Chavez and Ahmadinejad: Strange Bedfellows, Indeed

One of the more interesting photos that came out of the Copenhagen world summit was a photo of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, embracing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, for the world -- well, the US, specifically -- to take note that this blossoming relationship is turning into an alliance to be reckoned with.

This is curious at best. What about their ideological dogmatism that sets them apart? On one hand, the socialism espoused by Chavez is premised on a materialist philosophy that frames world events into a dialectical conflict of economic interests and disregards religion as an opiate of the masses. On the other, Ahmadinejad’s Islamic Republic of Iran is grounded on politico-religious foundations, aimed at achieving a state of other-worldliness not only for Iran but for the rest of the world. Ahmadinejad is one of the Muslim world’s leaders who believes that the apocalypse is about to come through the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

But it seems such ideological differences do not deter them from embracing each other’s cause.

We’ll take their self-proclaimed piety at face value, since what they are espousing is indefensible, anyway. We’re astute enough, though, to note that what they have is nothing but philosophical adventurism and opportunism, finding commonalities in two things: 1) an understanding that populist politics is what propels tyrants to power; and, 2) that they have found a common enemy in the United States.

Populist politics is a politics of privilege and connections achieved by playing to the crowd. In its political form, it entails winning elections on the strength of a candidate’s charismatic appeal, social standing, and ability to get votes. Once in office, populist politicians set the tone for their agenda. They begin to assume the role of paternal rulers and treat their voters as children to be patronized rather than as constituents to be heard. They speak on behalf of the people for they view the people as too ignorant, impoverished, and undignified to partake in the complicated task of policy-making. Populist politicians have a total disregard for the workings of institutions. They think that they are over and above the reach of institutional checks provided by law.

In its economic form, populism manifests itself in economic decisions that rely on government intervention for solutions. Using a statist approach, a populist government determines which popular economic policies can gain support for itself.

Both Chavez and Ahmadinejad engage in this form of politics. But they get away with it because they have found a scapegoat in the United States upon which to put all the blame, all the ills plaguing their societies. Using the narrative of imperialism, they argue that the division of the world today between rich and poor countries is attributed to a large-scale exploitation by the former over the latter, with the United States as the greatest exploiters of them all. What Chavez said in Copenhagen affirms this: the world is “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really an imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships,” for which he got a standing ovation.

P.T Bauer has offered ample evidence debunking the theory of imperialism. Regardless of this evidence – that what cause poverty in many poor ccountries are endemic graft and corruption, ethnic wars, lack of capacities and institutions favorable to material progress, as well as certain cultural values and religious beliefs that do not give high value on material achievements – populist tyrants lie to their people. Instead of making their country move forward by inviting outside capital and harnessing the initiative, creativity, enthusiasm, industry, and diligence of their people, these leaders make them weak and dependent, depriving them of the very opportunities that will enable them to achieve a life of dignity and well-being.

Regardless of their ideological differences, socialists and radical Muslims seem to have found common cause in their self-righteous indignation against America.

'Americans as Occupiers'

While our military generals prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clear in providing us with a rationale behind these wars, namely, to destroy al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist Islamist groups that pose a threat to both national and global security interests, many in the Muslim world, including home-grown terrorists, do not see things that way. They view the Americans as “occupiers.” According to Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear physicist and defense analyst in Islamabad, “’The U.S. is seen as an occupier in Afghanistan, and there's no way that can be turned around.’ He said that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be ‘terrible for Pakistan,’ but that the United States had created the problem and must ‘clean up the mess before it leaves’” (Washington Post, “Pakistanis voice concerns about Obama's new Afghanistan plan”).

Let’s dignify this charge for a moment and take it seriously. What does it mean to be an occupier? What does empire-building entail for both the colonizer and the colonized?

The history of the world is a history of the rise and fall of empires. That’s just how it is. Most recent to date were the British imperial rule in South Asia, America’s colonial rule in the Philippines , the spread of Nazi totalitarian rule across Europe, and the expansion of Soviet communism in Eastern Europe, among others. There were good and bad empires. But what makes an empire civilizing, according to Churchill, is when it promotes the interests and welfare of the colonized, hence, “a cure to the disease of tyrannical rule” (Churchill, Liberalism and the Social Problem, 156).

What makes it unjust? An empire is unjust, Churchill says, if it does not help in elevating the uncivilized world from barbarism and savagery towards a life of dignity and well-being. In defending the British Empire, he says that empire-building should not rest only on altruism, nor does it have to be motivated only by self-seeking, narrow interests: "To be just, empire must be grounded on a higher sentiment and principle, but that higher motivation must reside midway between extreme formulas.” This higher motivation lies in an imperial people's desire to improve themselves, for sharing the benefits of civilization with those who do not possess them can make an imperial people more human. In Churchill's view, "Ruling its empire justly further civilizes an imperial nation. At its best, empire is not a burden to be endured but an opportunity for individual and national self-improvement" (Kirk Emmert, Winston S. Churchill on Empire, 53).

Can a democratic nation engage in empire-building? According to Emmert,

Democratic empire would seem to rest on an alliance between two quite different views of justice and the political good. The democratic view looks to equality grounded in a commonly shared humanity, the imperial view to inequality as it is manifested in the superiority of the fully civilized few; the democrat insists upon the primacy of rights, the imperialist upon the primacy of obligations; the democratic elevation of freedom and individualism contrasts with the imperial stress on virtue and man’s political nature; the highest purpose of modern democratic government is to encourage the private pursuit of happiness and the source of its legitimacy is popular consent; the purpose of an imperial government is to promote civilization, and “intrinsic merit” is its title to rule. If democratic empire is to be a viable form of government these fundamentally different principles and the practices which spring from them, must be able to coexist within an imperial democracy (Ibid., 66-67).

That is, until subjugated peoples are able to create the conditions for democracy and justice themselves, a good regime, even from afar, can adopt and employ an aristocratic view of what is morally good and politically just for them.

Between the extremist ideology and cruel rule of the Taliban and al-Qaeda on one side and the US policy of defending, securing, and supporting the local population on the other, can’t reasonable people in the Muslim world conclude that sometimes in the grand scheme of things occupiers are really liberators?

The Minaret Ban in Switzerland

When majority of Swiss voters endorsed the ban on the building of minarets in Switzerland during its November 29th referendum, they were making a political statement. Contrary to angry reactions from various Muslim groups who saw this vote as an act of suppression of religious liberty, backers of this measure said that it was not their intention to prohibit Muslims from practicing their religion. “The goal, they explained, was to prevent what they described as the growing political impact of Switzerland's Muslim minority, which they said is symbolized by minarets pointing into the sky; women wearing full veils; and observance of sharia, a Koran-based legal system.”1 Walter Wobman, a People’s Party member of Parliament, adds, "The minaret is the power symbol of political Islam and sharia law."

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki of Iran saw otherwise: “values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others’ religions should never be put to referendum,” and warned the Swiss of “consequences.”2 This vote, he said, “went against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights.”

The question of religious liberty vis-à-vis Islam is a complex one. For Islam is at once both a religion and a political system. While it offers a set of moral teachings, it also endorses political power with which to carry out those moral teachings. Inherent in it is the union of clerical and political powers, creating a state within a state, if it happens to flourish in a foreign political community. Granting it the right to exist in the name of religious liberty is providing it space to exist as a political entity.

This, I think, is the political statement that the Swiss voters are telling us. This is also what Tocqueville said in his chapter on religious freedom in democratic settings:

"Muhammad brought down from heaven and put into the Koran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.” (Democracy in America, vol. 2, part 1, chapter 5).

But Christianity has had its dark period as well when, during the Middle Ages, the papacy wielded both ecclesiastic and political powers in its effort to establish a world empire. It took a Reformation to rein in this papal power, leading to the birth of a modern state where, under the principle of separation of church and state, political affairs were left in the hands of the state, and religious matters in the hands of the church.

Modern republicanism upholds the separation of church and state. It is one of the key foundations of the free society. It is basic to individual liberty. By removing theological differences from the political arena, as Professor Harry Jaffa of the Claremont Institute has argued, “people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens.”

Those who are protesting the minaret ban in the name of religious liberty must first understand what it is that should belong to the public realm, and what it is that must be kept private.