International studies: concepts, perspectives, and global applications

International Studies

Political conflict and oppressive political power are most often associated with the desires and in some cases even the whim of the ruling body, be it authoritarian or otherwise. In some cases there is even the simple human tendency to believe that the oppressive autocratic and/or authoritarian leader is simply insane, and it seems that the more offensive the acts of oppression to the human condition the more easily those who have been oppressed and their sympathizers find it to lay blame on the personal emotional psychological flaws of the oppressors. A rather simplistic idea but one that is often used as a motivating factor for eventual vilification of the oppressors, as it is a simpler act to simply vilify the oppressor than to address the real social political and emotional fears that arise when power and status quo are challenged.

Democracy, some would say is winning the war over authoritarian rule and yet individualism is incongruent with democracy as those things which make us individual also make us greater or less than every other individual and therefore incapable of the inherent ideal of equality found in democracy. Yet, the ideals of democracy, steeped in the ideals of individualism and a definition of otherness are oxymoronic in nature. The democratic representation of all lies unrealized in the world, because of its inherent idealism with regard to individual labels of ethnicity, gender, and nationalism.

All men are created equal, only in that they are not women, natives, ethnically inferior or labeled as property. Labels of "otherness" feed inequality in every form of government, be it authoritarian or "democratic" and they are the true obstacles of democratic representation. The balance between individual pride for ethnicity and personal cultural heritage, as well as nationalistic superiority would seem an impossible task in a world where the individual, and especially the successful individual has the greatest influence over self.

Yet, ethnicity or to a greater degree "otherness" is for most people the strongest aspect of self and this is especially true with regard to a repressed ethnic population. We as individuals define ourselves to a great degree by the labels, which our ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status afford us, engendering our position as outsiders the most fundamental definition of self. Though most would like to direct disdain for a ruling body, who acts oppressively to a personal flaw or a group of personal flaws, thus making it easier to understand and eventually reject the ideals of the oppressor the greatest source of political oppression is not some personal or even political feeling of superiority, rather it is fear of the "other."

Those members of a population who fall outside the idea of the ethnic, or socioeconomic norm, to their leaders represent the most foundational challenge to their perception of total power. The "other" is the enemy and the greatest challenge to the authoritarian power base. In some cases the "other" is a minority, be it ethnic or socioeconomic, such as the ethnic minorities in southern Russia or black African slaves, while in others they are the majority, such as native South Africans or in the United States women, their self defining pride as it is associated with their otherness is often the seed of the fear of their oppressors. This is increasingly true with regard to the modern world as the ideals of representative democracy become more and more pervasive in the global conscience.

Full democracy...as apolitical system in which most of the country's leading government officials are elected, there is nearly universal suffrage, elections are largely free of fraud and outside manipulation, opposition-party candidates have a real chance of being elected to important national offices and minority rights as well as general civil liberties are respected including free speech and free press." (27-28)

Democracy is incongruent to a large degree with the concepts of individualistic otherness. Though those who define and preach it would like to regard it as representative of all, even the most minor voice in a deciding body, democracy runs incongruent with the reality of "otherness" for most individual, as in almost every situation the tendency to define the other leaves the individual with innate feeling of superiority or pride in his or her sense of self.

According to the authors of Democratic Change and the Change to Democracy, "a growing worldwide consensus emerged in support of democracy as the best form of government," (29) and yet with this consensus is the ideal of individualism a concept defining "other" which inherently creates better than scenarios for every member of an y group. If an individual is somehow different than he or she is also somehow better or worse than another. Just as the Norsemen determined their inalienable right to choose to go "a viking" (the verb not the slang name for the people) as a viable economic alternative to inheritance or the crusaders to go crusading as first a right of their superior faith but also as a viable economic alternative to inheritance or as the right of the western colonialists to oppress multitudes of indigenous populations by the virtue of the populations inability to exploit their own resources wisely the world is constantly and repeatedly subject to the superiority of individuality.

The individual as a member of a powerful group determines the greater or lesser value of his or her worth by his or her ability to gain, wealth, status, voice almost without exception at the expense of the "other" whom he or she chooses to oppress by virtue of his or her "otherness." Possibly the greatest modern example, which people are constantly erroneously assuming can never happen again is the example of the Nazi regime and the genocide of the Jews, Romas (Gypsies) and other undesirables, during WWII. Such occurrences are not foreign to humanity, though in this case they were greatly fueled by technology and collective organization, making it possible to condense thousands of years of realized social hatred into only about three years time, they occur today almost without regard to supposed social and political progress. Well defined by the authors of Democratic Change and the Change to Democracy, is the idea that these offenses, of oppression including but not limited to genocide clearly still occur in multitude,

The least demanding minimalist definition focuses almost exclusively on elections. It simply defines democracy as a political system that holds relatively fair, contested elections on a regular basis. Although the bare bones definition seems reasonable (after all, most Americans define democracy in terms of free elections), it allows a number of rather questionable governments to be included in the "democratic club." (27)

By virtue of the inclusion of the "American" definition of democracy within this passage there is an example of the ethnocentricity that drives the ideals of nationalistic democracy. Though we may not commit genocide, today (consider native Americans or the protection of African Slaves as commodities rather than human beings) we Americans act as collective do-gooders, despite our use of capital punishment (a clear violation of human rights) and the economic and social oppression of minorities and women. Consider the current xenophobic attitude toward Mexican-Americans despite the fact that the economic demands of a capitalistic system require their labor to produce competitive viable products, especially with regard to agriculture. Also consider the economic disparity between female wage earners and male wage earners in the United States, or the exclusivity of or economy from the poor and underrepresented. Yet, most importantly consider the overall attitude of "better than" which permeates our every cultural message. The work goes further to give examples of the democratic ideal meeting its end through practical application in many nations, through the very violent means of brute force and even genocide.

For example the current governments in Colombia, Turkey, and Sri Lanka meet this standard, yet they massively violate human rights while battling armed insurgencies. In all those countries, government troops routinely massacre villagers and torture prisoners. Guatemala and Thailand also meet the standards of electoral democracy, yet their armed forces regularly intervene in politics, often overriding decisions made by elected officials. (27)

We as individuals are charged with keeping this personal philosophy in check by constantly exposing ourselves to the ideas and beliefs of the other.

Yet, how often in this increasingly insular and fearful world are our beliefs softened by exposure? Do we mean exposure to the other's beliefs, often viewed as faults by virtue of their very difference from our own or do we mean exposure to their personal being as a way to find common ground, an ideal often met with fear and resistance in our perceptive violent culture. Each individual who has taken it upon him or herself to constantly challenge their own beliefs by exposing themselves to others views and beliefs seeks out the similarities, which by their virtue bolster their own beliefs and then assumes the differences to be unimportant and yet they are so very important as they define the other as "other" for better or for worse.

The definition of democracy intensifies the ideals of the individual, as it regards the individual as a very important cog in the wheel of representation. In fact as the work points out the collective idea of social unrest lies not in individualism but in the fact that the individual ideal was to strong for third world political institutions to bear up under. (30) Yet, the individualistic ideals of today's society, are incongruent with true representation. We as members of "democratic" nation are taught to celebrate our differences and yet the human ability to celebrate any differences but our own is inherently flawed as individuals cannot recognize value in an "other" without much exposure and ideological challenge to themselves as a valuable individual defined by their differences. The self is, by its very nature associated with the ideal of better than, simply by the virtue of its separateness.

The stanch democratic proponent would say that the weakness of the individual (collectively) leaves a whole group at a disadvantage, one that is likely to lead to realization of authoritarian rule (31) yet how is this possible as the needs of all individuals are subverted by the idea of individualism itself. Nationalism is a more likely cause for the inherent seed of authoritative rule as the fear (of those in power) of the oppression of the whole of a nation overrides their fear of the collective individual and they therefore feel the need to force the collective individual into a protective or proprietary stance to bolster the whole of the nation, for the good of all (in the minds of the leaders) some will have to be sacrificed, be they a perceived internal or external threat.

Not so long ago many third world leaders insisted that not only would it be difficult to establish democracy in their countries, but that it was not even desirable at that stage of their development. In Africa, many first generation, postcolonial leaders created single-party systems, banning or restricting opposition political parties. They often argued that ethnic tensions in their country made competitive elections too risky because they would prompt different political parties to represent contending tribes or clans, further polarizing the country.