Liberal Contradictions

(We have taken this article from theTurkish English Daily Today's Zaman. Ali Bulac is columnist of this esteemed paper. We are thankful to both the newspaper and the writer)

ALİ BULAÇ a.bulac@todayszaman.com Democracies are going through a crisis. If we are unable to overcome the crisis by reliance on the jurisprudential and theological sources of Islam, then the national, regional and international conflicts, accompanied by other factors as well, will become worse. Even if autocratic regimes are toppled, the conflicts will not necessarily finish, as evidenced by the developments in Egypt. The gist of the discussion over democracy is this: Liberal democracies guarantee political plurality whereas they do not allow the emergence of a socio-cultural plurality. This is the primary reason for religious, sectarian, racial, regional and class conflicts because postmodernism has no knowledge of pluralism other than making every idea absolute and equalizing each one of them to the others; as a result, it fails to properly and fairly integrate the different identities and groups in the cultural field in proportion to their contribution to the political system. The Islamic movements which hold the potential to make authentic and genuine contribution to politics -- and democracy -- by their claim to secure a different type of plurality are being undermined by accusations of absolutism and ideological stance. Structural problems are behind the inability of liberal democracies to maintain proper and adequate pluralism. The goal of uninterrupted growth makes the focus of human life economic. The said ideology of economic growth, which requires the mobilization of social groups and of their material and human resources, turns everybody and everything into material beings to the extent that they contribute to the growth and it secures this mobilization by coercive laws and proper instruments. The mobilization of women and children in Turkey and other countries with the view that they can serve as additional motors for the sake of growth outside of their traditional and original roles is the result of this. The economic growth necessitates interference with the market as well as socio-cultural life via different decision-making processes, mechanisms and methods that actually resemble those employed in communist regimes. In this sense, liberal philosophy differs from fascist and communist centralist models based on right-wing and left-wing Hegelian interpretation only in form and tone. The common denominator among these three interpretations in their political outlooks is unlimited accumulation of capital and power and uninterrupted growth. If there is anybody arguing that the economic market proceeds independently of the radical political preferences of the governments and of the critical decisions of central banks, they are only kidding themselves. When the states and governments that keep the “free” market alive fail to prevent or deal with the crises, the armies take action. Liberal philosophy has produced the concept that material richness and wealth is ideal, which is why economic success is viewed as the ultimate success and makes freedom and socio-cultural pluralism impossible. This is a structural contradiction that makes liberal politics and liberal philosophies diverge. There is a contradiction there. This sometimes makes the authoritarian growth models more attractive where the liberal democracies fail due to some historical and structural reasons. In this way, the Chinese and Russian growth models become more interesting and exemplary for the political and ruling elites of the non-Western nations mesmerized by the appeals of growth. In a world of fierce competition, economic growth is considered the only way for survival and so if this is the case, some freedoms may be forgotten and suspended. Maybe this is the reason that the Turkish conservatives started thinking that it is rational to ensure “further” growth in the Shanghai Five rather than with the West and the EU.