DYSPEPSIA GENERATION

We have seen the future, and it sucks.

The West Is Not Necessarily ‘Democratic’—In Fact, It Never Was

3rd May 2023

Read it.

That the West is synonymous with the idea of liberal democracy is common thinking nowadays. That sentiment is amplified and strengthened with the pretty unanimous backing of Ukraine against Russian aggression by the countries considered to be part of the West.

Such thinking is well conveyed in the last interview of the famous American historian Stephen Kotkin, conducted by Peter Robinson. For Kotkin, the West is characterized by strong independent institutions, a free judiciary, the rule of law, etc. Or more broadly speaking, by liberal democracy. Thus, it is quite logical that he included “North America, Europe, the first island chain in Asia, and many other partners, Israel, in the Middle East” in the West. He added that the West “needs to be expanded and needs to be cultivated like a garden.” This is different from the “civilizational” definition of the West in Samuel Huntington’s famous book The Clash of Civilizations, according to which the Catholic and Protestant countries in Europe, along with the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, constitute Western civilization.

Does Kotkin’s trans-geographical and transcultural understanding of the West imply that the U.S., Great Britain, or France cease to be part of the West if they become autocratic? Given that Kotkin defined “Western” countries as liberal democratic ones, it is interesting that India is not included in the West, although it has never ceased to be a democracy since its independence from the British Empire in late 1940s. The exclusion of India makes sense when we consider the rest of Kotkin’s narrative in which the democratic West is fighting autocratic Russia.

Comments are closed.