During my graduating year, a high school teacher of mine handed me a book by Naomi Klein entitled The Shock Doctrine. The thesis of the book pertains to how the capitalist economic order is solicited in various countries. The use of CIA intelligence, to facilitate Milton Friedman's free market policies seems conspiratorial in dimensions. The shock doctrine involves wiping the existing system of a country into a complete blank slate, parallel to the use of electric shock applied to wipe out the memory of a psychiatric patient.
Implementation
The process of wiping out a country's system is either exploited post-natural disaster, or clandestinely fostered. Exploited natural disaster cases include the tsunami that occurred in South East Asia. A system of commercial industries and privatization that emerged after these natural disasters supported the free market model. Multinational corporations saw the clean slate as an opportunity to open up hotels and industries. Essentially, when the state has been wiped off its system, it is traumatized and damaged by a catastrophe. Globalization then becomes effective with 'aid' systems implemented in place. However it is these 'aid' or 'development' systems that are culprits of disaster exploits. They mobilize Milton Friedman's free market system. This was staged to perfection, without suspicion. Especially with language and terminologies such as 'aid', 'development' and 'restructuring' publicly reinforced.
The rhetoric of the 'Haiti development' from the earthquake in 2010 fostered my skepticism of the development projects in place. 'Development' in itself
seems neutral in connotation, yet the essence of paternalism is carefully immersed. Globalization is reckless in neutrality. A lot of interests that relates to globalization are in fact susceptible to themes of euro-centrism, profiteering and exploits.
Klein applied how the shock therapy model was implemented during Pinochet's era in Chile, the uprising of university students in Indonesia, and the occupation in Iraq. The establishment of the Chicago School of Economics by Milton Friedman played a role in the soliciting of the shock doctrine. Training occurred to infiltrate and influence the grassroots ideologically. When protests occurred, followed by repressions and coup d'etats, the sovereign system eventually collapses. This opens a window for the free market model to be implemented in place.
Egypt Connection and Analysis
In February, I wrote a
post concerning the social contract and the Egyptian victory in ousting Hosne Mubarak. Yesterday, I listened to Professor Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna- founder of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, speak of the situation in Egypt. Although Mubarak's departure and Egypt's articulation for democracy did conjure some skepticism, I was tunnel vision on the notion of the people's will. Today, I struggle at reconciling with what I heard yesterday, Klein's shock doctrine, and the current situation in Egypt. It is as if I am suffering from a cognitive dissonance, that has shaken me awake from my denial.
Professor Tariq spoke to the 20 000 audiences of a 'training' that occurred in Egypt prior to Mubarak's downfall. The knowledge of the training was known, for its intention of toppling Mubarak by 2011. He cautioned while not believing in conspiracies is conspiring in itself, it is also important to be aware that conspiracies exists nevertheless. In other words, to deny conspiracies is being ignorant, but believing conspiracies exist obsessively can also be ignorance. He insists that we read, interact and understand various contexts. Being solely dependent on the media, and literal interpretation are insufficient.
I was overwhelmed by how the Egypt training uncannily resembles Klein's shock doctrine. Professor Tariq may have his bias. But the legitimacy of the uprising becomes slightly diminished if the training that existed is truly staged by western influences. To put it bluntly, when an external influence has to brainwash to impact change, the change that occurs is not completely 100% pure. The will of the people becomes less authentic and a product of external infiltration. Undue influence invalidates a contract. As such, the social contract of a nation may become void if it is influenced by the west. However, how do you distinguish between a pure will and influenced will? Do instruments that measure exists? If a minority was trained, but a majority 'claims' to believe in similar objectives, is it still undue influence?
In this era of globalization, conformity is peer-pressured. Governmental structures that are 'undemocratic' is regarded as passe. Democracy is preached and modeled by nations, but each is flawed for its failure to uphold the rule of law. Often than not, the failure in upholding the rule of law is due to economic interests as explained by the shock doctrine. Profoundly expressed by Yusuf Islam, just like the allegory in Animal Farm, while "all pigs are equal (but some are more equal than others)," similar can be said about democracy. "Some democracies are more equal than others." It has become notoriously justified hypocritically.
Professor Tariq emphasizes on the need to address economic structures and economic justice in the model of democracy. This best be implemented, or I hypothesize the fulfillment of the shock doctrine model will prevail. The question is not if Egypt is ready for democracy, but is the West ready for Egypt to be democratic? Will the West set aside its economic interest and respect autonomy and sovereignty of Egypt as a nation?
