|
Apart
from the odd reference, made to underline some point
in a newspaper article, or a quote from one of the
many books of such things that infest second hand
book stores, it is not all that often that Aristotle
seriously figures in the material that I care to read.
Perhaps because swathes of his thought constitute
the founds upon which strands of modern political
thinking are based, like a house, few care to comment
on what lies beneath it. Quickly running an eye over
book spines in the dusty Belfast shops, the presence
of Machiavelli is more noticeable. Therefore, to acquire
a book, which offers a full-blown Aristotelian analysis
of events which are still in living memory, poses
its own challenges.
The
project undertaken by Manchester University Press
to compile a series of works under the theme of 'Perspectives
On Democratisation', guided by series editors Shirin
M Rai and Wyn Grant, is hardly novel. But it is positive.
Uncritically assuming that democracy is teleologically
ordained, would be to succumb to the bewitching pull
of the Enlightenment metanarrative and its dubious
claim to have offered uninterrupted progress. And
it might also numb some into thinking that the 'war
on terror' is being waged by unequivocal democrats
who merely want to spread the good news to darker
regions.
As
the author of a book entitled Terrorism and Democratic
Stability, Jennifer S Holmes may understandably feel
that her output arrived in timely fashion when the
world wanted to know ever more about the phenomenon
of 'terrorism' and the methods employed by states
to either repress it or to redress the causes which
may have given rise to it. While Holmes' work did
not address the international dimension of armed insurgency,
the conclusions drawn must be of relevance to anybody
seriously addressing the problems that the new millennium
has brought. Holmes examines three countries, Uruguay,
Peru and Spain through an Aristotelian prism, the
organising principle of which is the rudimentary purpose
of the state - an end-based twin concept of security
and integration - rather than on processes of legitimation,
with its focus on means.
The
book is worth reading alone for the neat introductory
window it provides into the Tupamaros. Despite being
one of the most vigorous armed protest movements of
the 1960s and '70s - a South American Provisional
IRA in its capacity for daring and ruthless application
of force - its eradication was as certain and swift
as its presence was sensational. But the core contention
of the author is that states which use anti-democratic
measures to defeat armed insurgents ultimately undermine
democracy. She supports her point by drawing on the
outcomes of conflict between the state and guerrillas
in both Uruguay and Peru where democratisation was
as much threatened by an over the top violent state
response as it was by rebellious militants. Contrasting
these cases with Spain, Holmes claims that in the
latter, where the state was considerably less repressive,
democratic structures and processes took root much
more firmly. Spaniards, unlike the citizens of Peru
and Uruguay - the latter country had a very strong
tradition of democracy - apparently did not ditch
their loyalty to democracy.
While
clearly a book offering empirical evidence of the
effects of state aggression, Jennifer Holmes in her
counterpoising of Uruguay/Peru with Spain may have
underestimated both the inclination of the Spanish
state to embrace repression and the tolerance of its
citizens toward the GAL murders of ETA activists although
she is correct to argue that state violence was not
on a level comparable to the South American states.
However, the fact that Spain at the time of the 1981
Tejerro coup attempt sat in Western Europe may have
added a qualitatively different external constraint
to any attempt by the Spanish to revert to Francoism,
something lacking across the Atlantic where right
wing dictators were plentiful.
Overall,
Holmes' view that the Aristotelian approach to the
relationship between state violence and democracy
offers more than other means of investigation is perhaps
inflated. Generally, as a methodological tool, its
conclusions are not vastly different from a plethora
of left wing literature which has not consciously
excavated Aristotle to reach similar findings.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
