World on Fire - Brownstein, Michael [136]
Today an ordinary citizen of a poor, undemocratic Muslim country, or a civil servant in a third-world country or in a former socialist republic struggling to make ends meet, is aware of how insubstantial is his share of the world’s wealth; he knows that he lives under conditions that are much harsher and more devastating than those of a “Westerner” and that he is condemned to a much shorter life. At the same time, however, he senses in a corner of his mind that his poverty is to some considerable degree the fault of his own folly and inadequacy, or those of his father and grandfather. The Western world is scarcely aware of this overwhelming feeling of humiliation that is experienced by most of the world’s population . . .
49
Like other group hatred movements directed against market-dominant minorities, Islamic fundamentalism offers an alternative to humiliation. It offers a scapegoat, a mission, an identity, and a chance—however deluded—for the powerless to regain power.
CHAPTER 12
The Future
of Free Market Democracy
The bottom line is this. Democracy can be inimical to the interests of market-dominant minorities. There were good reasons why the Indians in Kenya and whites in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and America’s Southern states resisted democratization for generations. Market-dominant minorities do not really want democracy, at least not in the sense of having their fate determined by genuine majority rule.
Some readers will surely protest. Many market-dominant minorities—the Chinese in Malaysia, for example, or Jews in Russia, and Americans everywhere—often seem to be among the most vocal advocates of democracy. But “democracy” is a notoriously contested term, meaning different things to different people.
When entrepreneurial but politically vulnerable minorities like the Chinese in Southeast Asia, Indians in East Africa, or Jews in Russia call for democracy, they principally have in mind constitutionally guaranteed human rights and property protections for minorities. In other words, in calling for democracy, these “outsider” groups are precisely seeking protection against “tyranny of the majority.”
Similarly, when the European-blooded elites in Bolivia, Ecuador, or Venezuela discuss democratization, they invariably mention the “rule of law” in the same sentence. What these elites decidedly don’t want from democracy is to have property rights and economic policies suddenly determined by their countries’ poorly educated, impoverished Indian-blooded majorities. (Witness the horror of the Venezuelan elite when populist leader Hugo Chavez swept to power and the subsequent efforts to remove him.) On the contrary, by democratization, Latin America’s elites usually mean a very gradual process of majority inclusion, beginning first with educational reform, perhaps local elections, and some political participation of the masses—but always tempered by, and subordinated to, an overriding concern for the stability of property rights, foreign investment, and the status quo.
In the Middle East, Israeli Jews are justly proud of the strength of Israel’s democratic institutions, which are almost unique in the Middle East. But even Israel does not extend suffrage to the roughly 3 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Among other reasons, enfranchising the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories would significantly dilute Israel’s “Jewish character” and could even lead to Jews eventually becoming a minority in Israel. Nor is it clear that democratization of the Arab states would be in Israel’s best interests. In Egypt, for example, rapid democratization might very well bring to power a regime much more hostile to Israel than Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic military rule.
Finally,