After the win against Communism in the 20th century, the West became sole ruler. At the top of the pyramid of power, sat super power the United States, which holds the keys of power the world. With all his greatness, there is then thought that after the era of the dominance of Western civilization, then there is no other civilizations, with a system of thought and life that is different from Western civilization. When that man has agreed to implement the Liberal Democracy. This era is the end of history (the end of history). Expression of the end of history that is very popular in the late 20th century, which places a scientist Francis Fukuyama as the most popular with Huntington's, during the decade 1990. Huntington is famous for his book Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order; and Fukuyama popular with his book The End of History and The Last Man. According to Fukuyama, after conquering rivals West idiologisnya: hereditary monarchy, fascism, and communism, the world has reached a remarkable consensus on liberal democracy. She assumes that liberal democracy is a kind of end point of the evolution of ideology or the final form of the form of government. And, is once again an 'end of history' (the end of history). (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, pp. 11).
At the end of history, Fukuyama said, there is no serious ideological challenge to liberal democracy. In the past people reject liberal democracy because they believe that liberal democracy is inferior to any ideology and other systems, such as the monarchy, theocracy, fascism, communism, totalitarianism, or whatever. But, now, he says, has become the consensus of mankind, except the Islamic world, to implement liberal democracy as a form of government the most rational. (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, pp. 211-212).
Fukuyama statement is not only highly debatable, but it is also evident contradiction with the West's own attitude. In view of democracy, Fukuyama adopted Huntington opinion about the need for a process of secularization as a prerequisite of democratization. In his study of "third wave of democracy", Huntington's research reveals that indicate a negative relationship between Islam and democracy. Conversely, there is a high correlation between the Western Christian religions with democracy. Recognized by the Huntington, the correlation is not a relationship because the Scriptures. Huntington explained, "However, Western Christianity emphasizes the dignity of the individual and the separation between church and state (secular). In many countries, the leaders of Protestant and Catholic churches have long been a major figure in the struggle against the repressive countries. Menghipotesakan seems reasonable that the spread of Christianity encourages democratic development. " (Samuel P. Huntington, Third Wave of Democracy [Jakarta: Grafiti, 1997], pp. 89).
About the relationship with the secularization of religion, Fukuyama notes that liberalism will not appear if Christians do not do secularization. And it was done by Protestantism Bart, who has made a special class of religious leaders and away from interference in politics. Fukuyama writes, "Christianity in some sense must establish itself through the secularization of its goals before liberalism could be born. Secularization agent can be generally accepted in the West is Protestantism. By placing religion as a private matter between a Christian and God, Protestantism has eliminated the need for classroom pastor separate, more broadly there is also no need for religious intervention into politics. " (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, pp. 216).
Fukuyama highlights the two religious groups which he said is very hard to accept democracy, the orthodox Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists. Both he described as "totalistic religion", who want to manage all aspects of human life, whether they are public or private, including the political area. Although these religions can accept democracy, but it is very difficult to accept liberalism, particularly on religious freedom. That's why, according to Fukuyama, it is not surprising if the only liberal democracy in the Muslim world is Turkey, which expressly rejected the legacy of Islamic tradition and chose the form of a secular state in the early 20th century. (Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, pp. 217).
Fukuyama claims actually very weak. This is not true when there is no serious challenge to the ideological liberal democracy. In fact, the post-Cold War, Islam is still regarded as a serious ideological challenge. Thus, Western countries are concerned about the emergence of countries that apply Islamic ideology. Because, according to Huntington, Islam is the only civilization that once made the West do not feel safe. Case Western support against the cancellation of elections in Algeria, which was won by the FIS shows that the West considers a serious challenge to the ideology FIS. According to Christopher Ogden, in the article View from Washington, Times, February 3, 1992, the U.S. action game that supports anti-democratic power is a very wrong action. U.S. and French attitudes which states that the Algerian coup "constitutional" nothing more than a symptom of paranoid psychosis (fear without basis) against the Muslim fundamentalists.
After the incident an attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the U.S. defense department building the Pentagon in Virginia, West paranoid type - especially the U.S. - against Islam increasingly diverse. From the simplest form of everyday life until the level of government legalized. Just because the name of Islam smells, or face the Arab print, then the person who entered the Western countries treated inhumanely.
When in 2004 Turkey initiated the bill that sets a form of adultery as a criminal crime, in addition to later caused controversy, the interest is not in Turkey alone among the noisy, but also officials of the European Union. Officials of the European Union expansion, Guenter Verheugen, said that the anti adultery can create the image that the law in Turkey began to approach Islamic law. In fact, British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw stated that if the proposal was passed into law, it will create difficulties for Turkey.
Cases in Turkey is interesting to be listened to, how moral issues into the internal affairs of one country in the Muslim country was a major concern of Western leaders. In fact, can have an impact on serious political issues. Why do Western people are so worried if the people of Turkey, through its parliament, decided that adultery is a form of evil? What's behind all this? Why do they not allow it, according to the jargon of their liberal democracy, the people of Turkey to decide what is good and bad for them? Why are they just reminded that the law will bring Turkey to Islam?
The case of Turkey is once again a proof that the West being so paranoid about the application of "Islamic law", and once broke Fukuyama's thesis about the absence of a serious challenge to didiologis liberal democracy after the Cold War. Therefore, Fukuyama's claim that there has been consensus manusiauntuk people embrace "liberal democracy" also can be considered excessive. This claim is too early and get a lot of criticism. At this time the Western attitude is also a paradox. On the one hand, campaigned on 'pluralism' as one of the basic elements of liberal democracy, but on the other side also impose 'uniformity' of having to apply Western standards in various aspects of human life, as happened in Turkey. Western support for authoritarian regimes are anti-democracy in the Islamic world - just because it guarantees regimes and economic interests of Western business - adding to the thick Western paradoksi levels.
Besides liberal democracy offers many convenience and positive values, but also keep the internal weaknesses of the fundamental. In this system, science is not valued. Smart people identified with a fool. A professor of political science have equal voting rights with an alcoholic and an adulterer. A devout vote equated with a thug.
Internal weaknesses and the danger that democracy had to be reminded of Plato, ancient Greek philosopher. Plato (429-347 BC) called the four weaknesses of democracy. One of them, leaders are usually selected and followed for nonessential factors, such as intelligence, speech, wealth, and family backgrounds. Plato dreamed of the emergence of "the people most wise" as the ideal leader in sautu states, "The wisest man in the country will deal with human problems with reason and wisdom derived from the eternal world of ideas and perfect." Famous poet Muhammad Iqbal is also a lot of criticism against the concept of surrender decision peemrintahan to low-minded masses. Iqbal said, however, the ants will not be able to exceed the sophistication of a Solomon. He took away the democratic method, because the human mind will not be out of the 200 'donkey'.
In fact, the West was aware, liberal democracy can not be applied to all aspects of human life, khsusnya in international duina. They do not believe that the majority of mankind can produce a good decision for the international world if contrary to their wishes. Therefore, since the beginning of the United Nations, October 24, 1945, the West imposed on the system "aristocratic", namely the UN authority granted to several countries, known as "The Big Five" (USA, Russia, France, England, China). This is the fifth country to have the privilege of rights 'veto' (from the Lati, 'veto' means: I forbade). These five countries are permanent members of the 15 members of the Security Council (DK) UN. The remaining 10 countries, elected every two years by the UN General Assembly. UN Charter Article 24 states that this council has a vital task, which is "responsible for maintaining international peace and security". If a resolution vetoed by one permanent member of UN Security Council, the resolution can not be applied.
UN philosophy of putting this aristocratic system shows that liberal democracy is a choice that is not always supported by the West. If you believe in the philosophy of democracy, that "the people's voice is the voice of God", why the West always refused to restructure the United Nations, which has tens of years required by the majority of countries in the world? The world is often treated to the ironic spectacle of the United Nations, when the majority of the members of the UN General Assembly approved a resolosi, but only because one permanent member countries DK does not agree, then it becomes UN keputusa not toothed. UN never managed to get a resolution condemning the U.S. action. In the case of the U.S. invasion into Panama, for example, there are two draft resolutions vetoed by the United States.
On the one hand, the West itself proved to be consistent in applying the principles of democracy, which is said to provide space and the same rights to every human being, according to the principle of "equality". However, on the other hand, what the West, is also a reality of liberal democracy itself, which in practice have an ideological assumptions similar to Marxism-Leninism, who know the social class discrimination. Walter is a communications expert who proposed the theory Lipmann A Progressive Theory of Liberal Democratic Thought. In the theory of 'progressive democracy', mentioned that to run a better democracy, society is divided into classes.
Paradox of Democracy in the West
The phenomenon of progressive liberal democratic theory Lipmann version appeared prominently in the U.S. presidential election in 2000. On December 5, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court win the George W. Bush over Democratic candidate, Al Gore. This case has led to a fierce berdebatan in the U.S.. Bugliosi reveals an ironic reality of democracy: 'American treason'. How can a state election the strongest and largest democracies in the world, finally it submitted its decision to the five judges in a high state institution. In fact, popular vote, popular vote, more banya sided with Al Gore. With this fact, the U.S. president George W. Bush is supported by a minority. Bush winnings by the U.S. Supreme Court that Bugliosi described as "like the day of the Kennedy Assassination". (Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President [New York: Nation Books, 2001]).
After Bush took office, President of the United States, a controversy after controversy continued to spread to all over the world. Moreover, after Bush ordered the troops occupying Iraq, in March 2003. Never in the history of the world witnessed a wave of demonstrations of anti-American who was so busy in various parts of the world like in 2003. To the extent that thousands of U.S. citizens themselves should be held, following their action against the invasion of Iraq, in various cities in the U.S.. America invaded Iraq without the approval and the UN mandate - an order that has defined itself by the U.S. and allies in World War II.
Thus, the U.S. attack against Iraq, without UN mandate, has clearly indicated that the end of the world order governed by the United States. International law has been ignored. Power is the truth. Might is right. Controversy broke out around the world.
Internationally the majority actually used across the U.S. and denan led world order. Just because of U.S. power and influence is still so strong, it appears to follow a pragmatic mind just what the U.S. will and command. In the Islamic world, many such cases seemed so obvious, as in the case of Pakistan and the Taliban. If the Cold War period until the year 1996 Pakistan is a strong supporter of the Taliban, the situation changed completely after the U.S. set the Taliban as an enemy. Prof. Robert Hunter Wade, Professor of political economy at the London School of Economisc equate the U.S. position in the world today such as the position of the Roman Empire with harshness of the world.
The End of the West?
Fukuyama idea less and less attractive when the Western world itself split in attitude in many problems. Thus, raises the idea of the end of the West, the end of Western history or the end of Western civilization. Is it true that 'the West' has ended?
Thomas L. Friedman wrote a column in the International Herald Tribune (November 3, 2003) entitled "Is this the End of the West?" West indeed been broken. U.S. and Europe, especially Germany and France, have been different in many respects the principle. Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said, for a generation Americans and Europeans agree on one thing (years): 1945. However, the lattice of all that has changed. For Europe, an important year is 1989 (the Soviet collapse), while for the U.S. was in 2001 (WTC tragedy). Europe and the U.S. also failed to build a common vision in dealing with global issues. "We also failed to develop a shared vision about where we are going in the face of global issues facing us," said Bildt.
Therefore, many who sued when asked his opinion of Fukuyama The End of History with the final victory in the West Liberal Democracy party. Is this correct? End of history how? Post-attack against Iraq in 2003 it began to appear discourse "The End of the West" or "The End of America" In December 1999, Aida Parker Newsletter spreading through the Internet an article titled 'END OF AMERICA'S EMPIRE? ", Which describes the condition of the Empire Rome before its fall. Written in the article that before the collapse, the Roman orator, Cicero, gives advice to the Romans to balance its budget, reducing the public debt, to control his pride, and reduce aid to foreign territories. Cicero's advice was not implemented. And in 476 AD the Roman collapse. As Bernard Shaw said, "Rome fell, Babylon fell, and America will turn." (Discourse on the Roman Empire collapse of many associated with the signs of the decline of Western civilization or the United States today. The study of these often refer to the works of Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of Roman Empire).
As the hegemonic power, the West, in this case the U.S., did not want to compete. He wanted to be a single force. Various U.S. intervention conducted in order to maintain hegemony over the international world. William Blum, former State Department official, said, there are four goals the U.S. invasions, namely (1) create an open and comfortable world for globalization, especially for multinational companies owned by the United States; (2) increasing the income of defense contractors that have more "generous" to member of Congress and the White House occupants, (3) prevent the emergence of any society that can create an alternative example of the capitalist model; (4) expand the political hegemony, economic, and military people as possible on the earth, and to prevent the emergence of regional power that can rival the supremacy of the United States, as well as creating an international order in the image of America as the sole superpower. (William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower [Claremont South Africa: Spearhead, 2002], pp. 14).
In plan year 1992 the U.S. Department of Defense stated, "Our first goal is to prevent the resurgence of a new force that would be a litmus test ... we must maintain the mechanisms that could threaten any competitors in order not to expand its influence into the wider region or worldwide." (William Blum, Rogue State, pp. 24).
The desire to be a single ruler or hegemonic pasa other side also indicated that the West, particularly the U.S., it is undergoing a process of 'decline', so not sure of his own strength, or feel always in a state of existence is threatened. Kejumudan been struck. Impasse will way out of the tangled problems of mankind has not been successfully penetrated. That's why, for a long time Western scientists see signs of the collapse of the West. In 1961, the historian Arnold J. Toynbee writes about the U.S. attitude is not fair and only concerned with the big powers, rich, a minority of humanity, as the former carried the Roman empire.
The signs of U.S. decline was more exposed. In 1985 the debt had reached 1823 billion USD. Balance sheet deficit of 202.8 billion USD. Deficit in its balance sheet in 2002 is estimated to have reached more than 400 billion U.S. dollars. With unilateral policy, the burden is borne by the United States also is growing. Duit spread to conquer other countries. U.S. experienced what happened to the previous Great Powers, Paul Kennedy said the "imperial overstretch".
True, in fact, the U.S. is still dominant in many areas today. However, this civilization proved paradoxical. He brought many advances, but also the destruction of mankind. Marvin Perry described the paradox of Western civilization with the phrase, "Western Civilization is a great but tragic drama. West has forgotten the common instruments that allow for rational harmony between the physical nature and human culture of modern Western .... although I have managed to uncover the mysteries of nature , but failed to find a rational solution to social ills and conflicts between nations. Science, as a major achievement of Western intellectuals, while improving the living conditions, has also produced weapons of mass destruction. Although the West has been a pioneer for the protection of human rights man, he also has produced totalitarian regimes which trample on individual liberty and human dignity. And though the West has shown a commitment to human equality, he has also practiced brutal racism. " (Marvin Perry, Western Civilization, pp. 21).
Source: summarized from the face of Western Civilization: From Hegemony to the dominance of the Christian-Liberal Secular, Adian Husaini (Jakarta: Gema Insani, 2005), pp. 79-102
- Blogger Comment
- Facebook Comment
Langganan:
Posting Komentar
(
Atom
)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar
Sundul gan! Ane ga kenal yang namanya spam...