilization of force as a natural and "legitimized" act, since the common norms of human relations worked out by civilization's history become exhausted. The priority of force for solving global problems in terms of this "culture" starts to be identified with the real but not an illusionary mechanism of attainment of civilization's truth.
The well-known aphorism "The Force is not in God but in Truth" is turned head over heels: "God is not in Truth but in Force". This perception starts to have influence on the characteristic of international relations, on appraisals of aggressive and destructive actions, on appearance of deliberate disinformation for interpretation of events, on the judgements awarded by international courts. The unilateralism of world policy is being formed step by step. In this context they strive not for true impartiality in settlement of international disputes but for imitation of impartiality, which becomes a kind of rule in international life.
In order to imitate impartiality it is necessary to exclude from international discourse the real dialogue between sovereign subjects coming to agreement as a result of the dialogue. In this case, there is no need of the voluntary agreement. The prevailed force makes everybody "be agreed" with the real or potential victor. Victory is a success, and the success is evidence of truth. It means that the victor is the carrier of truth.
The most powerful party in the contemporary world becomes the sole and permanent proprietor of "truth". This "logic" puts in brackets a chance to express your own actual truth to the carriers of local civilizations' values. But the real truth does not disappear and waits for a chance of its emergence. The analogous situation shapes in the relations between autocratic and cosmopolitan democracies. Both democracies orient themselves to its own model as an entity with universal sense. The establishment of this sense by all accessible means is regarded as a noble moral and lawful objective defining the global function of the elites. But who selects them? In essence, they select themselves for accomplishment of the global mission.
David Held is convinced that combination of metaprinciples of impartial thinking and autonomy creates epistemological justification of common agreement on the basis of cosmopolitan thinking. However, such combination is in evident contradiction with the original basis of the idea of the "World League of Democracies", which emerges as a reaction to absence of common agreement and to impossibility of its attainment in principle. The World League of Democracies is summoned to make as universal the aims and objectives of the exclusive group of countries but not of all civilization's subjects.
The chance to combine provisions of the World League of Democracies with cosmopolitan democracy emerges in this vocation. Their mission may be fulfilled in two practical forms: in the form of
direct pressure with the use of military forces; or in the form of persuasion with the task to incorporate "truth" in profane consciousness of "non-consecrated" as an evidence of the fact that it is more profitable to recognize this "truth" than to refuse to do it. David Held considers that the dialogue with other civilizations is possible so far as they declare about their intention to fulfill certain conditions, namely - to respect autonomy of each individual, moral dignity of all, to recognize preservation of agreement and public democratic life.
But is democracy able to stand autonomy of each person and moral dignity of all, if, for instance, a person starts to defend positions of racism and political practice of terrorism, if diapason of autonomy of persons may start from Franklin Delano Roosevelt and terminates with Al Capone? Is it possible to make terms for other civilizations, if you yourself are unable to observe them? It is possible only in the case, if your own position is regarded as exclusive and not subject to discussion. If we raise the demand to respect autonomy of each individual, all the more the principles of democracy should demand respect of autonomy of every civilizational subject represented in the form of sovereign state. Global democracy emerged exactly on this basis of principle.
The various civilizations' manifestations of global democracy started to be accepted as authentic in the situation emerged after the Second World War. Does in real life exists an ideal model with not local but universal meaning, which makes it possible to define the recognized authentic civilization's manifestations? Is it possible to create the scale as a means for integral conclusion about "authenticity" or "non-authenticity" of the order of life in some or other country? In its historic time, this problem appeared permanently. Both the East and the West, each in its way, defined the signs of "unfaithful" and waged "Holy War" against them. We, on the basis of enlightened positions,
see the lack of objectivity of bloody victims of religious wars in the past history. But will the democratic world start a new "Holy War"? Such questions are inevitable, if civilization's authenticity is considered outside the sense of democracy, while its spread in global extension is qualified as an absolute and priority task and aim of contemporary civilization. But do we need a mechanism "to jam" the voices, which, according to the carriers of "true" democracy do not coincide with the demands of the established "ideal model"? Authenticity of other voices should not be mixed with the nature and meaning of democracy, David Held considers ("Problems of Global Democracy: A Dialogue // Theory, Culture and Society". Vol. 23. Number 5. September 2006, p. 119). It means that the strategy of democracy as an international policy definitely gives rise to dictate. If you recognize this thesis to be true, you should agree with justification of a non-provoked aggression against sovereign states and consequently with destruction of the principle foundations of the Organization of United Nations.
In this case, the Organization of United Nations may be kept as an artifact of the past epoch. This is the epoch of dominant sovereign states and diversity of civilizations on this ground. The diversity of civilizations dictates the need of impartiality in the attitude to the position of the other party. And in this case truth can not be considered as an attribute of only one form of civilization's identity.
The response to this question anticipates the destiny of local civilizations: may they be considered as "valuable" or they are marked by "inferiority", which dooms them to disappearance in the structure of new democracy?
Local civilization in "skimmed" appearance contains in its tradition the many-centuries truth of its being. What is our attitude to this truth from the specific "highness" of our civilizational situation? We have our own history and our own traditions, and we know our
truth of being. If this truth of our being is within our tradition, what should be our attitude to other civilizations' voices? Should we adapt them to the common civilizational chorus or "jam" them as a display of dissonance to our perfect civilization's "solo". To respond to this question it is necessary to make clear the gnosiological situation giving birth to replacement of truth by its surrogate of force.
It seems that Heikki Patomaki made a step in this direction. He considers that the issue of truth or a more general problem of value of any assertion may not be solved only on the basis of identity of the speaker or the writer. Rather, we should strive for such impartiality as it is possible in the course of various trans-cultural global dialogues, he thinks (Ibidem, p. 119).
From the ontological point of view, we start a dialogue as the shaped, complicated and mutually connected systems and possess ability to be engaged in trans-cultural discussion and teaching, which was arranged by our geo-historic experience. Colonialism showed us, what can mean a priory the consolidation of superiority of western perception and western political theories, Heikki Patomaki asserts.
The meta-theoretical form of fundamentalism emerges, and it becomes the basis of security's comprehension. This basis defies discussion. In the outcome, the core of political morality's beliefs constitutes a closed system. Can the carrier of this system regard himself a carrier of impartiality? For this sake, he forms in himself "the other I", an immaterial creature, who may be involved in a persuading dialogue. Here, "the other I" closes eyes to failures in argumentation and cites his reasons, which allow to avoid a real dialogue with a particular someone and to violate universal moral norms in relation to this opponent.
Imitation of impartiality lets keep both semblance of honesty and moral pathos in standing up for incorrect positions. The split emerges
between the world of impartiality of universal morality and the real world of bio-political determinants in the form of moral abstractions and legal categories. How one should estimate this split? Is it a sign of erosion of consciousness and absence of moral hardships in execution of egoistic decisions of global policy? Or is it, as Heikki Patomaki thinks, a sign of "unhappy consciousness", which is incapable to solve moral problems of real life? Evidently, the answer to these questions is in specifics of individual morality hidden from strangers' glances.
It may be said from the social point of view, that the absence of balance of forces promotes formation of a closed system of political morality, where reality of truth is ignored in moral position of the definite other party. The original moral justification of "impartiality" in use of forceful action becomes "cultural violence", imposition on civilizational diversity of the contemporary world of sketchiness of "selected" and "non-selected", of "ours" and "strangers". Such "cultural violence" is accepted as a spiritual justification of use of military force for "correction" of "untrue" way of life and behavior" of representatives of other civilizations. As a result, from the point of view of culture and from the ethical point of view, the closed systems of political morality may include the right of forceful action. Just therefore Heikki Patomaki as a European expressed his protest against Euro-centrism in the model of "cosmopolitan democracy". He considers that this model is a formula and, finally, the real potential for global democratic wars as a display of imperialism.
It is difficult not to agree with it. The former models of Euro-centrism as a justification of imperialist policy have run counter realities of contemporary global life.
The conception of autocratic and cosmopolitan democracy "forcing out" the principles of global democracy does not propose positive solving of problems, which confront the mankind. The way of
economic and political pressure and usage of armed force brings the civilization's progress to a deadlock leaving behind civilization's debris and growing waves of terrorism. It is not by accident that the mankind confronts ecologic, energy, resource, food, demographic and climatic problems, which find their solving in other ways, on the basis of common principles of sovereign states' international life, as well as by formation of wider social movements advancing demand of the environment's protection, life-saving of fauna and flora, reduction of industrial mechanisms' negative impact on the planetary climate.
The more significant role in forming social climate is plaid by the international reciprocal action of representatives of the scientific community, the arrangement of representative international conferences elaborating scientifically justified practical recommendations for determination of efficient approaches to solving urgent problems of the mankind. The question is creation of the needed conditions for preservation life on the planet Earth. The combination of the states' efforts becomes the rule for overcoming the consequences of technical and natural catastrophes.
There appears a deeper comprehension of the fact that the correct use of civilization's diversity is not an obstacle but the means of discovering probable non-standard decisions in arising non-standard situations. The globalization's processes demand teaching to listen to each other. The global subject becomes a pluralistic entity by its character. For instance, the subject keeping under its control the situation in the river Amazon delta becomes the global subject, since normal functioning of "the lungs" depends on preservation of forests in the river Amazon delta. But in the contemporary mutually connected world such global subjects emerge everywhere, in all key regions of the Earth. The contemporary situation objectively gives rise to new demands of arrangement of the world economic and trade regime,
financial reforms creating favorable conditions for establishment of new types of technology directed to the spread of pure industries, economical utilization of natural resources. It should become a real strategic aim of industrial and agricultural production as well as the change of its incentives and meaning of economic policy.
The political strategies are subject to changes. It is evident that solving contemporary problems is impossible without formation of the global political movement comprising both civil representatives and representatives of sovereign states.
Heikki Patomaki clearly sees the formation of new demands of civilizational evolution of the contemporary world and comes forward for cultivation of democratic pluralism, which by means of its new directions will consolidate the foundation of the reform in various spheres, including the sphere of politics. This strategy is comprehended in public processional notions but not in a closed model. These reforms may be accomplished by a peaceful and democratic way despite resistance of some superpowers, transnational corporations and financial institutions.
These gaining strength tendencies of the contemporary civilizations' evolution do not correspond to the purposes of autocratic and cosmopolitan democracy. By means of information technologies and secret services these purposes were given an idealized image decorated like a balloon showing to the mankind the way to the paradise. However, the balloon's cover was punctured, and it is difficult to patch up the appeared "holes".
The use of tortures, bombardment of peaceful settlements resulted in a lot of human victims, arrangement of leaders of sovereign states, provoking internal civil wars and even taking part in it on one side - all these events spoil the image, which in its time won the heart of adepts of "new democracy" of the newest western model. The lacked
balloon burst due to significant punctures and started to lose its original splendor. The idol of adepts' dream perishes in various countries. They suffer and, probably, cry, although not so loudly as fanatics in North Korea mourn over death of Kim Jong-il. It seems that they do it not less sincerely. It is possible to hope that it will become a process with sobering effect on them and will lead to spiritual self-cleaning, which will let comprehend that the present global civilizational subject is not a decorated figure of Goliath holding "big baton", but the unity of diversity of sovereign state and civil subjects covering inter-ethnic and inter-racial, inter-personal, language and spiritual spheres of civilizations' life. The problem of governance of contemporary trends of global development, of putting them in order and directing in the positive creative channel resembles a shaping and developing chorus of the orchestra, where each instrument with its specificity performs its melody, which merges with all other instruments and lets forming an actual harmony of heroic symphony of global self-governance of the countries and peoples of the contemporary world.
"The article was submitted by the author for publication in the bulletin "Russia and the Muslim World". It is the sequel of the author's article "Reanimation of Racism: Sources and Variations" published in the bulletin N11 of 2011.
A. Glukhova,
Political analyst (Voronezh State University) ARABIC REVOLUTIONS AS A FACTOR OF INFLUENCE ON INTERNAL RUSSIAN POLICY
Spring in 2011 suddenly was marked by the events, which were not foreseen even by well versed political analysts. Some countries of the North Africa from Tunis to Libya turned out to be rapidly
