The veto power of the five permanent UN members blocks collective will, leading the audience to perceive the system as unjust and unrepresentative
DEMOCRACY is celebrated as the pinnacle of governance, embodying the ideals of freedom and representation. In contemporary society, the vast majority of governments operate as elected democracies, determined through the cornerstone process of elections. Within this vibrant system, citizens wield the power to select their leaders, casting their votes like brushstrokes on the canvas of political destiny. These elected officials, who serve a designated term, are entrusted with steering the nation. However, should they lose public confidence, mechanisms such as a motion of no confidence provide an opportunity to shift leadership, ensuring that the voices of the electorate remain paramount in the political arena.
Although this form of democratic rule has prevailed in some form for thousands of years, modern elective democracy, which grants all adults the right to vote and contest elections, has existed for only two centuries. It is said that the first country to adopt this form of democracy was the United States in 1788, when George Washington was elected its inaugural president. Yet in that election, only a select segment of the populace held the right to vote. Thereafter, New Zealand became the first country to grant universal adult suffrage, including women. Even today, democracies across the globe manifest in myriad forms, with divergent electoral mechanisms and conditional voting rights. Thus, three millennia on, the discourse on democracy and its modalities persists unabated, without a universally agreed-upon model.
Veto Power and Its Effect
Consider the United Nations, which comprises nearly 190 member states, where equal rights and privileges are often elusive. Only the five nuclear powers possess the veto right. The Security Council, comprising 15 members, designates the five: The United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and France. The remaining nine members rotate every month. In voting, even if all members agree on a resolution, a single dissent from any of the five permanent members can block it. This has been observed repeatedly in recent times: the United States has blocked every Security Council proposal that supports Palestine. Sometimes, Russia or China also exercises this veto power.
This dynamic hinders efforts toward global peace and justice, creating frustration as the veto power of the five permanent members blocks collective will, leading the audience to perceive the system as unjust and unrepresentative.
A closer look at the history of democracy reveals a marked increase in its adoption following the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1923. As nations in Europe and the Muslim World emerged from Ottoman control, they began to embrace democratic governance more seriously. By 1946, following the conclusion of World War II, democracy spread to every corner of the globe. The global populace yearned for elected governments in their lands, too, much like India, which adopted this system for the first time after gaining independence in 1947. Yet, intriguingly, even as democratic governments proliferated worldwide, 45 countries still retain a monarchy in one form or another, including the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Vatican City, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Thailand, and others. Some Muslim states also retain a kingship: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Morocco, Qatar, and others.
Totalitarian Regimes
In various monarchies, some function primarily as symbolic institutions, in which elected representatives hold absolute power, while the authority of the monarch is thoughtfully limited, as observed in Britain. In others, the king’s word is final, rendering elected governments little more than figureheads, as in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Jordan, and beyond. Notably, influential countries that advocate democracy, along with international organisations such as the United Nations, acknowledge these totalitarian regimes while also promoting democratic development. This duplicitous policy on democracy stems not merely from pragmatic contradictions but from repeated instances over the past half-century in which parties or leaders elected through democratic processes that are disliked by global powers were forcibly ousted, sometimes through military intervention, at others by fomenting internal revolts, or even via the United Nations itself.
Such episodes prompt significant inquiries regarding the fundamental nature of democracy. One key question is whether democracy is susceptible to rapid changes initiated by those in power. Additionally, it raises the issue of how democracy is differentiated from autocracy or dictatorship. Since the establishment of the United Nations, during what is frequently referred to as a democratic era, various democratically elected Muslim governments in the Middle East and Africa have been destabilised through interventions orchestrated by Western powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. A notable example is Iran, where in 1953, the democratic government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown with assistance from the Central Intelligence Agency. This intervention occurred primarily because Mossadegh decided to withhold free access to Iranian oil for Britain, as he sought to allocate oil revenues to the stabilisation of Iran’s economy. Under the guise of a popular uprising, his government fell, paving the way for Reza Shah Pahlavi to be installed as king.
In 1966, Indonesia witnessed the CIA inciting civil unrest and orchestrating a military coup that toppled President Ahmed Sukarno’s democratic government, paving the way for a martial dictatorship. Afghanistan soon followed suit: The CIA sowed chaos in 1970, ousting King Mohammad Zahir Shah’s government in 1973. Russia then intervened in 1978, sparking a brutal civil war that raged until 1992. From 2001 to 2021, America dominated, martyring millions of Afghan Muslims and reducing the nation to rubble. In 1992, the elected government of Algeria’s Islamic Salvation Army faced significant challenges and ultimately met a similar fate. Subsequently, Gambia experienced a comparable situation. In 2003, Iraq’s regime, led by Saddam Hussein, was overthrown through an invasion orchestrated by the United States, resulting in widespread casualties and the exploitation of oil resources. This occurred under the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, a claim that was later discredited. The United Kingdom issued an apology for its role; however, no reparations were provided. As a consequence of these events, Iraq continues to grapple with economic vulnerabilities to this day.
In 2006, Hamas won a clear majority in Palestine’s general elections, establishing a popular government across Gaza and beyond. In 2007, Israel arrested elected parliamentarians and ministers, imposed economic blockades, and removed Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh from power. This led to a prolonged blockade of Gaza, resulting in significant challenges for the approximately three million residents in the region. This situation has continued over the years. The 2011 Arab Spring marked a profound socio-political upheaval, triggering a wave of instability across 17 Muslim-majority nations, including Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. This period was characterised by widespread protests and civil unrest, leading to the overthrow of several regimes. The movement’s consequences varied significantly across different countries, with some experiencing regime change while others faced repression and escalation of conflict.
In 2013, Mohamed Morsi, representing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, received 52 per cent of the vote before being overthrown in a military coup that the CIA reportedly supported. Following his removal from power, he was imprisoned and ultimately lost his life while in custody. Turkey faced a failed military putsch against its democratic government in 2016; Malaysia and the Maldives saw similar bids in 2018. Once again, the focus shifts to Iran. On December 28, 2025, a wave of turmoil swept through the nation as Israeli and American intelligence agencies fuelled intense riots in an attempt to challenge the existing regime.
Geopolitical Motives
It is heartbreaking to witness the struggles and unrest that the people are facing during these turbulent times. The streets echoed with anguish as hundreds of Iranians lost their lives, their cries piercing through the turmoil. Mosques, once symbols of solace, were engulfed in flames, their minarets silhouetted against the fiery sky. Bazaars, vibrant with life and commerce, were reduced to smouldering ruins, their goods consumed by the indiscriminate wrath of the inferno. With brazen admission, America sought to replace elected leadership with Reza Shah Pahlavi’s grandson as king, eradicating democracy once more. When the uprising failed, US forces encircled Iran, intent on razing this cradle of millennia-old civilisation, like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, to seize its oil and minerals.
Western Africa faces a similar challenge. The common thread among these nations is that their people and leaders aspired to establish Islamic democratic governance. They rejected American dominance and sought to manage their resources independently to ensure survival, growth, and prosperity. Thus, while America and Europe covet the region’s oil, natural wealth, and cultural heritage, seeking to paint it in their colours, they have relentlessly crushed every Islamic revivalist movement this past century. Under democracy’s banner, they unleash Mongol-like havoc to subjugate Islamic forces, seize their resources, and enslave Muslims worldwide.
The global narrative often attributes unrest, conflict, and instability within Muslim-majority regions to the actions and beliefs of those populations. However, recent developments in Gaza, Venezuela, and Iran highlight the need for a more nuanced analysis of the underlying geopolitical motives driving US and European policies, often obscured by the rhetoric of promoting democracy. Understanding these dynamics requires a critical examination of the interplay between international relations and domestic agendas.
_______________
Dr Tasleem Ahmad Rehmani is the president of the Muslim Political Council of India and a prominent political analyst. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them.
Graphics courtesy: LawBhoomi
