Perhaps this series of letters
has made the point in the past, but even if it has, the point cannot be
stressed enough.
The Gulbenkian Foundation is perhaps one of the finest things
to have happened to Portugal and in particular to the Portuguese capital
Lisbon. The productions of this Foundation, in general, contribute much to the
cultural, artistic and intellectual life of the country and capital.
One of these productions involved
the hosting of a
conversation on the theme of “Peace and Sustainable Development”, between Archbishop Desmond Tutu of SouthAfrican and Jorge Sampaio the former President of the Portuguese Republic, and now High
Representative of the United Nations Alliance of Civilisations. A number of
those who had turned up for the event, however, hoping to hear powerful and
profound ideas from the Archbishop were sorely disappointed. Personally, this
disappointment stemmed not from what the Archbishop said, which amounted to
very general, and clichéd thoughts on the oneness of humanity, and the need to
take seriously the responsibilities that came with being placed as the Viceroys
of God on Earth. On the contrary, the disappointment stemmed from what he did
not say. It was Archbishop Tutu’s silence on two broad themes that turned the aspirations
for the evening into crushing disappointment.
The first theme on which
Archbishop Tutu could have responded, were the rather provocative suggestions
by President Sampaio on the inadequacy of current models of democracy.
President Sampaio was perhaps correct when he suggested that most of the
problems we face today are beyond the time-frame of a normal democratic
mandate. They cannot be met by political representatives who are elected for a
short period of five years, for a variety of structural reasons. Most important
of these reasons is that, if they desire to be reelected must look to more
immediate results, rather than the necessarily long-term investments that are
called for to make the unpopular civilizational changes necessary to achieve sustainable
development. President Sampaio, was perhaps also not wrong when he suggested
that the regular bureaucratic process of liberal democracies seem unable to meet
the needs of the people. Anyone who has spent days within governmental
departments often unable to achieve the most simple task for the inability to
produce a ridiculous document will know the truth of President Sampaio’s
assertion. Despite the truth of these statements however, what made them
problematic, and this is what Archbishop Tutu ought to have taken up, when
President Sampaio failed to do so, was to point, that despite the indubitable
problems with the model of liberal democracy, as well as the labyrinthine
bureaucratic procedures of this liberal democratic state, as of now, there are no
other models that allow for the vast mass of humanity access to power. In light
of his struggles and what he has gained recognition for, it was Tutu’s
obligation to point out that these perhaps valid truths were not backed up by
suggestions as to how exactly to overcome these challenges. There can be no doubt that attempting to articulate possible ways in which to overcome these challenges would present a substantial challenge. However, in
failing this struggled articulation, and especially given the peculiar history
of Portugal, and its contentious present, one that mirrors its early twentieth
century past in disturbing ways, Sampaio's suggestions merely suggest (perhaps
falsely) a consensus toward authoritarian solutions.
The second theme on which one
would have liked to hear Bishop Tutu respond was the posturing of President
Sampaio that created an odd ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dichotomy when speaking about
models for the future. Sampaio began this articulation with the strange
assertion ‘ofcourse we (Portugal) are a Western country’ and then proceeded to
elaborate on how there was a need for ‘us’, i.e. Europe (and the developed
West) to create links to ‘them’ i.e. ‘the emerging order’. Perhaps it was not
what President Sampaio had in mind, but running like a particularly disturbing
thread through this segment of his conversation, was a particular
condescension. This condescension was composed first of the implicit suggestion
that Europe and the West were prior in time in terms of achieving democracy;
and then secondly that there was something to learn from this ‘emerging order’.
This condescension was taken up in a comment by the moderator of the conversation,
Ambassador Fernando Neves. In his intervention, he chose to present a variety of
human rights as European. He made particular reference to the suggestion he
received in Indonesia, that human rights were not universal, but in fact peculiarly
western in nature.
On this second theme, once again
for reasons of the nature of his participation in a historic struggle, one
would have expected to Archbishop Tutu to temper these statements with a gentle
counter, and especially with a counter to the moderator Ambassador Fernando
Neves’ offensive suggestion. Perhaps Ambassador Neves needed to be reminded
that the argument from Indonesia came from a polity that had a history of
military and authoritarian rule. To be sure, members and representatives of
such a polity would make nativist arguments of the sort against norms that curbed their drive toward Pharonic power. Could it be then, that
the ready acceptance of this Indonesian suggestion, had more to do with
Ambassador Neves attempting to suggest a European (and Portuguese) difference
from the ‘emerging order’, and their moral superiority?
There was no reflection on these
issues however, and in part, this may have been a result of the awkward moderation
offered by the chair, who, did not encourage the speakers to speak to each
other, but allowed them to spin independently on their own courses. It could
also have been as a result of the internal culture of the diplomatic world, and
we must remember that after being an activist, Archbishop Tutu has become a
diplomat, that seems to thrive on broad feel-good suggestions, and that will
often not disrupt the status quo, unless there is a definite gain for the
powers that these diplomats represent.
All in all, it wasn’t a
particularly pleasant evening, though it did, it must be said, provide food for
thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment