الأمم المتحدة وآلياتها - الموضوع الغير مريح

مأزق الديمقراطية - من توكفيل إلى رانسيير

الديمقراطية نظام حكم تُقرّر فيه القوانين والسياسات والقيادة والمشاريع الكبرى للدولة أو أي كيان سياسي آخر، بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر، من قِبل "الشعب"، وهو جماعةٌ تاريخيًا تتألف من أقليةٍ فقط من السكان (مثل جميع الذكور البالغين الأحرار أو جميع الذكور البالغين المتمتعين بملكيةٍ كافية)، ولكن يُفهم عمومًا منذ منتصف القرن العشرين على أنه يشمل جميع المواطنين البالغين (أو جميعهم تقريبًا). *موسوعة بريتانيكا

في كتابه، ناقش عالم الاجتماع الفرنسي ألكسيس دي تاكفيل نظام الحكم المسمى بالديمقراطية، مُركزًا على النسخة "الجديدة" آنذاك: الديمقراطية الأمريكية. كان ذلك في ذلك الوقت بعد الثورة الفرنسية بفترةٍ وجيزة.

رأى دي توكفيل أن فكرة "لامركزية" الحكم، ونظام الحكم في الولايات المتحدة، تُقلّل من سلطة طبقةٍ معينة أو حتى من سلطة شخصٍ واحد. لذا، في بلد كالولايات المتحدة، نادرًا ما تشهد ثورة... فالناس ببساطة لا يحتاجون للثورة.

مع ذلك، سلّط الضوء أيضًا على مفهوم "استبداد الأغلبية"، أي في نظام حكم تحكمه الأغلبية، كيف تُمثَّل الأقلية؟!

والآن، لننتقل سريعًا إلى جاك رانسيير، الفرنسي أيضًا "Car, Pourquoi Pas؟! :)" الذي انتقد الديمقراطية كما تُمارس... باختصار، رأى أن الأشكال السياسية التي تُسمّي نفسها "ديمقراطيات" لمجرد مظاهر تافهة كالتصويت ولامركزية الحكم (المؤسسات الليبرالية)، هي مجرد مزحة. ورأى أن المثل الأعلى للديمقراطية هو مبدأ المساواة الجذري. في هذا السياق، رأى مفاهيم مهمة أخرى مختلفة:

• الخوف من الناس: لا تثق النخب بالعامّة أو العامة، إذ تراهم غير عقلانيين وغير مؤهلين أو مُفرطين في مصالحهم الشخصية.
• انتقد هيمنة المفهوم الضيق للديمقراطية الليبرالية، باعتبارها النسخة الوحيدة أو حتى الأفضل منها.
• انتقد ما بعد الديمقراطية، أي القول بأن المشكلة ليست في كثرة الديمقراطية، بل في قلّتها! وأنه من الواضح أن المؤسسات تدّعي الشرعية الديمقراطية بينما تقمع العمل الديمقراطي (وفقًا لمفهوم رانسيير للديمقراطية، والذي سُلِّط الضوء عليه أعلاه).

الأمم المتحدة، المعروفة أيضًا باسم "نادي الكبار".

ربما كانت فكرة أن آليات الأمم المتحدة تهدف إلى استدامة الديمقراطية والسلام بأقل ضرر ممكن (أي عدم إجراء تجارب على الرهائن، وعدم إلقاء القنابل الذرية، وعدم قطع أيدي الناس للعقاب) هي التي حافظت على عالمنا حتى الآن. مع ذلك، ومع تزايد مطالبة المزيد من أجهزة الدولة بمزيد من السلطة، وسعيهم الدائم إلى استرضاء الجمهور (المعروف أيضًا باسم الديماغوجية)، يُثبت السياسيون أنهم لا يكترثون بالديمقراطية كفكرة راديكالية فحسب، بل إنهم أيضًا ينشرون الديمقراطية بحماس في شكلها السياسي الليبرالي (على طريقة رانسيير) خضوعًا لتلك الديماغوجية.

"لو غيّر التصويت شيئًا، لحظروه" مقولة شهيرة لإيما غولدمان، الناشطة السياسية والفوضوية والكاتبة الأمريكية من أصل روسي (1869-1940).

ومن الأمثلة على الخطابات الحالية حول تدهور آليات الأمم المتحدة وعدم كفاءتها في دعم الديمقراطية، أو حتى السلام والعدالة، ما نراه جليًا في شيء مثل الاستعراض الدوري الشامل.

يمكن للمرء أن يرى ذلك من خلال الاستعراض الدوري الشامل السابق - وهو مجال ضيق للغاية تُقيّم فيه الدول مدى التزامها بحقوق الإنسان، استنادًا إلى التنافس بين منظماتها غير الحكومية وممثليها. تقدم الدول الأخرى توصيات، ويمكن للدولة المعنية اختيار الموافقة أو الرفض أو الموافقة على الملاحظات المتعلقة بـ"التزامها" بالعمل على تلك التوصيات. وينبغي ترجمة هذه الالتزامات إلى قوانين وإجراءات لضمان العدالة للجميع.

خلال الاستعراض الدوري الشامل السابق، أُوصيت مصر باحترام حقوق مجتمع الميم (التي تُعتبر متطرفة للغاية)، وحقوق السجناء السياسيين وسجناء التعبير والإفراج عنهم، وحقوق المرأة في المجالين العام والخاص... إلخ.

ومع ذلك، من ناحية أخرى، اختارت نفس الدول في هذا الجانب القبيح، مثل فرنسا، التي يبدو أنها تتمتع بـ"درجة" حرية أكبر في كل ما سبق، تزويد مصر بالمدفعية (أي الطائرات الحربية)، دون التركيز على التزام مصر بحقوق الإنسان أو التعليق عليه! فرنسا ليست الدولة الوحيدة في شمال العالم التي تفعل ذلك كما سيتضح لاحقًا. فالمزيد والمزيد من الدول (وخاصة في شمال العالم) تغض الطرف عن حقوق الإنسان، في صفقات واتفاقيات الأسلحة والاقتصاد الواضحة. الأسئلة التي قد تثيرها هذه النظرة الموجزة هي:

1. هل آليات المناصرة الحالية للأمم المتحدة فعّالة في معالجة وحل المشاكل العالمية الراهنة؟
2. إذا لم تكن كذلك، فهل يمكننا الخروج منها تدريجيًا وإنشاء فروع لها، أو إيجاد بدائل، أم علينا إحداث ثورة جذرية في المؤسسة بأكملها؟
3. هل مفهوم الديمقراطية الذي طرحه رانسيير وبريتانيكا ممكن عمليًا؟ هل من الممكن تحقيق ذلك؟ أم أنه مثل مفاهيم ماركس، أي مُثُل عليا دون إمكانية وجود أدلة تجريبية؟
4. ما هي أشكال الاستراتيجيات والتكتيكات الفعّالة التي ناقشتها الحركات في سياقكم فيما يتعلق بهذا الموضوع؟

UN mechanisms: the elephant in the room

Democratization's pitfall - from Tocqueville to Rancière

Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people,” a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males or all sufficiently propertied adult males) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens. *Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

In his work, French sociologist Alexis De Taqueville discussed the system of governance called Democracy, focusing on the 'new' version at that time: the American Democracy. This was at the time shortly after the French Revolution.

De Taqueville saw that the idea of 'decentralization' of governance, and the system of the government in the US, minimizes the authority of a specific class or even a person. Hence in a country like the US, you would rarely see a revolution... people simply don't need to revolt.

However, he also highlighted the concept of 'Tryanny of the Majority' i.e. in a system of governance ruled by the majority rules, how shall the minority be represented?!

 

Now fast forward to Jacques Ranciere, also French "Car, Pourquoi Pas?! :)" who critiqued democracy as it is practiced... Briefly he saw that political forms calling themselves 'democracies' for mere banal symptoms like voting and decentralization of rule (Liberal institutions), are a joke. The Democratic ideal, he thought, is the radical principle of equality. In this he saw different other important concepts:

1. The fear of people: Elites distrust the 'common' or the public for they see them as irrational and unqualified or too focused on their personal gain
2. Critique the hegemony of the narrow concept of liberal democracy as the only or even the best version of democracy
3. Critique the post-democracy i.e stating that the problem is not too much democracy, but too little! and that it is evidential that the institutes claim democratic legitimacy while suppressing democratic action (in the Ranciere concept of democracy, which is highlighted above) 

 

The UN a.k.a the Big Boys Club

The idea that the UN mechanisms aims to sustain democracy and peace with the least harm possible (a.k.a don't experiment on hostages, and don't drop atomic bombs, and don't cut people's hands for punishment) might have sustained our world so far.

However, with the increase of the demand for more power, by more state bodies, and their habit to appease to the public (a.k.a Demagogy), politicians prove that not only they do not give two fucks about democracy as a radical idea, but also that they are eagerly deploying democracy in its liberal political form (a la Ranciere) to the servitude of that demagogy.

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” is a famous quote by Emma Goldman, a Russian-born US political activist, anarchist and writer (1869-1940). 

An example of the current discourses around the deterioration and inefficiency of the UN mechanisms to sustain democracy or even peace and justice, us clear in something like the UPR.

One can see that through out the past UPR (Universal periodical reviews) - a teeny tiny space where States get to be reviewed as to what degree it adhere to human rights, based on the rivalry of its NGOs and its representatives. Other states provide recommendations, and the State of question can choose to Agree, refuse or agree with remarks on their 'commitment' to work on those recommendations). Such commitments should translate into laws, and measurements to ensure justice to all.

Through the past UPR, Egypt was recommended to respect LGBTIQ+ rights (too radical), Political Prisoners and prisoners of expression rights and release them, women's rights in public and private space...etc.

However, on the other hand, the very same states in this ugly party, like France, that has what appears to be more freedom 'score' in all of the above, has chosen to provide Egypt with artillery (namely war planes), without focusing or commenting on Egypt's commitment to human rights! France isn't the only global north state to do so as it will appear. More and more States (predominantly in the Global North) are turning a blind-eye on human rights, in clear arms and economics trades and agreements.

The questions this brief overview can stir are:

• Are the current UN advocacy mechanisms efficient to address and resolve the current problems world wide?
• If it is not, can we ease out of it and create branches out of it, or create alternatives, or do we have to radically revolutionize the whole institution?
• Is Ranciere's and Brittanica's concept of democracy, practically feasible? is it possible to achieve such a thing? or is it like Marx's concepts, ideals without the possibility of empirical evidence?
• What are the forms of solid strategies and tactics that movements in your context have been discussing in relation to the topic matter?

Nat-Socs as an important nonesense

 

2017, neo-Nazi flyers distributed in central Charlottesville, VA.

Calling for the burn of mosques, the rise of the white crusaders, the return of true men instead of the woke "emasculation" of men, the death of "N*****s", the halting of women's right to vote, or work...

These were some of the things I found first hand over platforms like telegram, for groups about National Socialists. A bunch of white 'men' who just can not believe how come all whites are not NatSocs?! -Ugh, those brainwashed bastards, right?!

Beside the priorly mentioned, I can contour the following concepts:

• Purity of White/Aryan race (Reminds of Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
• White and Christianity are used synonymously, like: Those kinda white.
• The shade of Christianity they're calling for is basically anti-rights of all sorts:
• Male-dominant
• No work for women
• No voting rights for women
• degeneracy of Black/Afro descendants, LGBTIQ+, Asians, immigrants... You get the picture
• The glorification of abled bodies
• Anti-Abortion
• Speaking about jews seemed like a "I can use them, but I don't respect them" discourse.
• The use of colonialist anthropometrics and eugenics... the same as WWII Fascists and NAZI's used medical "Theories" and experiments to situate their discourse
•  There is a huge obsession and complaint about how SMALL of a number they are, and the need to spread more:
• in terms of mobilization among white people
• in terms of reproducing more (hence I am assuming they will not see a problem with polygamy)

One might mistakenly think that this only in Euro-American societies, but let me insight you to the "brown barbarians" (to quote them) version of these folks:

In SWANA

1. Fitrah (Ar. for Nature), Egypt - Nature is only male =men, and females=women
2. Jnoud Al-Rab (Ar. for Soldiers of the Lord), Lebanon
3. Jnoud Al-fayiha', Lebanon
4. ISIS
5. Taliban
6. Boko haram
7. Israel

The commonality in strategies between both Foes:

A. In terms of justification of existence and strategizing:

• justifying its existence through the continuous production of enemies, both within and beyond its borders
• the two are moving with the same motive: an unwaivering belief that that whatever they believe in right and Any other are demonic and should be exterminated.
• They both try to mobilize on a grassroot level. Gaining as much public aid as possible. This is sometimes through service and charity, or through education in the suburbs.
• Both seek to have their separate economy, but do sometimes due to service provision have government salaries
• Both seek political dominance, and have emperical aims.
• Based on ethnology, religion and nationalism, both rely on core belief systems. Making them nothing less that the armies of lovers (to quote plato), or the crusaders. Both who believed that death for the cause is even better (a.k.a martyrdom).

Aha, and Thou shalt not mix between such movements and armed resistence :) This is for another discussion.

B. Use of Digital Sphere:

Mobilizing over cyber space and utilizing means of propaganda are also means of seeking dominance. In my opinion, this could be one of the reasons for the growing polarization of opinions online/offline. I mean c'mon, ISIS's beheadings y'all.

Spending a fortune over purchasing means of surveillance, in dealerships: according to books such as Palestinian Laboratory, and other historical articles and reports, Israel and other states contributed efficiently in providing the hardware and software as well as intelligence and army trainings, for the majority of authoritarian regimes as well as Defined terrorist groups, such as "Janjaweed or Rapid Support Forces" in Sudan for example. Regardless of the source dealer, the stach should always be found.

D. With all the above mentioned, one shall conclude that:

1. Regimes are nothing but the catalyst for such fundamentalism and ethno fascism. What is deeper is the lobbying/organising, the economy/financial and resources mobilizing, and most of all the ideology.

2. Combatting, is not on the level of regimes, nor shall it be by trying to "make sense" into the publics minds. Trying that is like trying to convince a zombie to not eat humans. You don't make sense to the nonsense, you exterminate it, sense-making is for the powerful

3. Keep the knowlege and the sense to You as an organizer and mobilizer, you need it. If not for infilteration, it would be for knowledge of the enemies.

4. Contest over economy, and be innovative: learn from the people of the countries that gone to war, learn from Feminists and Flack movements that had every fucking system against them. Believe it or not Neo-liberalism Can fall down and IS about to fall down. A beast always pay its last rawr before the slash finishes it.

5. While law is all nice and necessary, know that ethics, morals and laws are 3 different things. Always know the difference to play it well. Any law pr mechanism can and will be used against you with the presence of a forceful authority. Take the UN as an Example.

6. Make your education inter and multi disciplinary: scientists and thinkers in the renaissance of the Islamic and European periods, were amazing for a reason, THIS. They mastered the tools to bring down, but also to Build. The only meter for that was what each scientist/philosopher/poet deeply sought, Knowledge for knowledge, or knowledge for authority?

7. Move with a goal that is deeper and more meaningful than being Anti..., what are you beside that?

8. To all my Queer/Trans folx and their intersectionality, especially in the SWANA: Move with all that you are in your activism, not just your sexuality. Your knowledge and expertize is well needed.

In your context how do you see strategizing possible?

Readings: https://wearenoor.org/roots-of-hate-swana/

A message to Human Rights Organizers

It is vital now more than ever, that people, especially movement organizers, project handlers etc. to educate themselves. To not wait for the more knowledgeable to rain the information on them. Spend some time to ask google (or Duckduckgo for better options) questions.

You will notice the differences in results geographically, and based on your usual search. This is because - surprise- search results geographically, and politically controlled and manipulated. An example of the political takeover, is the dispute between Mexico and US, after Trump's decision to change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America on Maps. Google complied, of course! Shyly.

So, in short; seek the information your want; then verify the information necessary from your circle of relevant experts. Don't work in Human rights now if you are not willing to do that labor, and are just fine with being a project implementation and reporting tool.

The Fediverse:

For those who don't know what the fediverse is: "A collection of social networking services that can communicate with each other using a common protocol. Users of different websites can send and receive status updates, multimedia files and other data across the network." - Wikipedia (Illustrated Below)

what that means is that instead of having X, Meta, Tiktok administrated by that single owning corp., These servers are collectively administered and regulated in terms of community regulations and moderation. It allows more freedom of expression, and more feminist approach towards bodily autonomy and agency to representation, meaning Nude bodies are allowed, and are marked as hidden and/or NSFW. Movement wise; This ought to be a more consistent and coherent option.

Therefore; Philanthropists, NGOs, CSOs, Activists..etc. should be on these platforms (especially now)

A message to philanthropy and Civil Society:

Those of us who still struggle, or who just began struggling under the crippling arbitrary measures of authoritarianism, Fascism, and fundamentalism in some areas (ex. US, EU, India), will be faced - to my speculations- by an even worse measures. Such as, over surveillance and authority over activities; or control over banking accounts etc.

This will be particularly expected within the issues of: LGBTIQ, SOGIESC, Women's rights, SRHR, Labor rights for diversities, Racial equality and rights, disabilities rights, digital rights, and religious minorities rights.

My speculation comes from what we have been facing for the past several years in the SWANA/MENA region, collectively called "shrinking of civil society space".

Measures included, but not only:

1. Incitement against specific NGOs, with moral policing, and accusations of treason.
2.  Societal incitement by government officials/ reps, religious clerks/groups, etc. against racial groups (especially Black/Afro descendant), LGBTIQ+, Women who seek abortion, Women who practice sexual relations in non-heteronormative ways, religious minorities, tribes...etc.
3. Using social media and dating apps as methods of entrapment and persecusion.
4. Legitimization of arbitrary measure, either by issuance of laws, or by usage of state of emergency.
5. Cutting the funds, or controlling the access to funds from NGOs that are not on the vibe of the government.
6. Incitement against international human rights entities and threatening the presence of their representatives in some countries.

Here are the 3 points that I want to pass:

1. It is of utmost necessity for philanthropy and civil society to discuss alternative means of circulating financial transactions. In ways that are accessible, credible, monitorable, and secure. This is due to, the potentiality of closure of bank accounts (Like Egypt), or banks being bombed in war zones (Sudan), or due to country's bankruptcy (like the case of Lebanon).
2. We need to operate according to our Goals as movements, not as a re-action to adversary's actions measures and policies. i.e. see the adversary (right-wing for example) as a pebble in the way, not the point of the whole agenda around combatting.  
3. The decentralization was created for two reasons:
1. The realization of the lethal effect of a singular ownership over platforms and their policies, to rights of expression, access to knowledge and other Eco. Soc. rights.
2. The core belief of W3C (the world wide web consortium) and its founders, about the UNCHANGING rights of people to access knowledge without Biases (but eachone's own opinions); to anonymity as a form of expression for those who come from places or identities persecuted in their own contexts, or marginalized. And there is a vast body of research in Social Anthropology about this topic in specific. Our rights do not change; and are not granted by the same body that takes it away, they are taken by force.

Let me know your two cents.