Monday, November 19, 2012



Ranciere idea of democracy as a practice, based on the inscription of the part of those who have no part, is really interesting to me. And what is interesting is the challenge of this redistribution of the visible and sensible by the new comers in a new global scale, and how the western idea of democracy would be stretched and changed by this process.

As Appadurai states - the master-narrative of the Enlightenment was constructed with a certain internal logic and presupposed a certain relationship between reading, representation and the public sphere. But their diaspora across the world, especially since the Ninetieth century, has loosened the internal coherence that held these terms and images together – (p.10).
Images that have been put together again, following the idea that it was possible to export the democracy in the Middle East, by American militaries and government.

Also, what happen when the democratic process of the inscription of the part of those who have no part goes into a direction that is not coherent with the western idea of democracy?
Some years ago I was talking with a woman from Gaza, and while she was explaining to me why she voted for Hamas in 2006, as a protest against the corruption the Fatah government, she presented to me this paradox: the election in the West Bank, when Hamas won, were probably the most controlled democratic election never happened here, every polling station was controlled by international forces to be sure that nobody could cheat, but Hamas won, and nobody liked it.

No comments: