Mass democratic movements often do not achieve democracy for all. Even the Indian colonial liberation movement of the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps one among a handful of iconic democratic movements, did not achieve full citizenship for all Indians. Take the cases of the bonded laborers from the scheduled tribes of West Bengal, India, such as the Lodhas, the Mundas, and the Kherias.
When working with these groups, the Bengali journalist and author Mahasweta Devi (Dust on the Road, 146) concluded that “for the poor of India, national independence, with its many plans, programmes, and acts in parliament, have come to nothing.”
The Lodhas, Mundas, and Kherias, like many of the most marginalized under democratic governments, occupy a social space that is outside of the circuits of capitalism and organized labor, conventionally referred to as subproletarian or subaltern. So when the colonial logic was reversed through the project of national liberation, but liberal European capitalism (or socialism) and nationalism and secularism are not challenged, these groups do not benefit. For all residents, rich and poor, of a country that claims to practice democracy to achieve full citizenship apparently that country will have to do more than decolonize within the terms and limits of the modern.
For subalterns in India or other parts of the global south living in a “traditional” society in a country that claims democracy as its own does not mean they have full access to constitutional rights, nor economic progress, nor modern “freedom.” Instead, what some may see as the utopian space of pure ethnic or “native” society instead is rendered under decolonization into “sites of terror under exploitation,” as Gayatri Spivak has suggested (“More on Power/Knowledge,” 50/165).
As the Egypt revolution moves slowly along, how will the poor in Egypt benefit from the ongoing political changes? Both the Muslim Brotherhood, the overwhelming victors in the November, 2011 Egyptian parliamentary elections, and the Egyptian military are well known for their promotion of business interests. Yet by some estimates between 35-40% of the Egyptian population live at or below US $2 per day. Who will advocate for their interests?
Any who thought that the Egyptian elections meant that democracy is firmly established must have been disillusioned by the Egyptian military’s maneuvering in to erode the power of the legislature and the presidency in the months around the June, 2012 presidential election. Even if President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are able to retain some independence from the military, it will be up to the powerful Egyptian civil society organizations to continue the work of the revolution if equality for all is its hope.
Such hope is perhaps the most powerful weapon wielded by nonviolent democratic movements. So time will tell how the Egyptian and other Arab Spring revolutions will be in achieving democracy for all, not just for the few.
When working with these groups, the Bengali journalist and author Mahasweta Devi (Dust on the Road, 146) concluded that “for the poor of India, national independence, with its many plans, programmes, and acts in parliament, have come to nothing.”
The Lodhas, Mundas, and Kherias, like many of the most marginalized under democratic governments, occupy a social space that is outside of the circuits of capitalism and organized labor, conventionally referred to as subproletarian or subaltern. So when the colonial logic was reversed through the project of national liberation, but liberal European capitalism (or socialism) and nationalism and secularism are not challenged, these groups do not benefit. For all residents, rich and poor, of a country that claims to practice democracy to achieve full citizenship apparently that country will have to do more than decolonize within the terms and limits of the modern.
For subalterns in India or other parts of the global south living in a “traditional” society in a country that claims democracy as its own does not mean they have full access to constitutional rights, nor economic progress, nor modern “freedom.” Instead, what some may see as the utopian space of pure ethnic or “native” society instead is rendered under decolonization into “sites of terror under exploitation,” as Gayatri Spivak has suggested (“More on Power/Knowledge,” 50/165).
As the Egypt revolution moves slowly along, how will the poor in Egypt benefit from the ongoing political changes? Both the Muslim Brotherhood, the overwhelming victors in the November, 2011 Egyptian parliamentary elections, and the Egyptian military are well known for their promotion of business interests. Yet by some estimates between 35-40% of the Egyptian population live at or below US $2 per day. Who will advocate for their interests?
Any who thought that the Egyptian elections meant that democracy is firmly established must have been disillusioned by the Egyptian military’s maneuvering in to erode the power of the legislature and the presidency in the months around the June, 2012 presidential election. Even if President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are able to retain some independence from the military, it will be up to the powerful Egyptian civil society organizations to continue the work of the revolution if equality for all is its hope.
Such hope is perhaps the most powerful weapon wielded by nonviolent democratic movements. So time will tell how the Egyptian and other Arab Spring revolutions will be in achieving democracy for all, not just for the few.
No comments:
Post a Comment