Why humanism?

In the case of Iran the arguments in favor of the reformist movement led by Mir-Hosein Mousavi are so many few even bother to begin to list them.

To the Iranian reformists their needs are so obvious and the opposition towards them so ideologically ingrained in the ruling military-religious classes it almost seems hopeless to explain them, and as such demands for free press, for due process, release of political prisoners and equality of human rights become ideological manifestos.

In the mind of the current Iranian regime it simply aligns them with the West. And whether or not Mousavi is more bening towards the West than Ahmadinejad, or Rafsanjani more inclined towards fiscal prudence over revolutionary idealism than Khamenei, any statement resembling support for Western values are automatically perceved as a threat to the Iranian revolution.

Answering the question: Why modernity?

Modernity has lived a troubled existence in the West, with attitudes swinging between wild optimism and cultural pessimism.

It is noteworthy that for all the lack of admirable results of the various Islamic regimes, these cultures are exceedingly optimistic with regards to the future of Islamic rule, while the West for all its undeniable achievements linger in a state, where the majority of its cultural product signals fatigue.

When it comes to literature the most significant contributions - if not the most bestselling - comes from third world authors. When it comes to one the major challenges of the 21st century and beyond, the struggle for human rights, the most outspoken and progressive symbols appear in the dictatorial regimes, where oppression is worst.

The West has a firm grasp on the technological development associated with modernity, and it is struggling to embrace ecological principles of recycling and clean energy, but when it comes to the fundamental democratic principles of free speech, parliamentarism and human (and civil) rights, we often fail to account for these in rational terms and more or less present them as competing religious dogma.

Also, we express confusion or arrogance when confronted with anti-Western sentiments, because how can the benefits not be obvious to the less developed regions of the world? Arrogantly we ignore the fact that the price of modernization in the West has often been paid by the very countries we now accuse of back-paddling on progress.

And we often dismiss any discussion of the actual social and cultural fall-out from the Western modernization progress, particularly when counter-arguments are formed by proponents of authoritarianism, such as Islamic theocrats. Perhaps we need to be less monochrome and accept to answer the question: "Why modernity?"

Basic principles of global humanism

Having studied now for several years the concepts of "Arab Renaissance" and a hypothetical "Islamic Reformation" I have also delved into the four special UN Development Reports for the Arab region (the conclusions of these reports are also applicable to Iran).

I often marvelled at the way some of the advice was presented without explanation of how and why particular policies would foster progress. The same is my overall experience when I hear critics of political Islam at work or read national security experts elaborate on the global challenge to counter terrorism and political Islam.

We simply do not back up our value judgements with facts, and when we do the facts are closely tied to our own economic or military interests, making it appear that the West is largely advising others to do what would be beneficial to Western regimes.

It should be unnecessary to point out that given the colonialialist and imperialist past, the West has a real credibility problem when comes to geopolitical discussions as lofty as these.

So, in order to move forward from the current climate of mutual suspicion, and to improve the chances our most valuable cultural export is accepted to a higher degree than now, we should establish some ground rules:

1) What benefits the security of one nation generally benefits the international security

2) The democratization of the world is a project in line with natural cultural development in a high technological context

3) The purpose of the cultural export of humanist values is not supposed to directly serve Western interests, nor are they an expression of inherent Western superiority. The West is merely a functional prototype capable of lending experiences to make for a safer and quicker transition

For the non-democratic regimes it is important to understand some basic principles of modernity as well:

1) The quest for modernization of a society does not imply condemnation of cultural traditions or fundamental principles, whether these can be kept intact or must be discarded or modified to suit the goal (Western history is hardly democratic or humane either)

2) Progressive values should not be implemented in a way or at a speed that fundamentally upsets the cultural coherence or social stability of the nation

3) The implementation of democratic principles are, however, as much a political imperative as it is a moral agenda. Modern society is not just about creating a safe and comfortable environment for the people or providing sexual freedom. Open, transparent and cooperative nation-states are, an age of weapons of mass destruction, crucial to the survival of mankind.

The foundation of humanism is survival

Finally, it is important to understand that the Western cultural, political and economic hegemony is "deserved" in the sense that it is a natural product of a more efficient system of governance.

The efficiency of modern society rests on 3 pillars:

1) Democracy, including parliamentarism (active participation in public debate, free press, free speech), because it allows for the most complex heuristic process prior to decision-making. This, in turn, makes for fewer blind spots and less idiosyncratic policies. Charting the course of future society becomes more inclusive and more reality-adequate.

2) Humanism, namely civil rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, securing a minimum standard for treatment of citizens and explaining the nature of public mandate as opposed to power based mandate or divine mandate. Respect of religious freedom is incorporated, but the mandate of the people is not only reasonable to the moral mind, but also enforced by nature itself, as people and even animals revolt against abuse.

3) Economic progress, since this is a prerequisite for education, control of the growth of the population, effective distribution of ressources, functioning government institutions and, in the long term, national stability and the safety of the citizens. Scarcity is the primary source of conflict between individuals, groups and nations, and as such policies that directly counter the overall economic progress of a nation also counters the cultural progress of all nations.

This does not mean the West is exempt from criticism of its own failings or in a position to enforce specific economic policies on other nations. Neither does it mean that the West possesses a natural, infinite or incontestable supremacy or superiority in the world.

But the general decline of the universal standards of a new, progressive society - one often associated with the West or titled "Westernization" - would be a great loss to mankind and a harbinger of the collapse of the human project to secure its own continous existence on Earth.

In brief, considering that...


...it is prudent for all people and nations to embrace the notion that "if there is a future for mankind, it will be high technological, ecologically sustainable and humane."

This is essentially the rational basis for progressive Western ideals.

More than coincedentially, these values also provide the most comfortable climate for the individual, but merely tending to the desires of individuals or fostering rampant individualism should not and cannot be the primary goal.

Neither are these ideals any more an expression of Western fundamentalism than the natural urge of any living to survive is an expression of "biological fundamentalism".

It is simply what the current historical age demands of us all, and needs that must be addressed if any of our minor disagreements and discussions are to have any relevance to the future.