Democracy is Hypocrisy

Yamin Zakaria

There is no divine text or an universally recognised document defining the precise notion of democracy. The West generally trumpets as being the only adherents, and claim to personify the notion. In addition, any state looking for recognition as a democracy usually seeks the seal of approval from the West. Thus, it is only rational to acknowledge the West as the main proprietor and arbiter of this issue. The USA, being the leader of the Western world can be regarded as its high priest. Hence, words and deeds of the USA and other members of the Western bloc concerning democracy need to be assessed in order to obtain clarity on the matter.

Democracy is supposed to make the people sovereign. So why is it that the world lives in fear of the 'freedom loving' USA?

Democracy is supposed to make the people sovereign. So why is it that the world lives in fear of the ‘freedom loving’ USA?

As a high priest, the USA spearheaded the recent war in its name by attacking Iraq even before seeking the approval of the Iraqi population. Pity, such types of ‘noble’ wars were not waged to liberate the apartheid South Africa, genocidal Australia, the Nazi-like segregated ‘holy’ Israel (occupied Palestine), the ‘Republic’ of Saudi Arabia, the oil-field ‘states’ of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. Isn’t there an axiom, which states that consistency in applying a certain standard is evidence of being honest and the absence of which implies hypocrisy?

Despite the differences on the details of democracy, there is an overwhelming consensus in one of its central feature: people are sovereign; consequently, they have the right to decide whom they elect, and how they choose to govern themselves. This also represents an inherent contradiction, as sovereign people may choose to live by a non-democratic system and bury democracy, as the Algerians were poised to do sometime back. However, under such circumstances the high priest USA would unleash its military forces and shove democracy down your throat as a remedy. So, remember it is ‘democracy’ as defined by the USA, not what the ordinary masses decide. In short, you are not free until you accept the USA version of how things should be: “the American dream” - even though it may be a nightmare for the rest!

Even on the basis of enforcing democracy through the USA military machine, many of the not so war enthusiasts were persuaded to support the aggression sanitized by the media. In the post Saddam/Ba’athist era, it is Viceroy Paul Bremer who is dictating to the Iraqis as to how they should govern themselves - which can be almost anything except Islam, and of course not forgetting the small print: “as long as the USA interests (including Israel’s ‘defence’) and values are supported”. Bremer arrogantly boasts that nothing will come into existence as law without his approval. He has already put Iraq on sale without any authorisation from the Iraqis. Even the worst Arab dictator with a degree of sanity would not have done that - which automatically excludes the clown of Libya. All this really spells out the USA intention about ‘democracy’ in Iraq: rule of the Americans, by the hand picked token Arabs/Muslims, for Corporate America and Israel.

George Bush intends to bring a democratic government to Iraq sooner or later. Just as soon as his Viceroy has chosen it.

George Bush intends to bring a democratic government to Iraq sooner or later. Just as soon as his Viceroy has chosen it.

Another inherent contradiction within democracy is the fact that it serves well those who can manipulate the system in their favour. This is natural as any given society is not homogenous, and most certainly a system operating on the basis of freedom will inevitably lead to the stronger members dominating over the weak. Observe the election circus in the USA, where only the rich and powerful are capable of undertaking such events. Conversely, without their approval no party or an individual is allowed to acquire power, even if they manage to acquire popularity amongst the masses.

There is nothing intrinsic within democracy to establish that a particular government selected represents an ideal form of democracy, since the defining matter is the masses exercising their free will in selecting the government. Therefore, an Islamic party elected to implement the Islamic law is just as democratic as the government chosen by the Americans. Even Adolph Hitler came to power through the democratic system in Germany, whereas Bush, the current leader of the democratic block came to power illegitimately according to many prominent Americans.

Never mind the ‘small’ difference, since they both have a lot in common. Adolph Hitler claimed to have launched a ‘defensive’ war against the Jews, Slavs, and the rest of Europe, to protect the German race. Similarly Bush has waged the same ‘defensive’ war against the Islamic world, and anyone else that does not to conform to the USA dictates. How is it that all the USA ‘defensive’ wars were, and are fought outside its own borders in distant lands? Hitler claimed the supremacy of the Aryan race, Bush calls for the supremacy of USA democracy run by its multinationals, as exemplified by Paul Bremer of Iraq with the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel.

Adolph had the Gestapo; Bush has the FBI and CIA, which are far more efficient with killings, kidnapping, torture, and now arbitrary imprisonment without charge or legal representation. Therefore, like ‘USA democracy’ we now have the much lectured ‘USA human rights’ displayed by inhuman behaviour. As examples of efficiency, the gas chambers in the good old days were cumbersome and expensive to maintain, so the ‘peace loving’ USA invented nuking civilian cities. Now, is that not the mother of all terrorism? Isn’t it the action of a bloodthirsty regime?

Weapons of Mass Destruction come in all shapes and sizes, as the hugely disproportionate number of cancer sufferers in Iraq can testify.

Weapons of Mass Destruction come in all shapes and sizes, as the hugely disproportionate number of cancer sufferers in Iraq can testify.

Lets not forget Hitler’s allies like Mussolini’s Italy, which also ‘defended’ itself against the Ethiopian ‘threat’. Wild men on horses with spears and swords, charging a battalion equipped with cannons, machine guns and high explosives! Thus, in the same light, neo-Mussolini Berlusconi, Spanish inquisitor Aznar, and the war criminal Winston Blair came to ‘defend’ Bush against the Iraqi ‘threat’. Blair of course led the way, as the British elites have the best track record in gassing the Iraqis - a tradition that was started in the 1930s, well before Saddam.

Since the marketing of USA democracy did not go very well, now the plan is to enforce it through undemocratic means. Isn’t that like establishing justice through injustice - as Donald Rumsfeld also indicated earlier, when the Shi’as were demanding an Islamic government? (Just to digress a little, why did they bother with that slogan, instead they should have just looked across the border to Iran. Furthermore, their ‘infallible’ leaders at home are announcing the USA as “guests” one day and “the great Satan” next day, whilst the USA is engaged in killing Shias and Sunnis alike. So all these Imams, with their years of dedicated scholarly study could not legitimately declare Jihad. Or, has Jihad now conveniently transformed into a struggle against ones carnal desires?)

The Dumping of Democracy

The USA and the rest of the free world resort to dumping, when there is an excess surplus failing to sell the goods. These are then fed to the poorer nations. In the same way, they make an attempt to dump all the waste products of the Western world onto the Arab/Islamic and other third World countries. One day the West may even attempt to sell their excrements (repackaged of course) and there would be no shortage of enthusiasts, coupled with the off the shelf ‘Islamic verdicts’, and the expected support from the ‘moderate’ camp. It is not difficult to make such a prediction, even after undertaking a cursory observation.

Similarly the sale of democracy has been falling at home over the years. There is greater political apathy emanating from their population. Millions of people who demonstrated recently are beginning to realise the illusion of democracy as representative of the ordinary masses. So, the USA has begun to dump USA democracy abroad, particularly focusing on the Islamic world.

In a one size fits all world of mass production, don't be surprised when the world's political leadership all look alike.

In a one size fits all world of mass production, don’t be surprised when the world’s political leadership all look alike.

To aid them in this mission, the USA has either manufactured and/or recruited suitable people (coolies). There are ‘Arabs’ and ‘Muslims’, campaigning and raising funds along with the Zionist camp to re-elect Bush. They are staunch supporters of USA democracy, and a believer in Adolph Bush. They don’t waste time in attempting to reconcile the recent statements and actions of the USA administration with their promise of democracy, or to examine the USA track record for establishing it around the world. This is the expected behaviour of well-trained coolies.

Modern day coolies are ‘intellectual’, not physical labourers like those that built the trans-continental railway. They are ‘educated’ and ‘enlightened’, with lots of titles after their names. Their sole purpose is to serve their masters, wittingly or unwittingly. They can have fellowships to universities like Harvard or Yale, and their articles frequently appearing in national newspapers as experts -some are even promoted to become editor of reputable magazines e.g. Newsweek. One day, we may even see one of these coolies as the USA secretary of State. That would make it easier for the Arab regimes to officially relinquish further territories and assets for the future USA military campaigns - after all it would not be very Arab if they were publicly seen to be doing the same with a Zionist Jew like Thomas Friedman.

How do these coolies fight their inner conscience? If they have one! It is easy, using terms like ‘wisdom’, ‘practical’, and ‘working’, to influence the government by eagerly attending the annual Ramadan parties at the embassies. One can even get an Islamic edict, by asking Islamic ‘Scholars’ like Zaki Badawi as he was dining with Bush during his visit to the UK. Never mind the blood of 40,000 innocent civilians, or the mythical WMDs, or the destruction and violence inflicted upon Iraq - one can always blame it on Saddam.

Now we have these self-proclaimed leaders (appointed by the USA). Take Hoshyar Zebari as an example, who is parading himself as the foreign minister of Iraq. You wont find him walking down any of the towns in Iraq with his supporters cheering for him. Now the whole world, including the USA, has acknowledged that there were no WMD in Iraq, he seems to ‘think’ otherwise, but yet the real experts in the field like David Kay and Hans Blix are not convinced. Expertise and sound opinion based on evidence is not the mark of a coolie, but docile obedience and support of the paymaster.

The final category of these coolies is the so-called leaders of sovereign Muslim states. Consider the recent babble by George Bush about building a ‘peaceful’ world, by asserting that Iraq’s mythical WMDs, Libya’s imaginary WMDs, Iran’s non-existent WMDs, and eventually Pakistan’s virtual WMDs (now most likely held by the CIA), has to be disposed of, even though others have ownership of such weapons in far greater quantity. This would only increase even further the relative power of USA compared to the Islamic world. Despite such honesty from Bush, these leaders are lining up to sign-up to the above USA declaration, yet simultaneously claiming to build ‘independent’, ‘strong’, and ‘sovereign’ states.
Why is it that liberation always involves just another state of oppression?
Part and parcel of promoting democracy is the familiar notion of ‘protecting’ the women of Iraq from Islam. Examine Bill Clinton’s recent speech in Saudi Arabia lecturing the women on how to liberate themselves. Was he thinking of the liberated Monica Lewinsky? Western women may consider themselves to be liberated on their knees serving men, but such activities are not even found amongst the animal species. Whatever the case, none of the Saudi women at the meeting took up the offer to convert immediately. Similarly, the French must have been influenced into banning the Islamic veil by the likes of Bridget Bardot. She, like Clinton, is an advocate for women to be serving men on their knees in private or public, and then to proclaim their ‘liberation’.

Why else was the lone Afghan woman paraded semi-nude at a recent ‘beauty’ contest as a symbol of liberation? Most of the ‘Scholars’ of Islam ignored the event in the heart of the Islamic world, preferring to concentrate on their usual habit of confining to their caves, engaged in self-purification, as such matters are considered to be religious innovation. Give them a subject like the length of the beard, or the length of the trousers, and see how much energy they have in debating the matter. In the mean time, the ordinary Muslims are trying to secure food, medicine, education and shelter from the bombs of the USA and Israel.

Then comes the fanatical self-purifiers, they are constantly engaging in circular debates with themselves and others. As an example, their favourite subject is to debate abstract theological/philosophical matters. No other issue can be dealt with unless these matters are solved first! So they reason that all difficulties in the Islamic world are due to not addressing these philosophical issues. It would certainly make the American forces tremble in their knees, once these self-purified armies emerge from their caves, palaces and shiny mosques.

They then parade their ‘success’ in claiming so many American soldiers were converted to Islam. Thus the logic is, have more military bases, never mind what kind of destruction they are engaged in and to whom, since the potential converts makes the whole military operation worthwhile. It is simply Jihad, but operating in reverse gears, so how can Arabs and Muslims not progress with such profound thinkers and activists spending their energies in such ‘fruitful’ activities?

The above points highlight that USA democracy is full of hypocrisy, which many around the world would consider it to be common knowledge. Yet, the USA is threatening to dump and/or enforce this waste product on the Arab/Islamic world in order to conceal the colonisation. Therefore, the real question is to identify their helpers aiding them wittingly or unwittingly. Who are these coolies? How they can be kept at bay? How can this foreign virus of USA democracy be contained, and eventually terminated, before the rest of the human race is choked to death with it.

Published Saturday, February 21st, 2004 - 02:43pm GMT

An original publication for the World Crisis Web.

This is the print-ready version of Democracy is Hypocrisy

Yamin Zakaria

It was found in the Empire Abroad section of the World Crisis Web.

To view and post your views on the article in full go to
Part of the World Crisis Web
25100016 page visits since October 2003.