16. Politocracy: A form of government wherein all causes of the people are instrumentalized by the political class (di mana segala perjuangan rakyat diperalatkan oleh golongan politikus). Just think of the story of Malaysian governance since the rise of Mahathir Mohamed. Malaysia’s first Prime Minister Abdul Rahman said in an interview with the New York Times that he was disgusted with his extreme politicking. Tunku says in the 1988 interview with Henry Kamm, “the whole trouble today is, when he took over, he was trying to make sure he would stay on in power”. Mahathir set the scene and all who have followed him on the path to power have shown themselves as being part of the Malaysian Politocracy.
3. Hypnocracy: A form of government based on the susseptibility of human consciousness to having its attention focused from the outside, resulting in a reduced awareness of political reality and an enhanced capacity to respond to manipulative suggestions. This term was coined by Mark Parlett.
Just as Rajinikanth is set to re-release Baba, the new Malaysian Cabinet has been announced with a sole Malaysian Indian Minister. Sivakumar Varatharaju Naidu is the Minister of Human Resources in Anwar Ibrahim’s cabinet. It is interesting that Sivakumar was the Speaker of the House who, on March 3rd, 2009, convened the Perak State Assembly, the shade of a rain tree. While this controversial move was seen both as democracy in action and rabble-rousing theatrics, what is undeniable is that the culture of momentous realization and action arising within arboreal settings is deeply Indian.
Some gave them white bread, And some gave them brown; Never mind the plum cake The Jewel’s got the Crown!
This is a momentous turn of events for the UK. It is a bit like Obama’s arrival on the political scene of the USA. On the one hand, all people of colour should be happy and the Conservatives should be commended for looking beyond race, on the other, it is premature to congratulate the UK as the population has not voted for Sunak. Will race come into play in an election, when it happens? I believe it will, as it did around Obama’s election … but unlike the US electorate, the UK polity may be not be ready for black leadership. If, in fact, the UK is ready, that would of course, be a good thing …. but then again, what about Sunak in himself – is he worthy of ones vote beyond the virtue of his skin. He is a millionaire in his own right, billionaire by marriage, and an exemplary neo-liberal globalist. Those who are on the left of the political spectrum certainly cannot really endorse him … but then the Labour party no longer represents the British working people either ….. Regardless of its historical moment, the salient quality of this turn of events is irony – if India was once the Jewel in the Crown of the great British Empire, an Indian has now become the ‘head’ of a much diminished British Isles … indeed, now, the Jewel has the Crown!
Russian forces should withdraw from all the areas occupied since the invasion began.
Ukraine should sign a treaty of neutrality
Russia should guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Ukraine should be precluded from NATO membership.
Ukraine must recognize the administrative integrity of the Donbas separatist republics.
Ukraine must recognize Crimea as a part of Russia.
The West should lift all the sanctions imposed on Russia.
Ukraine should be allowed to emerge as a Western-style democracy.
Ukraine should receive a very large Western aid package for reconstruction.
Now according to Calum Roche, Russia has expressed a willingness to end the war on the following terms –
No NATO membership and a neutral position.
Russian should be the second official language of Ukraine, with laws prohibiting it abolished.
Recognise Crimea as Russian territory.
Recognise the independence of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Demilitarisation of Ukraine and abandonment of weapons that could be a threat to the Kremlin.
Banning of ultra-nationalist parties and organisations in Ukraine.
While it has been underplayed by the mainstream media in the West, this Russian peace proposal is close to Lieven’s suggestion as outlined above. Russia’s terms seem to constitute a reasonable (in realpolitik terms, not in terms of what is fair or just) set of demands given Russia’s overwhelming might and the West’s proven unwillingness to engage Russia directly. Can Ukraine keep fighting the Russians alone? What can Ukraine gain by pursuing this asymmetrical fight? In their valiant resistance thus far, Ukrainians have amassed much capital with which to negotiate. The Russians may have bitten off more than they can handle and be ready to compromise. On the other hand, a long and continued resistance will likely mean that larger areas will fall to Russia, not to mention devastation and loss of life.
Peace is an urgent necessity for Ukraine and Ukrainians! It seems, however, that Russia’s condition 5. might mitigate against NATO and the USA’s ascendency, and condition 6. might threaten the powerful ultra-nationalist forces that are aligned with Ukrainian state. Will these realities diminish the Ukrainian leadership’s capacity to make the compromises needed to arrive at a speedy cessation of fighting?
According to Davis Stockman, In 1998, at a time when NATO was extending into the former Warsaw Pact nations, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman asked George F. Kennan for his views. It is important to note that Kennan had been the US ambassador to Russia during the Stalinist era. He is known for having been influential in shaping the US policy of Soviet “containment” and in the creation of NATO. Here is some of what Kennan said 24 years ago concerning the US Senate debate on admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO,
“I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.”
. “It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong.”
The only possible justification for the invocation of emergency powers in the context of the Canadian Trucker’s protest and the occupation of Ottawa is the facticity of a fascist threat. Precisely, was the Freedom Convoy infiltrated by either domestic or foreign far-right elements. The Liberals have called for these extreme emergency measures and the NDP have supported them, but notably, the Conservative Party of Canada has been unequivically opposed.. The upshot of this bifurcation on the understanding of the facts or, at least on their interpretation, heralds the arrival of an unsightly and possibly irrevocable division in the political culture of the nation. We watched with incredulity as this happened to our neighbours in the USA. Their polity is now irreconcilably split between those who are ‘deplorable’ and those who want to ‘make America great again!’ Many thought it could not happen here in Canada, but the spread of such political decay in the liberal democracies of the West seems ubiquitious and inevitable.
While communal and sectarian sentiments are present in all societes, they are generally innocuous, until they are exploited and exacerbated by politicians to populist ends.When the nation’s mainstream politicians either court extremist sentiments (lets call this populism) or deem it fit to cast such aspersions on significant sections of their fellows (and this the spectre of populism), they are indubitably heralding a clamitous eventuality for their polity. When populism presents itself as an inherent part of the electoral process, it threatens to usurp democracy itself. (see my series of posts ‘It is Time to be Clear 1-8) But returning to the events in Ottawa, this facticity remains in question – are there far-right elements behind the Truckers movement, and was there in fact a tangible threat to the security of the nation? If there are organized right wing groups funding and/ or running the movement with a view to toppling our democratically elected government, I too am in full support of the invocation of draconian emergency measures. If, however, these fringe elements are meerely incidental and opportunistic hangers on to this movement, and their role and import have been greatly exaggerated, then I must take a very different stance.
Will these matters be aired and debated for the consideration of all Canadians? This question holds oraclular import for the future of the nation. Is there fascism … and who are the fascists?
Oh Canada, how are thy Laurentian fathers (and sons) fallen!
You must be logged in to post a comment.