Suchergebnisse

The prevalence of despotism in the premodern Middle East is linked with the need of rulers to maintain centralized authority in a hostile environment. The idea of oriental despotism was invented by European political thinkers to critique European politics. The image of an absolute ruler who holds sway over a society lacking any public, civil life is not an accurate depiction of the premodern Middle East. While no tradition of political citizenship developed in the Middle East, & a strong antipathy toward rulers & political roles was pervasive, the populous was never merely submissive or docile. The values of egalitarianism, competitive individualism, & responsible independence prevailed on the local level in both rural & urban settings. It is argued that while despotism was the rule at the national level, Middle Eastern societies evinced a high level of autonomy & democratic participation at the local level. Ernest Gellner's Khaldunian model (1981) of center-periphery oscillation in Middle Eastern culture is extended to consider the central importance of Mohammed's historical emergence. 60 References. H. von Rautenfeld

President George W. Bush addresses America's role in preserving freedom, democracy & free enterprises in the twenty-first century. The President of the United States also discusses America's responsibilities as a nation to fights to create a balance of power among nations in order to promote human freedom, & to defend peace & democracy by fighting terrorists & tyrants.

"At the end of the 12th century the 'victorious armies of Islam' finally succeed in the conquest of Northern India, of Hindustan. Turkish war-slaves erect the Sultanate of Delhi. Yet, for the next 150 years the new power of Islam is constantly threatened from three sides: The Delhi-Sultanate remains separated from the classical lands of Islam by a Mongol power and Mongol armies which constantly threaten 'Sindh and Hind' from the West. In the East prosperous but turbulent Bengal remains a hotbed of rebellions and seditions - by Afghan warlords and competitors of the throne. Every one of these attacks or disruptions can initiate tax-revolts and rural unrest over the length of Hindustan and the Ganges valley. These dangers directly interact with a 'meritocratic' style of government in which the coups, political assassination and intrigue are routine. Thus, external threats and the despotism at the centre combine to create a unique culture of cruelty - vis-à-vis the Hindus, renegades and competitors. In fact, cruelty becomes a 'total phenomenon'. It is part of the struggle for power, wealth, and prestige. It is an indispensable feature of the art of war, of statecraft and political science, of religion and aesthetics." (author's abstract)

"Cruelty is a specific kind of human behaviour and has a clearly cultural dimension. It is often the result of passions and drives, accompanied by the breaking of taboos and a crossing of boundaries that cultures have raised to prevent the moral regression of mankind. Cruelty is also a "rational" way to acquire and stabilize political power. Both the atrocities themselves and the accusations of cruelty are instruments of power. The political efficiency of cruelty depends on the fear and awe, which it produces. Seneca regarded cruelty as the main attribute of tyranny. Through its imagery (like the bull of Phalaris) it breaks possible resistance and establishes despotism permanently. In the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times cruelty was considered a necessary evil in order to realize superior positive goals. So did the inquisitors, and so did Machiavelli who regarded cruelty not only as a means to the acquisition and preservation of power. The prince should also use cruelty to unify Italy and to build a stable and peaceful political order. Later, the understanding that cruelties are necessary to achieve good ends did not fall into oblivion, in spite of all criticism of Machiavelli's thought. In totalitarianism the aim of cruelty was not primarily the infliction of pain, but the abolition of individualism and the enforcement of the belief in a general law, which rules mankind. This could be either the law of history like during the French Revolution and in socialist states, or the 'natural law' of social Darwinism in the National Socialist and Fascist regimes. After the breakdown of totalitarianism and the triumph of liberal democracy the question arises, if cruelties are necessary components of all politics. Although we can still find cruel policies in liberal democracies (see Guantanamo Bay), at the same time the struggle against cruelty is vital in these systems and explains the dominance of the discourse on human rights." (author's abstract)