Opinion | To Thwart Iran, Fight a War of Attrition The Wall Street Journal
Day: March 27, 2024
A meeting between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and high-level American and European officials next month aims to bolster Yerevan’s ties with the two Western powers, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.
Pashinyan is scheduled to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinker and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels on April 5. Azerbaijan has voiced concern about the meeting and has accused the U.S. and the EU of sowing divisions in the region.
“The high-level meeting of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan scheduled for April 5 in Brussels will be dedicated to strengthening cooperation between Armenia, the EU, and the US. It is not and could not be directed against any third party,” Armenia’s foreign ministry spokesperson Ani Badalyan told Armenpress on Wednesday.
“The [April 5] meeting is a valuable opportunity to discuss the bilateral agendas between Armenia and the US, Armenia and the EU, as well as issues related to Armenia-US-EU relations. We expect substantive discussions on political dialogue, the development of Armenia’s capabilities in the economic and energy spheres, and solutions to the humanitarian problems facing Armenia. The high-level meeting is aimed at developing and deepening existing relations and is not associated with any third countries. Claims that it is directed against anyone are irrelevant, baseless, and artificial,” Badalyan added.
The foreign ministry spokesperson scoffed at Baku’s characterization of the upcoming talks as destabilizing the region and hindering the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations, saying that Yerevan is prepared to sign a peace treaty “based on the agreed upon principles.”
She delineated those principles that include Armenia and Azerbaijan mutually recognizing each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity based on the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration and reaffirm their commitment to utilize the document as a basis for the border delimitation process.
Badalyan further explained that Yerevan has emphasized that the opening of transport routes between Armenia and Azerbaijan must proceed “on the basis of the principle of sovereignty and jurisdiction of countries, within the framework of equality and reciprocity.”
“Unfortunately, the Azerbaijani side is delaying and undermining the peace process under various artificial pretexts, including constantly rejecting mediation proposals from the EU and the United States,” Badalyan said.
“Instead of complaining about inclusiveness, Azerbaijan might eventually consider accepting proposals for a meeting at the level of foreign ministers in Washington and at the level of heads of state in Brussels. It is also worth mentioning Azerbaijan’s ongoing actions, such as attempts to exclude Armenia from regional projects and their efforts to undermine the principle of inclusivity. A vivid example of this is their obstruction of Armenia’s participation in the Black Sea Electric Cable project,” added the spokesperson.
Badalyan also touched on Baku’s opposition to the EU monitoring mission in Armenia.
“It is important to assess the security situation in which the EU mission was deployed. This followed a large-scale attack and occupation of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia by Azerbaijan in September 2022. Even today, approximately 208 square kilometers of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia are under the occupation of Azerbaijan. We highly appreciate the role of the EU monitoring mission in curbing ambitions to use force in the region and strengthening stability on the Armenia-Azerbaijan interstate border,” Badalyan said.
“We also welcome the EU’s decision made several months ago, regarding the increase in the number of mission members. It is also appropriate to remind that during the quadrilateral meeting held in Prague on October 6, 2022, Azerbaijan itself welcomed the proposal of the President of the European Council and the President of France to deploy an EU observation mission not only in Armenia but also in Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan later abandoned that position,” she added.
YEREVAN (Azatutyun.am)—Azerbaijan expressed concern on Wednesday at Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s upcoming trilateral meeting with top U.S. and European Union officials, saying that it is further proof of the West’s pro-Armenian stance.
The secretary of Armenia’s Security Council, Armen Grigorian, announced last week that Pashinyan, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will meet in Brussels on April 5. He said they will discuss ways of stepping up “trilateral cooperation” and strengthening Armenia’s “resilience.”
The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry said that the planned talks are “not transparent,” involve only one regional state and undermine confidence-building measures in the South Caucasus.
“Instead of pushing the Armenian side to peaceful negotiations, it creates new dividing lines in the region,” read a ministry statement, adding that the United States and the EU would bear responsibility for Yerevan’s “destabilizing actions.”
In separate comments, the ministry spokesman, Aykhan Hajizade, said that Azerbaijan has “never received such unconditional support from the EU and the U.S.” throughout the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. He claimed that Pashinyan will discuss with Blinken and von der Leyen Western military assistance to Armenia.
The Brussels meeting has not yet been officially confirmed by the U.S. or the EU. The U.S. State Department spokesman, Matthew Miller, declined to comment on it during a news briefing in Washington on Tuesday.
“I’m not going to speak to it in detail other than to say that our objectives in every engagement with the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan are to encourage them to work to bridge the differences … and reach a durable and lasting peace agreement,” Miller said.
The Western powers warned Azerbaijan against invading Armenia following its recapture of Nagorno-Karabakh last September. They now also seem anxious to show support for Pashinyan’s government amid its deepening rift with Russia, Armenia’s longtime ally.
In recent weeks, Pashinyan has threatened to pull Armenia out of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and not ruled out a bid to join the EU. Russian officials have accused the West of encouraging Yerevan to drift away from Moscow.
https://t.co/Zg6Kbk4nVS
We are in #Gabala, the #NorthWest region of #Azerbaijan, one of the most prominent countries of the #SouthCaucasus @salehshirinov #tourism #Travel— Elnur Enveroglu (@ElnurMammadli1) March 27, 2024
https://t.co/jknu5qQP2s
Recent events in #SouthCaucasus once again prove that the only obstacle to the peace process between #Azerbaijan and #Armenia is the forces in the #West— AzerNews (@AzerNewsAz) March 27, 2024
Categories
NPR News: 03-27-2024 5PM EDT
The UN Security Council presents one of the great contradictions of power in the international system. On the one hand vested with enormous latitude in order to preserve international peace and security, it remains checked, limited and, it can be argued, crippled by an all too regular use of the veto by members of the permanent five powers (US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France).
When it comes to the bleeding and crushing of human life in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces (32,300 dead Palestinians and rising), resolutions demanding a cease fire of a conflict that began with the attack on Israeli soil by Hamas militants have tended to pass into voting oblivion. The United States, Israel’s great power patron and defender, has been consistent in using its veto power to ensure it, exercising it on no less than three occasions since October 7.
On March 25, a change of heart was registered. Washington, reputationally battered for its unconditional support for Israel, haughtily defied by its own ally in being reduced to airdrops of aid for the expiring residents of Gaza, and resoundingly ignored by the Netanyahu government in moderating the savagery of its operations in the strip, abstained. In terms of resolution protocol, it meant that 14 out of 15 Council members favoured the vote.
Resolution 2728 calls for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan “leading to a lasting sustainable” halt to hostilities, the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”, “ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs” and “demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”. The resolution further emphasises “the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip”. All barriers regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law” are also to be lifted.
The wording of the resolution has a degree of lexical ambiguity only tolerable to oily diplomats and paper mad bureaucrats. Neither Hamas nor Israeli hostages are mentioned, ghosts unacknowledged at the chattering feast. Does the latter, for instance, cover Palestinian prisoners?
The justification from the US delegation was uneven and skewed. The abstention, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken explained, “reaffirms the US position that a ceasefire of any duration come as part of an agreement to release hostages in Gaza.” While some provisions of the text had caused disagreement in Washington, the sponsors of the resolution had made sufficient changes “consistent with our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with the release of the hostages.”
Mild mannered approval for this sloppy, weak position (the apologetics of abstentions are rarely principled, suggesting a lack of moral timbre) followed. Hadar Susskind, President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, even praised the stance in Newsweek. “By allowing the resolution to pass the US has staked out a position in favor of ending this horrible war, and in opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s prioritization of his political well-being over the current and future good of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
For his part, Netanyahu cancelled a planned Washington visit of two of his ministers, Ron Dermer and Tzachi Hanegbi, to specifically discuss the impending attack on Rafah, though much of this is bound to be studiously ceremonial, given the language of inevitability associated with the planned operation. Besides, neither are versed in anything related to military matters. But just as one pays attention to a wealthy, doddering relative who keeps funding your bad habits in the hope that you might, one day, see sense, it pays to feign courtesy and interest from time to time to your benefactor.
As if to prove this point, John F. Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, reminded journalists that various other meetings would still be taking place between the US and Israel, notably those between President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, and with Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.
In a gruff statement, the Israeli PM rebuked the abstention as “a retreat from the consistent American position since the beginning of the war”. In taking that stance, Washington had given “Hamas hope that international pressure will enable them to achieve a cease-fire without freeing the hostages.”
Netanyahu’s approach to Hamas, Gaza and the Palestinians has become one with his obsession with political survival and rekindling the fires of the Israeli electorate. As far back as December, a Likud official was already making the observation that the PM had adopted the posture of a vote getting electioneer even as the war was being prosecuted. “Netanyahu is in full campaign mode. While the external political threats are gradually increasing, Netanyahu knows that over time the attacks and the calls to remove him will also increase. He has been acting first to win back his base.”
For the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, the resolution had to be implemented. “Failure would be unforgivable.” But failure to do so, certainly in the context of the planned assault on Rafah so solemnly denounced by the international community, is most likely.
Russia has ultimately collapsed foreign academic, human rights and media operations in the Russian Federation. It has crippled and ridiculed their work with civil society. Long before the start of the “special military operations” aimed at what is officially described as “demilitarization” and “denazification” in the post-Soviet republic, Russian authorities have been on the neck of these organizations, consistently accusing them of being biased and anti-Russian.
The battle of biased reporting (including issues relating to misinformation and disinformation and propaganda) has resulted on the shutdown of foreign media organizations, accreditation of foreign correspondents revoked over the past years. Social media including Meta platforms, Facebook and Instagram have come under scrutiny and designated as extremist organizations. It is still getting worse as the United States, European Union and Russia constantly lock horns about reporting ethics and information war.
As already known, Russian authorities have unleashed an unprecedented, nationwide crackdown on independent journalism and dissenting voices following Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. Roskomnadzor, Russia’s media regulator, blocked access to Facebook and Twitter, and so also the most popular critical media outlets, closing independent radio stations and forcing dozens of journalists to halt their work or leave the country, the authorities have almost completely deprived people in Russia of access to objective, unbiased and trustworthy information.
“For two decades, the Russian authorities have waged a covert war against dissenting voices by arresting journalists, cracking down on independent newsrooms and forcing media owners to impose self-censorship. Yet, after Russian tanks entered Ukraine, the authorities switched to a scorched-earth strategy that has turned Russia’s media landscape into a wasteland,” said Marie Struthers, Amnesty International’s Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
On 28 February, Roskomnadzor blocked Nastoyashchee Vremya (Current Times), a subsidiary of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, for spreading “unreliable” information about the invasion. On 1 March, almost all Ukrainian news outlets were inaccessible to internet users in Russia.
That was followed by the Kremlin ruthlessly censored a swathe of independent media, including broadcaster TV Rain, the Echo of Moscow radio station, Latvia-based Meduza, critical Russian news outlets Mediazona, Republic and Sobesednik, grassroots activism portal Activatica and the Russian-language services of the BBC, Voice of America and Deutsche Welle.
The blocking of news sites and the threat of criminal prosecutions has also led to an exodus of journalists from Russia. According to Agentstvo, an investigative journalism site now inaccessible in Russia, at least 150 journalists have fled the country since the beginning of the war.
TV Rain chose to suspend broadcasting amidst fears of reprisals. Znak.com, a significant regional news channel, halted its operations citing censorship fears. The Echo of Moscow radio station was taken off the air; shortly after, its state-aligned owners decided to liquidate the company. Even Novaya Gazeta, a beacon of independent journalism led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dmitry Muratov, announced on 4 March that it would remove articles on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Russia has closed the British Council, the American Educational Council with its Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) programme, and Alliance Française and Geothe Institute. These are the largest cultural networks of Britain, the United States, France and Germany. While Russia struggles with it non-profit NGO Russkiy Mir primarily tasked to popularize Russian language, literature and Russian culture around the world, it found it necessary to halt non-political and non-profit educational branches of western ones that operated under their diplomatic missions in the Russian Federation.
The FLEX programme, created as the best way to ensure long-lasting peace and mutual understanding between the U.S. and the countries of Eurasia, enables young people, over 35,000 students who compete annually, to learn about the United States, and to teach Americans about their countries, mostly from the former Soviet republics.
These educational and cultural centers have practically helped thousands of Russian students, with government-sponsored grants, to acquire comparative knowledge in various academic fields abroad. While some, after the training programmes, still remain abroad, others returned to contribute their quota in sustainable development in Russia.
Early March 2022 perception survey conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center, the results of an opinion poll, the majority of Russians reported that they feel negatively about the United States (71%). On the other hand, Russians are generally obsessed by American and European dreams, wealthy Russians have bought the most expensive mansions along the coast of Miami et cetera, placed their thousands of kids in western educational institutions.
In addition, Russian academics throughout the year run forth and back under the umbrella of conducting research. Alexey Khokhlov, the vice-president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, told Telegram channel early April that the decision made by the world’s largest publishers of science magazines to suspend access for Russian organizations would make 97% of scientific information unavailable to Russian researchers.
Khokhlov said that legal access to the full-text collections of articles published by Elsevier, Springer/Nature, IOP Publishers and others, and in addition, the Web of Science and Scopus reference data bases in Russia’s territory would soon be terminated.
“The publishers who signed this statement believe that in this way they punish not scientists but research organizations. This sounds very strange, because the above-mentioned services are used by scientists and not administrators. This statement is a serious challenge because Russia accounts for a tiny 2.5% of the world’s science products. This means that 97.5% of information is blocked,” Khokhlov said.
Russia is experiencing a massive outflow of scientists from the country amid the foreign sanctions, which can only be stopped only by adopting a system of special measures, including an increase in financing, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) President Alexander Sergeyev suggested, speaking at the media conference late March.
“In general, what can be done here is to provide better conditions for the development of science than exist abroad. Then, the scientists won’t leave. What else can you do? Certainly, there’s a need for a system of measures for our researchers and to stop this outflow. It’s hard to estimate the scope of the losses, but I think they are high. It’s necessary to offer benefits and increase the financing so that, apart from prestige, there should also be a proper material basis for it,” he said.
The RAS has a major package of proposals submitted to the government as to how to organize the work of institutes and offer them more freedom. It is difficult to compete for science with the whole world. It is necessary to unshackle initiative and the creativity of scientists and give them a chance to work conveniently in the country, according to Sergeyev.
On April 8, the Russian Ministry of Justice delisted Amnesty International’s Moscow Office from the register of the representative offices of the international organizations and foreign NGOs, effectively closing it down alongside with offices of Human Rights Watch, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, Friedrich Ebert Foundation and other organizations. This decision was taken “in connection with the discovered violations of the Russian legislation.”
Reacting to the news, Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, said: “The authorities are deeply mistaken if they believe that by closing down our office in Moscow they will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights violations. We continue undeterred to work to ensure that people in Russia are able to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. We will redouble our efforts to expose Russia’s egregious human rights violations both at home and abroad.”
Callamard added: “We will never stop fighting for the release of prisoners of conscience unjustly detained for standing up for human rights. We will continue to defend independent journalism’s ability to report facts, free of the Russian government’s intervention. We will continue to work relentlessly to ensure that all those who are responsible for committing grave human rights violations, whether in Russia, Ukraine or Syria, face justice. Put simply, we will never give up.”
Since February 24, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Rights Without Borders and many independent Research Organizations and Think Tanks have monitored and documented step-by-step developments, chronicled the global effects of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Monographs and books have already published around the world. For instance, Amnesty International has released well-written reports that Russian military forces have extra-judicially executed civilians in Ukraine in apparent war crimes published in new testimony following on-the-ground research.
“In recent weeks, we have gathered evidence that Russian forces have committed extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings, which must be investigated as likely war crimes. Testimonies shows that unarmed civilians in Ukraine are being killed in their homes and streets in acts of unspeakable cruelty and shocking brutality. The intentional killing of civilians is a human rights violation and a war crime. These deaths must be thoroughly investigated, and those responsible must be prosecuted, including up the chain of command,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.
To date, Amnesty International has obtained evidence that civilians were killed in indiscriminate attacks in Kharkiv and Sumy Oblast, documented an airstrike that killed civilians queueing for food in Chernihiv, and gathered evidence from civilians living under siege in Kharkiv, Izium and Mariupol. Russian military’s siege warfare tactics in Ukraine, marked by relentless indiscriminate attacks on densely-populated areas, are unlawfully killing civilians in several cities.
The Kremlin’s ruthless crackdown stifles independent journalism, anti-war movements, human rights and other non-profit organizations. The Justice Ministry has created a unified register of individuals designated as foreign agents, and for NGOs. It chooses to persecute all kinds of foreign NGOs, considered as “undesirable” and providing any kind of financial support for civil society organizations and activists.
Earlier for instance, NGOs such as the Future of Russia Foundation (UK), European Choice (France), Khodorkovsky Foundation (UK), and Oxford Russia Fund (UK), the Civic Assistance Committee and the Memorial Human Rights Center’s Migration Rights Network, the Anti-Corruption Foundation and the Citizens’ Rights Protection Foundation (FBK and FZPG, and many others were listed as foreign-agent NGOs in the Russian Federation.
As matter of facts, contemporary political history shows the level of degradation of the civil society in Russia. These have practically raised much public concern especially for academics, experts and the civil society.
The U.S. based Freedom House says that “democracy is under assault” and that the effects are evident not just in authoritarian states like Russia and China, but also in countries with a long track record of upholding basic rights and freedoms around the world. According to the report by the Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2020, assesses the political rights and civil liberties of 210 countries and territories worldwide.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a special military operation, after both the Federation Council and the State Duma (legislative chambers) approved the implementation of the presidential decision that has since sparked debates, analysis and criticisms throughout the world. It has resultantly pushed the United States and Canada, European Union members, Australia, New Zealand and many other external countries to impose stringent sanctions against the Russian Federation.
A profound Hadith declares that the month of Ramadan was when the three Abrahamic Religions began to receive their Books of Revelation. This Hadith, cited by ibn Kathir in elucidating Qur’an 2:185; states that Ramadan is a very special month because this one month in the Islamic lunar calendar was the same month when four of God’s books of revelations were sent down to four special Prophets: Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
Ibn Kathir states: Imam Ahmad reported Wathilah bin Al-Asqa` said that Allah’s Messenger said: “The Suhuf (Pages) of Ibrahim were revealed during the first night of Ramadan. The Torah was revealed during the sixth night of Ramadan. The Injil was revealed during the thirteenth night of Ramadan and Allah revealed the Qur’an on the twenty-fourth night of Ramadan.” (Ahmad 4:107 and Musnad 177025).
So Ramadan’s revelation roots should stimulate Imams, Rabbis, Priests and Ministers to include in their sermons during Ramadan some positive thoughts that offer insight into each other’s Sacred Scriptures.
If one believes that there is only one God who is revealed by many different inspired prophets, then we should be able to learn more about God’s will by gaining insights into our own unique revelation, from other revelations of that one God. Since all monotheistic scriptures come from the one and only God, we should view other scriptures as potentially enriching our understanding and appreciation of our own scripture.
“And before it (the Qur’an) was the (Torah) scripture of Moses to lead and as a mercy. And this (Qur’an) is a confirming Book in an Arabic tongue to warn those who have wronged and as good tidings to the doers of good.” (Qur’an 46:12)
Although the Qur’an states: “Do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, but say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.” (29:46)
In spite of this anti-zero sum philosophy most Muslim Polemicists argued that Tahrif meant not only did Jews interpret the Hebrew Bible wrongly but that they actually changed the written text of the Hebrew Bible.
One of the most respected scholars of Islam, Camilla Adang, states: “The Qurʾān more than once accuses the Israelites, the Jews, and the People of the Book in general, of having deliberately changed the word of God as revealed in the Torah and of passing off as God’s revelation something they themselves wrote (Q 2:75-9; 4:46; 5:13).
They are charged with confounding the truth with falsehood (Q 2:42; 3:71); concealing the truth (Q 3:187), hiding part of the book (Q 6:91), or twisting their tongues when reciting the book (Q 3:78). In some verses we find a combination of allegations (Q 2:42; 3:71; 4:46).
What may be at the root of these allegations is that the Jews denied that (Prophet) Muhammad was mentioned in their scripture. Since the Qurʾān does not always explicitly state how, when, and by whom this misrepresentation (known as taḥrīf ) was effected, some authors ascribe a major role to Ezra, and different interpretations of the relevant verses soon arose. According to one, the Jews did not corrupt the text of their scripture, but merely misrepresented its contents.
The other view, which developed somewhat later and seems to be held by a majority of Muslims, asserts that the Israelites and later the Jews changed the written text of the Torah, adding to and deleting from it as they pleased. Its most vocal and influential representative was Ibn Ḥazm of Cordoba (d. 456/1064)
Professor Emanuel Tov, the Magnes Professor of Bible (emeritus) at the Hebrew University points out an example of text varieties from a “poem towards the end of Deuteronomy (32:1–43), also known as the Song of Moses, contains a passage (Deut 32:8) which describes the early days of the world, when God Elyon, “Most High,” fixed (or divided up) the boundaries of the world’s peoples in accordance with the number (12) of the sons of Israel”. (Deuteronomy 32:8)
When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the (12) sons of Israel. The final word (Israel) has several differences variants:
According to the Masoretic version, the Most High divides the peoples of the world specifically into the number of the sons of Israel, ostensibly a reference to the 70 descendants of Jacob that came to Egypt according to Deuteronomy 10:22 (as well as Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in MT).
This is a strange claim: what is so significant about this number? If anything, as noted above, the symbolism goes in the opposite direction: the number (70) of Jacob’s descendants represents the (70 different) peoples of the world.
In contrast, the reading in 4Qumran Deuteronomy and the Greek translation makes perfect sense: “The Most High divided all the peoples of the world between the divine beings, with each people possessing their own deity. Indeed, the next verse continues this point nicely: Deuteronomy 32:9 “For YHWH’s portion is His people; Jacob, God’s own allotment.”
Or as Prophet Micah 4:5 states: “All the (other) peoples walk each in the name of its god; and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.”
The Masoretic Text’s “sons of Israel” reflects a conscious public intervention in the text by a scribe uncomfortable with the seemingly polytheistic image of divine beings so that scribe de-mythologized the original description by replacing the word “god” with “Israel.”
I think that this imagery is not meant literally to be an assembly of divine beings (polytheism) presided over by a supreme god “(the Most High)” as is familiar from Ugaritic poetry. It is a reference to the obvious truth that other peoples do have other gods (and religions) as also appears in Psalm 82 and 1 Kings 22:19. As Prophet Micah 4:5 states: “All the (other) peoples walk each in the name of its god; and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.”
The Septuagint Greek translation solves the issue by using Messengers of God as the prophets of the one and only God. Prophet Abraham, the Hebrew (Genesis 14:13) was the first, and only prophet, to successfully establish, through the descendants of his two sons, three ongoing monotheistic religions that have lasted into the 21st century: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
In contemporary times, the growth of populist’s movements across the world has sparked a massive debate about the nature of democracy. Few argue that the movement is an essential correction to elitist rules, providing voice to the excluded masses. Other see it as a paramount threat to the erosion of democratic ideals, characterized by demagoguery and the suppression of minority rights. But among these contrasting narratives, a question remains: Is populism the new democracy?
In its most basic sense, democracy is based on the rules of popular sovereignty, in which the legitimacy of governance derives from the consent of the governed. In essence it contains that political power lies with the common masses, who express their will by free and fair elections. However, the truth is often more complex, with elites wielding disproportionate influence by money, media, and entrenched institutions.
On the contrary, populism presents its self as an ultimate choice of the people’s will, by passing old notions and challenging established power structures. They play with the public discontent, pledging to resolve the grievances of common masses neglected by those in power. Yet the populist promise of representing the “true” will of the ordinary people is fraught with peril. Populist rulers employ simple narratives and blaming tactics, demonizing their critics and downplaying democratic norms in the process which in turn derails the system. By appealing to emotions over logic and exploiting loopholes with in a society, populism can sow discord and undermine the fundamentals of democracy. Furthermore, populist leaders prefer short-term gains over long-term benefits, providing simplistic solutions to complex issues which ultimately exacerbate societal divisions and polarizes the society even more.
The erosion of democratic institutions and the concentration of power in the hands of a one person can pave the way for authoritarianism, as evident in the case of India where the prime minister Narendra Modi won second time and removed the special status of Kashmir and the promotion of Hindutva ideology is fracturing the society which was often extoled for its miscellaneous cultural heritage and democratic quintessential. Moreover, populism is not synonymous with the basic sprit of democratic participation. While populist movements may claim to speak for the masses, they often rest upon exclusionary rhetoric and marginalized dissenting people, specifically those of supressed groups. True democracy demands strong protections for minority rights and a robust commitment to inclusive decision-making, qualities which populism lacks.
Because of the above-mentioned factors populism, the rise of populism creates serious concerns about the future of democracy. As populist rulers acquire power, they undermine democratic institutions, they risk making a vicious cycle of authoritarianism and popular discontent. How it would be a mistake to dismiss it as inherently anti-democratic. At its best, populism can serve as an urgent call to entrenched leaders, forcing them to resolve the problems ordinary masses and address the systemic inequalities. But the populists’ movements have always stood resolute for advocating positive change and minimizing the influence of entrenched institutions and the elite working for their own benefits.
Though the relation between populism and democracy is complicated. Populism can act as a way of addressing the challenges faced by the masses but its consequences for the democratic process are far more lethal. As we navigate the choppy waters of contemporary politics, it is tantamount to stay alert in protecting the underlying fundamentals of democracy. There is a dire need to strike a balance between the two to ensure that it does not become a new democracy but rather act as a spur for its revitalization. Because, the democratic ideals advocate for the inclusion of people within a democratic system and, instead, populism sometimes takes the form of authoritarianism and dictatorial regimes.