Clash of the super-systems

[Thinkerman]

Clash of the super-systems

By Ken Sanes

 

If you look at the world through the eyes of a political scientist, it quickly becomes apparent that it is crowded with all kinds of systems and movements that are vying with each other for power. There is everything from Chinese market communism to weak Arab nationalism to new strains of Christianity that are sweeping through Latin America, Africa and Asia. But, from among this welter of systems and solutions to life's problems, there are three that are, in fact, shaping much of the politics on the planet. If we want to understand everything from the emergence of terrorism as a global force to the intricacies of domestic politics in America, it is these three systems we have to pay attention to.

 

Instead of super-powers, one might call these three "super-systems" since they are all global in reach. Among a number of things they have in common, all share a missionary zeal that leads them to want to re-create the world in their own image.

 

It will come as no surprise to readers that one of the three systems is militant Islam, which burst into the world stage on September 11 with the horrific attack on the World Trade Center. It is now waging a terrorist war against the other two systems, as well as against anyone else it perceives as an enemy.

 

The other two systems are American-style corporate capitalism and statist liberalism. These two systems are fighting each other for power as well, although mostly by trying to win elections and using the media to influence public opinion, instead of hijacking airplanes and targeting civilians. They are also working together in the fight against Islamic terrorism and other dangers, although statist liberalism includes a powerful anti-war movement that has already caused it to break ranks with corporate capitalism on Iraq.

 

Of course, these three systems aren’t the only factors shaping world politics. The other factor that is most notably influencing events is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which recently entered a new and more dangerous phase. These weapons haven't only increased the danger posed by Islamic terrorism, which is trying to add them to its arsenal. They have also allowed two brutal dictators, Saddam Hussein and the mercurial Kim Jong-il of North Korea, to assume a menacing global role. Both represent failed states and systems that are being discarded by history. But they have been inflated beyond their true size by the danger that they could use technology to destroy human life on a mass scale.

 

Unfortunately, the danger posed by these weapons doesn’t end there. In addition, a vast region of Africa and southern and central Asia, which includes the Islamic culture region, is the site of often intractable conflicts that can easily draw in the rest of the world. Among those conflicts, Christians and Muslims are fighting in Nigeria; Palestinians are fighting against Israel; and Pakistan is playing a game of nuclear brinkmanship with India in the fight over anti-Indian terrorism and the disputed territory of Kashmir. Throw in the nuclear ambitions of Iran and it is obvious that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in this region has the potential to bring about a calamity that would directly affect everyone.

 

It is these elements that are now most profoundly shaping global politics. With this in mind, lets look at the three global super-systems referred to earlier to get a sense of the role they will play in the more dangerous world that is now emerging.

 

The most volatile system, of course, is traditional Islam and its aggressively intolerant and expansionist wing, militant Islam, which has mobilized anti-Western activists in large parts of Africa and Asia. Inspired by visions of a stern God of the kind that once animated Western societies, its goal is to create a world of true believers governed by a strict Islamic code. Mosques, madrassas (Islamic schools), and the media are its centers of education and indoctrination, and Mecca is its spiritual center.

 

As is well known, militant Islam represents a set of values that are almost the precise opposite of the values held dear in the West. In Afghanistan, it imposed a state of virtual slavery on women and a system of oppressive social control on everyone else. It also used Afghanistan as a base of operations for Islamic terrorists who believe mass murder and suicide are spiritual acts.

 

The question is, how extensive can this system become? President George W. Bush, among others, claims that it represents only a small group of people amid a sea of moderate Muslims. But a recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press paints a very different picture. It found that a large number of Muslim respondents in many nations with significant Muslim populations "believe that suicide bombings can be justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies". In Pakistan, which is America's nominal ally in the war on terror, 33 percent said suicide bombings are justifiable, while 43 percent said they aren't. In Nigeria, 47 percent said they are justifiable while 45 percent said they aren't. In Bangladesh, it was 44 to 37 percent. Even in Indonesia, while 70 percent said suicide bombings aren't justifiable, a sizeable 27 percent said they are. These are all nations with large populations that make up a significant portion of the Islamic world. In two frontline states in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon and Jordan, the percentage saying suicide bombings are justifiable was 73 percent (!) and 43 percent.

 

The existence of such a large, untapped, reservoir of support for Islamic terrorism suggests that militant Islam has the numbers it will need for a takeover in at least some Muslim nations. Such a takeover might proceed by populist uprising, force or elections, as we have already seen in Iran, Afghanistan and the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan. The nations that are vulnerable include Bangladesh, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and Egypt, the most populous Arab state and another frontline state in the war with Israel.

 

But a takeover by Muslim militants may turn out to be only an early stage in the development of the global system of militant Islam. We could also see the emergence of a mass movement that crosses national borders, and the forging of new alliances, as militant Islamic states band together against the West, much as terrorists from different Islamic nations have coalesced into a single fighting force. It is even possible we will see the emergence of a leader who will bring together the charisma of the dictator with the fervor of religion, mobilizing masses of supporters, breaking down borders and creating a new Muslim empire on the way to a holy war with the West. The admiration many Muslims have for Osama bin Laden suggests that there is a widespread yearning for such a leader. And the history of Islam is replete with just such empire builders and conquerors.

 

When you add these factors together, they suggest that we may be dealing with a global movement that could confront the West not for years but decades. And, as we saw in Afghanistan, once Islamic terrorists have a territory they can use as a base of operations, they become more effective at launching attacks, even if they also become more vulnerable to attack themselves.

 

Of course, it is also possible that the governments in many Muslim nations will continue to keep militant sentiments under control, as the Bush administration hopes. And it is possible that most of these nations will slowly evolve into more open societies as they interact with the West. But, as militant Islamists aggressively push their agenda in many countries and large numbers of Muslims respond angrily to the war on terrorism, this sanguine view seems increasingly unrealistic.

 

But the Islamic world also includes a region that has been influenced by the West, which could become a source of moderation. For that to happen, we would need to see the replacement of Saddam Hussein in partly secularized Iraq and the overthrow of the reigning mullahs in Iran, with its increasingly Westernized population. We would then have a mostly contiguous region of moderate states in western Asia that would also include Turkey, Kuwait and a number of smaller Gulf states. It would link up in the east with what presumably will be a moderate Afghanistan. Such a region, open to market forces, would likely go through a period of rapid development that would offer a very different model to the Muslim world. Given its proximity to Europe, it would function as an extension of freedom into western Asia.

 

We now turn to the second system that is inspiring people across borders: American-style democratic corporate capitalism, which militant Islam sees as a threat to its way of life. Unlike militant Islam, which appeals to the desire to be part of an ethical system that governs society and the universe, corporate capitalism appeals to the selfish desire to live well and have the power to create one's own world. In place of a society of true believers, it creates a society of product-hungry consumers, along with workers, investors and ambitious entrepreneurs, imbued with the profit motive and strongly influenced by commercially-controlled media. And, in place of the mosque and madrassa, it is based on the marketplace and democratic institutions, with Wall Street, Hollywood (or, at least, the entertainment industry), and the government buildings around the National Mall as its centers in America.

 

Where militant Islam violently represses opponents, corporate capitalism's first choice is to co-opt potential enemies with the promise of wealth and power. In place of a unitary system based on a religious book, it appropriates the elements of all cultures, flattening them out and converting them into media fantasies and consumer products.

 

Like militant Islam, it is globalist in philosophy and practice. Its goal is to create a single world in its own image, which means it would supplant traditional Islam in Muslim nations if given the chance, just as it largely supplanted Christianity as a political force in the West. It is driven to expand by the constant quest for new markets and new sources of materials and labor while, at the same time, it clones itself by inspiring people in other nations to join in the quest for wealth.

 

Although this system can exist in dictatorships, it tends to produce the kind of open democracies that it needs to prosper, just as it creates a base of affluent individuals who are inclined to claim their rights. But the political system it produces is strongly influenced by corporations, which have the money to effectively lobby elected officials and manipulate public opinion. This system also tends to create self-oriented cultures, as the media and other market forces play to desires for sex, status and spectacle, and newfound wealth lets people indulge in the kind of lifestyles that were once available only to a few.

 

Before September 11, this system seemed like the only one with the power to shape the world in its own image. Then Islamic terrorists, led by Osama bin Laden, exploited the fact that advanced societies have to bring together large numbers of people to achieve efficiency and maximize profit, in cities, malls, office buildings and transportation. The terrorists turned that strength into capitalism's Achilles' heel, converting office buildings and airplanes into what have been referred to as technology traps. What had been a source of power and a boon to prosperity suddenly became an engine of death that people were unable to escape.

 

Then came the second shock: the belated realization that a far worse fate might befall the West if the scale of attack were raised a level and weapons of mass destruction were used to turn cities into the same kind of technology trap. As a result, America and other nations now find themselves in a radically altered world, fighting Islamic terrorists and trying to contain the threat from dangerous weapons, simultaneously. If they fail or if there is a prolonged threat to use nuclear weapons, producing something like an extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, we could see a new path of development for many nations, particularly in the West. In place of densely populated metropolitan areas and relatively open societies, we could see depressed economies, dispersed populations, which make less inviting targets, and the evolution of national security states, along with a darker mood that would give the decadence of the West a morose, post-apocalyptic feel to it.

 

In addition to militant Islam and democratic corporate capitalism, the third system that has the ability to inspire people across borders is statist liberalism, which is based on the effort to contain capitalism within a bureaucratic state dedicated to equality and social justice. The focus of this system is on using money generated from taxes to minister to people’s needs and defend them from unfair treatment, which means they become consumers of government services. It too relies on the wealth generated by the market, but it is definitively shaped by welfare bureaucracies and liberal/left interest groups. Like corporate capitalism, which it is typically in competition with for power, it is joined together with democracy.

 

Also like corporate capitalism, statist liberalism in America and Western Europe is a secular product of the Enlightenment. But the shared values of the two systems often have a very different spin to them. Statist liberalism tends to be anti-consumerist and relativistic in ways that assert the equality of outcast groups with those who have dominated society. And it rejects much of American-style media, which it sees as a tool of corporate manipulation that produces compliant consumers and voters. This system’s attitude toward the individual and society can be succinctly described as "We're all in the same boat," as opposed to corporate capitalism's attitude of "Everyone for him (or her) self."

 

Statist liberalism also has some surprising things in common with militant Islam, despite their obvious differences. Both appeal to people's desire to feel like they are part of a larger group that is on the side of right. Both would also use strong governments to achieve their goals and undo some of the effects of corporate capitalism. But militant Islam would destroy Western corporations and media, which it sees as a form of cultural imperialism pushing secularism, individualism and decadence. By contrast, statist liberalism has grown along with modern capitalism in the West, attempting to reduce its excesses and protect those it perceives as victims.

 

Readers won't be surprised to learn that the political base of statist liberalism is the Democratic Party and the left in America, along with Western Europe's left-leaning governments, where welfare state policies have the upper hand. By contrast, corporate capitalism finds a political base in the Republican Party in the United States.

 

Nor will readers be surprised to learn that the two systems have important differences in the way they want to deal with the world situation. More specifically, statist liberalism is the home of a burgeoning anti-war movement that has opposed military action in Iraq and the policy of engaging in preemptive attacks against governments. Statist liberalism’s anti-war sentiments are partly based on the perception that American policies are often motivated by the quest for wealth and power. In addition, liberalism seems to have a greater faith in the international rule of law, while the emphasis it places on humane values and compassion leads it to have a higher threshold for approving of military action than democratic corporate capitalism. Its views on this were influenced in America by the defeat in Vietnam, which elevated the anti-war McGovern wing of foreign policy to power in the Democratic Party. Similar views in Europe have been shaped by German guilt and the devastation of World War II.

 

Instead, it is the Republican Party, motivated by a desire to protect the security and wealth of the West, and imbued with the values of market competition and traditional Western religions, that wants to use force against Iraq. A far smaller group of Democratic leaders hold the same views. Which philosophy governs the presidency in America could decide war and peace, and the fate of nations.

 

These are the three systems now contending for the hearts and minds of people around the world. Each has its own geographic centers. And each sees itself as the engine of history that is using the process of globalization in a different way, bringing about prosperity and personal freedom or social justice and equality or a world in which humanity lives by the requirements of Allah.

 

But, even while these systems are fighting each other for power, it is interesting to note that they also have something in common: they are all genuinely multiracial in philosophy and practice. Islam would bring all peoples together under Allah just as it physically brings them together in Mecca. And whatever one may say about the terrorists who crave mass death, they don't discriminate in their own ranks based on race. For its part, statist liberalism glorifies diversity, including racial diversity, as an antidote to the white traditionalism of the West. Corporate capitalism is ultimately inclusive, as well, since it pulls everyone into its orbit in its quest for new markets. It does divide people up, on the basis of money rather than race.

 

All of this is a simplification, of course. As we get closer to events, we begin to see all kinds of nuances and complications. For example, all three systems have more moderate and more extreme versions, as we see in Islam, which can be militant, relying on intolerant expansionism, or traditional in a way that still makes co-existence possible.

 

Another complicating factor can be found in the fact noted at the beginning that the world isn't limited to these systems. There are also simple dictatorships and socialist and communist governments, as well as the secularized and more traditional forms of Judaism in Israel, the global organization of Catholicism and Hindu fundamentalism in India.

 

When we take these elements into account, it becomes clear that governments and societies are a mix of different systems. America’s Republican Party, for example, is a mix of social conservatism, corporate capitalism and a willingness to maintain elements of the welfare state, although its soul is with corporate capitalism. The Democratic Party includes elements of corporate capitalism and statist liberalism, which is one reason many on the left see it as an imperfect vehicle for their politics. Even militant Islam is a mix that adapts some elements of other systems to its own needs.

 

Nor will these three systems necessarily continue to monopolize the world stage over the coming years and decades. In fact, there is at least one other trend going on right now that could create one or more new global systems which will shape the politics of nations and perhaps entire regions. It can be found in the new forms of Christianity that are sweeping Latin America, Africa and Asia.

 

Here is a description of some of the changes being wrought by this new wave of Christianity, which comes from an article by Philip Jenkins in the October, 2002, edition of The Atlantic Monthly. It offers a vision of one possible future in which new global systems founded on Christianity are vying for power. The reference in it to Southern churches refers to churches in the "Third World" countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

 

"The booming Pentecostal churches of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are thoroughly committed to re-creating their version of an idealized early Christianity (often described as the restoration of 'primitive' Christianity). The most successful Southern churches preach a deep personal faith, communal orthodoxy, mysticism, and puritanism, all founded on obedience to spiritual authority, from whatever source it is believed to stem. Pentecostals - and their Catholic counterparts - preach messages that may appear simplistically charismatic, visionary, and apocalyptic to a Northern liberal. For them prophecy is an everyday reality, and many independent denominations trace their foundation to direct prophetic authority ... Of course, American reformers also dream of a restored early Church; but whereas Americans imagine a Church freed from hierarchy, superstition, and dogma, Southerners look back to one filled with spiritual power and able to exorcise the demonic forces that cause sickness and poverty. And yes, ‘demonic’ is the word. The most successful Southern churches today speak openly of spiritual healing and exorcism."

 

Jenkins believes the emergence of these new forms of Christianity could contribute to a global clash of religions, including a clash with Islam:

 

"Across the regions of the world that will be the most populous in the twenty-first century, vast religious contests are already in progress, though so far they have impinged little on Western opinion. The most significant conflict is in Nigeria, a nation that by rights should be a major regional power in this century and perhaps even a global power; but recent violence between Muslims and Christians raises the danger that Nigerian society might be brought to ruin by the clash of jihad and crusade. Muslims and Christians are at each other's throats in Indonesia, the Philippines, Sudan, and a growing number of other African nations; Hindu extremists persecute Christians in India. Demographic projections suggest that these feuds will simply worsen. Present-day battles in Africa and Asia may anticipate the political outlines to come, and the roots of future great-power alliances."

 

Seen from this perspective, it appears that the relatively quiescent period we went through after the fall of the Soviet Union was just an interlude rather than the beginning of an era of peaceful co-existence. The globe is once again an arena for conflicts between powerful systems that would reshape the world in their own image. But the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction gives this contest a new level of danger that is unique in history.

[Paragon]

Religions gaining prominence eh? lol nice article Shujui --- I don't know why I haven't seen it b4. I had seminar presentation along this line and I could have used to build a strong arguement. As obvious this topic draws much attention than many others.

 

Thankx bro.

[Thinkerman]

loool cannot believe i read that WHOLE Article :cool: , but the again my Degree was sooooooo Boooooooooooooooring, and Munnnnnnnnnnnddddddaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin i read just about anything to escape my studies