Jihad vs MacWorld

According to Barber Jihad and MacWorld’s are two seemingly opposing paradigms that share a common trait; they both threaten democracy. In the meantime network based organisational structures, Jihad /Macworld belong to this category are thought to foster democracy. How would you unfold this paradox?


I would agree with Barber, both paradigms do threaten democracy, as the author so aptly captures, ‘their common thread is an indifference to civil liberty’ (Barber, 2003).Yet I find it difficult to reconcile how Jihad or MacWorld are fostering democracy. Perhaps if I consider them in isolation, I could fathom how they may foster democracy.In this article, I would like to argue that they offer an element of democracy in their respective structures but not in the greater sense that the question purposes.

With my argument in mind, I feel it would be prudent to consider, if MacWorld does foster democracy?Democracy is dependent on the majority of rule. If like Barber, we recognise MacWorld as the development and exploitation of technology, communications, economics and information, then we look to the structure of this, in how do we as members of Macworld contribute, do we have a voice and are the majority ruling? If MacWorld is becoming homogenised, then is this true of the ownership of such multinational corporations. Consider the leading institutes; Coco-Cola, Mac Donald’s, and media providers such as Star TV and Myspace. The latter are owned by Rupert Murdoch, he seems here to be an example of how the world’s leading media platforms are being bought by one man and his empire. Does this structure foster democracy? My initial reaction is to say no but let use delve deeper. Media products are consumed and bought, in that, there is a sense of a choice and the choice is our vote as the public. By Buying and consuming certain products, we are signalling an acceptance with the product and the provider. This seems to show how the majority is passing their rule. But are we consuming certain products because there is no alternative or are perhaps the alternatives harder to access? Or is it because of aggressive advertising? It would seem that they all play a vital role. The rub of the argument is suggesting that our choice in consumption is our vote and Macworld is giving us a voice albeit a limited one.

In terms of Jihad, I can perhaps conceive an element of democracy in that; democracy offers freedom of a political voice and the right to petition. Jihad does exercise thier right to political freedom, that is perhaps against the democrat governance from west.Here lies the paradox; jihad uses democrat functions against what it fears.In galvanising the tribal elements of Islamic culture there is a sense that a structure is being used to create something that has democrat elements,in that there is a hierarchy that is said to be protecting its people and ensuring their rights. Jihad is said to be opposed to Macworld, yet it utilizes MacWorld’s success such as the web , and living in societies that exhort MacWorld’s ideals . What I can deuce from this, is that , Jihad and Macworld inhabit the same spaces, employ elements of democracy as network based structures but they both at the same time undermine the principles of democracy.