FEAR AS A MEANS TO MANY ENDS?
Abdul - Kadir O. Etuazim
September 11, 2006
Some days ago, I was reminiscing on a perspective that most governments in the world tend to thrive domestically by conjuring fears, real or imagined. This is a time tested and proven method to control societies and indirectly distract attention from urgent domestic issues. Within forty-eight hours of the initial thought, I read an article in a Nigerian newspaper, online, outlining how successive western leaders invent bogeymen, mainly from third world countries, to chastise while in office. On Friday, September 8, 2006 a declassified bi-partisan report on the events preceding the Iraqi war was released. Due to the fact that I had made up my mind to write on related issues, reading the report would come after submitting this piece. However, the gist I could put together from the headlines and commentaries is that some of the self-acclaimed Iraqi defectors fabricated most of the scenarios and stories put forward.
The article reflected some interesting viewpoints of the author’s premise that western leaders cannot live without an enemy in the third world. Although the author, Edwin Madunagu, is an unrepentant socialist, the evidence he evinced to support his assertions are eye popping. He posited that during the cold war, although the Soviet Union was the main adversary of the west, third world surrogates were picked on and demonized by western leaders, under the guidance of American presidents. His list includes Kim ll Sung, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Sihanouk, Khomeini and Ghadaffi. He concluded by pointing to the strong credentials of either Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Bashar Assad of Syria as the next likely bogeyman since there is a vacancy.
In as much as I agree with the composition of the cold war bogeymen club, it could be argued that by aligning themselves, or perceived to be, with the communist Soviets, the leaders in question made the choice of being in the line of fire. In the same vein, the Soviets created their own demons from the allies of the west. This leads to the issue of whether leaders can survive without creating enemies? In other words, what is the relationship between creating fear and being in control? Growing up, my mother and other women would get most kids to behave with the threat of reporting them to their fathers. Most societies have mechanisms in place to frighten the living daylights out of children just to curb their excesses. May be these antics and tactics shape our psyche for future exploitations when presented with fears that bother on worst nightmares?
Western leaders and intellectuals fail to realize that the lust for power and the unethical lure of manipulation to secure power exists in every society, most especially in the third world. The move towards greater democratization has created openings in those countries. This is explained in part by the falling out of favor of military dictatorships and a preponderance of power thirsty individuals and groups who cannot – without external support – break into the big political big league formed since the days of one-party hegemony. The ways western politicians massage facts to suit their own purposes are the same ways that third world politicians and aspiring leaders manipulate information towards achieving their self serving political ends. This plays out when a defector or latter-day reformer comes knocking. Politicians from the west need “evidence” to frighten the masses enough to trust the ruling party or opposition; aspiring politicians from the third world tell their partners what they want to hear, and even more, not out of conviction but as an opportunity to get into power. However, third world individuals and groups have some salient advantages over their western counterparts when both sides want to initiate and capitalize on the fear strategy.
In the first place, automatic use of holistic methods of analysis is second nature of most third world individuals and groups due to cultural antecedents. This is contrary to the linear approach of western minds. A linear mindset approaches issues based on exigencies of the moment, while a holistic calibrated one comes with the past, the present, and the future wrapped together. To explain this, let’s look at what a hypothetical defector brings to the west. To put the analysis in context, a deeper probe of both mindsets is necessary. Recall that a typical western mind dwells, generally, on the issues at hand. Add to this outlook a pressing need to achieve set objectives required to maintain control.
The holistic mind on the other hand is keenly aware of the desires of the linear mind. Identifying the burning desires of the linear mind serves as a motivation for it to go to work. Thinking on its feet and using innate abilities, the subject reels off tales that are quite logical to the linear mind. To the latter, any detail no matter how outlandish, is useful as long as it fits and enhances the image it wants to create. Consequently, our hypothetical defector comes to the play with three main goals. The goals are a chance to enjoy the status of a celebrity, an opportunity to lay the foundation for future relevance in the home country and stoking the fears of the west up to the point that the latter clears all obstacles to propel the former to power.
During the intervening period, the defector plays dumb and unconscious in equal measure. The goal is not just to get to power but to be protected enough to entrench and manifest the same tendencies that created the opportunity in the first instance. It is a win-win situation, or so it appears. This is the strategy that individuals and groups from the third world prefer. It is confounding how westerners fall for this scheme over and over. A possible explanation might be a deliberate ploy to cultivate the conditions necessary for future interventions. The Soviets, during the cold war, did not fare differently. At the heart of all the scheming is the quest for pecuniary gains.
Before I am taken to the cleaners, permit me to highlight some vivid examples. The late Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire – now Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – Siad Barre of Somalia, General Pinochet of Chile and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia personified the cold war era brigade of fear mongers who fooled the east and west by stoking embers of alarm. The collapse of the USSR and the initial wave of democratic elections led to the emergence of post cold war schemers. Most of the touted democracy champions of that period ended in the same class as their predecessors. Atrocities that came to light after they fall from power corroborate the points made. Presently, General Musharaff of Pakistan and a host of other pretenders in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America are living the same dreams.
Probably, above facts offer possible explanations why the west is held under constant suspicion in the third world and why the west cannot understand its negative public perception in many third world countries. Citizens of third world countries see through the charade put up by individuals and groups that are labeled “reformers”, “allies” “pro-democracy advocates”, “moderates” and other superlatives in the west. As further proof, note that whenever a new term to confront problems arises in the west, many third world leaders pick it up and run as far as they can. Terrorism is now a refrain of many regimes in the developing world. Paradoxically, some of these governments survive by terrorizing their countrymen and women. Unfortunately, the mention of the word terror seems to blind the west from looking beyond rhetoric. May be it is correct to say that the west is frightened by the fear of the word terror or terrorism. Or conversely, it serves the interest of politicians to keep the word alive, thereby ensuring that everyone lives in perpetual fear.
The second advantage the third world has over the west is a good sense of history. This sense of history is predicated on unparalleled oral historical archive. Books published in the early parts of last century might be in circulation but their contents are lost to those who do not read them. However, fragments of encounters dating back to centuries are relayed from generation to generation in many parts of the developing world. The effect of this is that people schooled in oral history settings have a knack to easily recall the past and link it with the present. Their perspectives are curvilinear as against the linear western mind; as such the prospects of effortless manipulation of westerners using western models and tools are second nature. Consequently, the west is always expending many man-hours and other resources to arrive at conclusions, which are clear from the beginning to many third world citizens.
To conclude, using curvilinear logic and a keen sense of history, fear factor as an instrument of control and distraction would remain with us forever. This is due to a penchant in humanity to externalize what we cannot come to terms with. Additionally, as long as there are groups that live in the illusion that their world view is sacrosanct, just and God willed, there is no hope for an end to the use of fear as a tool of control and catalyst of many wars. What individuals and groups fail to understand is the potential for turmoil if every group on earth adopts similar fundamentalist reasoning. Unfortunately, the major religions in the world thrive on dogmatic injunctions that there is alternative to their way.
Furthermore, the major religions reinforce the notion of creating enemies by way of anecdotes and literal reading of allegorical accounts of events. There will never be a shortage of bogeymen to heap our problems on. This is despite attempts to proselytize on taking responsibility at individual levels. At group levels, we need an enemy to serve as a reason to accept what we cannot understand or what we have been programmed to believe is how things must be to make sense. It does not take rocket science, but a willingness to laugh at our shortcomings to see through our follies.
The article reflected some interesting viewpoints of the author’s premise that western leaders cannot live without an enemy in the third world. Although the author, Edwin Madunagu, is an unrepentant socialist, the evidence he evinced to support his assertions are eye popping. He posited that during the cold war, although the Soviet Union was the main adversary of the west, third world surrogates were picked on and demonized by western leaders, under the guidance of American presidents. His list includes Kim ll Sung, Mao Tse Tung, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Sihanouk, Khomeini and Ghadaffi. He concluded by pointing to the strong credentials of either Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Bashar Assad of Syria as the next likely bogeyman since there is a vacancy.
In as much as I agree with the composition of the cold war bogeymen club, it could be argued that by aligning themselves, or perceived to be, with the communist Soviets, the leaders in question made the choice of being in the line of fire. In the same vein, the Soviets created their own demons from the allies of the west. This leads to the issue of whether leaders can survive without creating enemies? In other words, what is the relationship between creating fear and being in control? Growing up, my mother and other women would get most kids to behave with the threat of reporting them to their fathers. Most societies have mechanisms in place to frighten the living daylights out of children just to curb their excesses. May be these antics and tactics shape our psyche for future exploitations when presented with fears that bother on worst nightmares?
Western leaders and intellectuals fail to realize that the lust for power and the unethical lure of manipulation to secure power exists in every society, most especially in the third world. The move towards greater democratization has created openings in those countries. This is explained in part by the falling out of favor of military dictatorships and a preponderance of power thirsty individuals and groups who cannot – without external support – break into the big political big league formed since the days of one-party hegemony. The ways western politicians massage facts to suit their own purposes are the same ways that third world politicians and aspiring leaders manipulate information towards achieving their self serving political ends. This plays out when a defector or latter-day reformer comes knocking. Politicians from the west need “evidence” to frighten the masses enough to trust the ruling party or opposition; aspiring politicians from the third world tell their partners what they want to hear, and even more, not out of conviction but as an opportunity to get into power. However, third world individuals and groups have some salient advantages over their western counterparts when both sides want to initiate and capitalize on the fear strategy.
In the first place, automatic use of holistic methods of analysis is second nature of most third world individuals and groups due to cultural antecedents. This is contrary to the linear approach of western minds. A linear mindset approaches issues based on exigencies of the moment, while a holistic calibrated one comes with the past, the present, and the future wrapped together. To explain this, let’s look at what a hypothetical defector brings to the west. To put the analysis in context, a deeper probe of both mindsets is necessary. Recall that a typical western mind dwells, generally, on the issues at hand. Add to this outlook a pressing need to achieve set objectives required to maintain control.
The holistic mind on the other hand is keenly aware of the desires of the linear mind. Identifying the burning desires of the linear mind serves as a motivation for it to go to work. Thinking on its feet and using innate abilities, the subject reels off tales that are quite logical to the linear mind. To the latter, any detail no matter how outlandish, is useful as long as it fits and enhances the image it wants to create. Consequently, our hypothetical defector comes to the play with three main goals. The goals are a chance to enjoy the status of a celebrity, an opportunity to lay the foundation for future relevance in the home country and stoking the fears of the west up to the point that the latter clears all obstacles to propel the former to power.
During the intervening period, the defector plays dumb and unconscious in equal measure. The goal is not just to get to power but to be protected enough to entrench and manifest the same tendencies that created the opportunity in the first instance. It is a win-win situation, or so it appears. This is the strategy that individuals and groups from the third world prefer. It is confounding how westerners fall for this scheme over and over. A possible explanation might be a deliberate ploy to cultivate the conditions necessary for future interventions. The Soviets, during the cold war, did not fare differently. At the heart of all the scheming is the quest for pecuniary gains.
Before I am taken to the cleaners, permit me to highlight some vivid examples. The late Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire – now Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – Siad Barre of Somalia, General Pinochet of Chile and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia personified the cold war era brigade of fear mongers who fooled the east and west by stoking embers of alarm. The collapse of the USSR and the initial wave of democratic elections led to the emergence of post cold war schemers. Most of the touted democracy champions of that period ended in the same class as their predecessors. Atrocities that came to light after they fall from power corroborate the points made. Presently, General Musharaff of Pakistan and a host of other pretenders in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America are living the same dreams.
Probably, above facts offer possible explanations why the west is held under constant suspicion in the third world and why the west cannot understand its negative public perception in many third world countries. Citizens of third world countries see through the charade put up by individuals and groups that are labeled “reformers”, “allies” “pro-democracy advocates”, “moderates” and other superlatives in the west. As further proof, note that whenever a new term to confront problems arises in the west, many third world leaders pick it up and run as far as they can. Terrorism is now a refrain of many regimes in the developing world. Paradoxically, some of these governments survive by terrorizing their countrymen and women. Unfortunately, the mention of the word terror seems to blind the west from looking beyond rhetoric. May be it is correct to say that the west is frightened by the fear of the word terror or terrorism. Or conversely, it serves the interest of politicians to keep the word alive, thereby ensuring that everyone lives in perpetual fear.
The second advantage the third world has over the west is a good sense of history. This sense of history is predicated on unparalleled oral historical archive. Books published in the early parts of last century might be in circulation but their contents are lost to those who do not read them. However, fragments of encounters dating back to centuries are relayed from generation to generation in many parts of the developing world. The effect of this is that people schooled in oral history settings have a knack to easily recall the past and link it with the present. Their perspectives are curvilinear as against the linear western mind; as such the prospects of effortless manipulation of westerners using western models and tools are second nature. Consequently, the west is always expending many man-hours and other resources to arrive at conclusions, which are clear from the beginning to many third world citizens.
To conclude, using curvilinear logic and a keen sense of history, fear factor as an instrument of control and distraction would remain with us forever. This is due to a penchant in humanity to externalize what we cannot come to terms with. Additionally, as long as there are groups that live in the illusion that their world view is sacrosanct, just and God willed, there is no hope for an end to the use of fear as a tool of control and catalyst of many wars. What individuals and groups fail to understand is the potential for turmoil if every group on earth adopts similar fundamentalist reasoning. Unfortunately, the major religions in the world thrive on dogmatic injunctions that there is alternative to their way.
Furthermore, the major religions reinforce the notion of creating enemies by way of anecdotes and literal reading of allegorical accounts of events. There will never be a shortage of bogeymen to heap our problems on. This is despite attempts to proselytize on taking responsibility at individual levels. At group levels, we need an enemy to serve as a reason to accept what we cannot understand or what we have been programmed to believe is how things must be to make sense. It does not take rocket science, but a willingness to laugh at our shortcomings to see through our follies.