Discourses of democracy in the aftermath of 9/11 and other events: protectivism versus humanitarianism

Abstract

In responding to the events of 11 September 2001-the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington-George W. Bush announced to the world that democracy itself was under attack, and that such an attack 1 represented a threat to democracy. Such an interpretation of these events, along with portraying Western democracy as a victim in need of protection and as 'good'-and establishing thereby the moral high ground-also represented one of the main discourses in which the Tampa refugees were discussed in Australia, and has continued to be a prominent discourse in public discussion within Australia about the War on Terror, the Bali Bombings and both refugees and detention centres. Drawing on a detailed analysis of letters to the editor published in The Australian in the aftermath of 9/11, this paper seeks to show not only that discussion of the events of 2001 and 2002 has tended to coalesce around two apparently irreconcilable discourses 2-that of the aforementioned desire to protect democracy or 'our way of life' versus that expressive of a kind of 'globalized humanitarianism'-but that these discourses are indeed not so much irreconcilable but share a common ground along with common stakes and ends. The first parts of this paper thus focus on unpacking these two contrasting discourses as initially foregrounded in letters to the editor published in The Australian in the aftermath of 9/11. The second section will then go on to consider the way in which these discourses are centred around democracy, suggesting that, despite their apparent irreconcilability, each discourse makes very similar assumptions about and deployments of democracy. Finally, we consider these discourses in the light of Chantal Mouffe's and Slavoj Ž ižek's concerns about these assumptions and conclude that, given these discrepancies concerning the nature of democracy, the time has come for a re-evaluation of democracy itself. Context Distributed nationally six days of the week, with almost a full page devoted to letters, The Australian provides a national forum for public expression concerning current events. We followed these letters for a period of twelve weeks (11 September to 3 December 2001), a period encompassing 9/11, the arrival of the Tampa, and the beginning of the War on Terror, and also Australia's federal election of 11 November 2001. We specifically chose to concentrate on this period as it appeared to be these events at the end of 2001 that led to certain positions and attitudes being foregrounded

Discursive Australia: Refugees, Australianness, and the Australian Public Sphere

“…Here, proponents of humanitarian discourses clash with those of protectivist discourses over such issues as how we should treat refugees, how we should see those key institutions directly concerned with the treatment of refugees, and, of course, just what it means to be Australian. This division, as we have already shown here (also see Mummery & Rodan, 2003), has been maintained in particular through a process of ongoing name-calling. For instance, those holding to the other discursive position are called bleeding hearts, the chattering classes, racists, xenophobic, stony hearts and so forth: 'I would rather be known as having a "bleeding heart" than a "stony heart"' (Morgan, 5 Feb. 2002 WA).…”

“…The discussion within Australia of events of the last five years, such as 9/11, the Bali Bombing, the Tampa and the Children Overboard affair, the Cronulla Riots, as well as the numbers of refugees approaching Australian shores, has typically fallen into a binarized form with public discourses coalescing around calls for either 'protectivism' or 'humanitarianism' (Mummery & Rodan, 2003). This discursive framework has in turn instantiated an ongoing debate concerning the issue of what it means to be Australian, and who is or should be included or excluded from this national identity, questions which have been particularly contentious in recent years.…”

Going Overboard? Representing Hazara Afghan Refugees as Just Like Us

“…In Marking Time, the Brackley Federation Festival Committee serves as a mouthpiece for a range of conflicting views about asylum seekers that were circulating in Australia between 2001 and2004 (Gale;Mummery and Rodan). Their deliberations accentuate the contrasting opinions against the Hazara community, including resentment at their presence in the town, wariness of their religion and possible ''terrorist'' connections, and doubt about their ability to become ''Australian''.…”

Manipulative silences and the politics of representation ofboat childrenin Australian print media

“…Later, the Howard coalition government (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007) reportedly took a 'tough stand' towards 'illegal immigrants' (Mummery and Rodan 2003;Kelly 2006). The Rudd/Gillard Labour governments (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013) campaigned to 'stop the boats' (Martin 2015;Giannacopoulos 2013) and they couched their stance in humanitarian terms.…”