GUARDIAN
Thursday, 17 February 2000
Trajectories and 'laws' of history revisited
By Edwin Madunagu
THE question of history's ultimate destination and the path to it is
normally a boring subject unless it is provoked by a significant event such
as the recent military coups in Pakistan, Cote d'Ivoire and Ecuador. Even
then such discussions are usually brief, sentimental and obsfucatory rather
than illuminating. How do we rate a theoretical trajectory of history which
has proclaimed military coups d'etat obsolete when, within a space of three
months, the "law" has been violated in three continents: Asia, Africa and
America? I myself, don't like raising such "ultimate" issues, or responding
to them when raised, because the exercise usually ends in mutual anger
without resolving anything or teaching anything. Yet, for individuals, as
for groups and communities, the belief in one type of "end of history" or
another and how to arrive at it constitutes a force or motivator that cannot
be ignored. No sane person will engage in a selfless action that demands
immense sacrifice or courage and endangers life, personal freedom or
well-being unless he or she believes in one type of ultimate social goal or
another and is persuaded that that particular act will contribute in one way
or another, to its realisation. That was how, before the commercialisation
of politics and religion, revolutionaries derived their inspiration. Belief
in the ideal is a strong motivating factor in human struggle.
Thomas Moore called it utopia, a state of "utmost perfection", a stage in
human history which would be marked by the disappearance of the major
injustices and contradictions that have defined our human existence
hitherto; religious people call it paradise, a state of "supreme happiness"
and beauty and inhabited only by the righteous; historians and social
scientists influenced by the physical sciences would call it "terminal
velocity" characterised by the absence of turbulence or acceleration,
positive or negative. Existentialists would, of course, dismiss utopia or
utopian "end of history" as unreal; but critics of existentialism locate
this unreality not in the characterisation of the "ultimate" but in the
paths constructed to it. Marxists call it communism which Marx defined
polemically as the "solution to the riddle of history" which is conscious of
itself as such, the end of human "pre-history" and the beginning of the real
human history characterised by the disappearance of social classes and,
therefore, class struggle, where the administration of human beings will be
replaced by the administration of things, where the means of production and
reproduction of material and cultural life are owned in common and where the
production and distribution of wealth will be governed by the rule: "from
each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her needs".
The path to this ideal, this "ultimate", Marx saw as the revolution of the
exploited and the oppressed. As we can see humanity is still very far away
from this marxist utopia. But it is safe to say that even if this utopia is
desirable as I think it is, it cannot be realised without a revolution.
Intellectuals of globalisation and the new imperialism call it
postmodernism, a stage of human history when all nations and peoples would
have accepted capitalism, the rule of capitalists and the reality and
hierarchy of social classes and groups for ever. Political leaders of the
new imperialism also describe postmodernism as "democracy" or "globalised
democracy" characterised by the universal acceptance of capitalism and the
sovereignty of market forces in economy and politics - together with
national and international structures of exploitation, domination and
subordination, a historical stage where revolution and armed uprisings,
including military coups, would have disappeared forever. The adherents of
this utopia claim that humanity is already at the door-step of the
postmodernist utopia. So we don't need to ask how to get there.
This review, as I feared, has brought us nowhere. But, as I also indicated,
it was provoked by the recent coups in Pakistan, Cote d' Ivoire and Ecuador.
So, we better consider the concrete events and consider how they indicate
the "end of history". When the army took over power in Pakistan in the wake
of the prime minister's abortive attempt to dismiss the army chief of staff-
which the constitution empowers him to do - I had thought that such a
flagrant violation of the "approved" trajectory of history would be quickly
and decisively overturned. But nothing significant happened, either
internally or externally. Rather, the new military ruler had the elected
prime minister arrested and charged with plane hijacking and terrorism, each
offence carrying a death penalty. The military usurper felt confident enough
to embark on foreign tours and on returning ordered the country's judges to
swear a new oath of allegiance to him, thus effectively changing the core of
the Constitution. Those who refused were dismissed and replaced. Pakistan
was back to the days of Zia ul-Haq! The "international community" could do
nothing because it could do nothing - just as it could do nothing in the
case of Russia's Chechenya.
The Christmas eve coup in Cote d'Ivoire started as an agitation by soldiers
for regular payment of wages and better conditions of service. The protest
snowballed into a mutiny and then a coup d'etat. It was a familiar scenario.
The mutinous soldiers travelled hundreds of kilometres to bring an army
general previously retired by the government which was now in distress, to
head a military junta. Again, a familiar scenario. The general accepted,
perhaps reluctantly "to save the nation" and took two significant steps
which earned him legitimacy. First, he threatened that if foreign forces
intervened to reverse the coup, he would start cutting the throats of the
former Ivoirien public officers he had arrested, before turning to face the
foreign interventionists.
Secondly, he reversed the repressive measures which the previous civilian
government had taken against the political opposition and its leadership.
The junta had come to stay. The "international community" could do nothing;
Africa's continental and regional organisations including ECOMOG could do
nothing. Thus, in 1997, military intervention in governance was declared
obsolete at least in West Africa and a coup was reverted in Sierra Leone by
the "international community". Three years later, a military coup in the
same region forced itself to be accepted. So, how is history moving and what
are its laws and trajectories?
In the South American state of Ecuador, the indigenous peoples mobilised, or
were assisted to mobilise, against the neo-colonial state. The army
intervened after several days of mass protests and overthrew the "elected"
government. A junta was formed with a rumoured representation of the
protesting indigenes. But before the news could be broadcast, the junta
dissolved itself, or was dissolved, and the former government, but without
president, was re-instated. The indigenes protested against this obvious
treachery, alleging that the former government was re-instated on the
intervention of the United States of America. Circumstantial evidence has
now partially confirmed the charges of treachery and external intervention.
First, the former vice-president, who is now the new president, has pledged
to continue the policy of the former president, a policy that brought the
indigenous peoples from the bush (to which they had been consigned) to the
streets of Quito, the country's capital. Secondly, in the wake of the
treachery, the former president broadcast a message urging the people to
support the new president. And thirdly, after the abortion of the coup, some
army officers were arrested and "investigated" for complicity in the mass
uprising.
So, where is the "law" of history with regard to military coups? Who are the
enforcers of the law which has proscribed coups? Under what circumstances
can a national army or rebel army intervene in political governance? Under
what circumstances can it succeed (as in Pakistan and Cote d'Ivoire) and
under what circumstances can it fail (as in Ecuador)? The least one can say
now, by way of an answer is that no means of struggle, including social
revolutions and armed rebellions, has been exhausted by history and success
has not been foreclosed to any means of struggle and road to power. All
depends on the clarity and commitment of "rebellious" groups, the historical
antecedents, the balance of forces, nationally and internationally, and of
course, an element of chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
