Democracy and Self-Determination
Here in America, those two concepts are basically one and the same. The idea of the ballot being the rightful expression of political will is so deeply ingrained in our civic DNA that it borders on nonsense to suggest that non-democratic systems nevertheless produce results that are legitimate in the cultural context in which they occur. Democracy has so many evident virtues (to us) and has worked so well (for us). It seems only natural to assume that the rest of the world should embrace it with gratitude and enthusiasm, whether they like it or not.
Don’t get me wrong: democracy has lots to recommend it, when you have a citizenry that is ready and willing to accept the responsibilities of self-government and a social fabric strong enough to absorb the many stresses and tensions associated with open debate and contests over power between factions with deeply different philosophies of governance. Like a marathon, it’s a great accomplishment, but it’s a foolish thing to try unless you’ve had training.
Democracy is the government of a strong society. Voting may seem fine and dandy, but it takes an enormous amount of trust and courage for a ruling party to peacefully turn over the government to hated rivals after a bitterly-contested election. To take that step, you have to believe deeply in the wisdom of the people and accept the possibility that variation from your ideology does not equal treason or heresy. If you fear your neighbors or hold to a rigid set of beliefs that admits no error, democracy when you lose is simply surrendering to the enemy without firing a shot. And when you win, it is license to reward you friends and punish your enemies without limit.
Without trust, without national unity, without a citizenry and without laws, democracy is a hollow exercise: cynical at best, the prelude and pretext to hideous violence at worst. Foreign armies can set up polls, foreign officials can walk a nervous population through the gestures of marking ballots and counting returns. Favored candidates can declare victory and, under heavy guard, take office. This does not a democracy make.
Some people celebrate what just happened in Iraq. As a proud American with a deep love of freedom and democracy, I can honestly say that it sickens me and breaks my heart. Even the authors of our own Constitution recognized that democracy without the rule of law is simply tyranny of a different sort (“tyranny of the majority” was their memorable phrase). In their view, this was a far more terrifying sort than the authoritarianism of kings or generals, because it substituted to fickle passion of the mob for the stately, if self-serving, motives of the established order. The views of the founders are frequently invoked these days in the context of what’s going on in Iraq. I believe they’d shudder to think that such a perversion of their philosophy was being perpetrated by their descendents. Really, I wonder how simple and credulous we have become that we clamor to celebrate and congratulate ourselves for this sham and trample the real meaning of democracy in the dirt.
Yesterday’s vote in Iraq was built on a steaming pile of lies and violence. After a war of aggression on false pretenses, two years of violent and humiliating occupation, and plans to exploit Iraq’s resources and strategic geography in perpetuity for our own interests, the chutzpa it takes to stand up and congratulate ourselves as “liberators” and “bringers of freedom” is simply staggering. Those who celebrate forcing the hollow rituals of democracy on a violent and divided society where a bloody civil war is the likely outcome are either stupid, brutally cynical, or have sadly permitted whatever human morality they might have to be twisted around like a pretzel to accommodate an abused, maligned and increasingly misplaced patriotism.
Yes, it’s “democracy.” So what? Somehow, we’ve let ourselves believe that the act of casting ballots is an end unto itself, because that’s what’s it’s become here in America. In fact, history shows that many troubled societies are led to freedom, progress and prosperity through non-democratic means (internal, not imposed from without by conquest). Japan overthrew and modernized a feudal despotism in less than a generation, under the leadership of an emperor who was worshipped like a god and a hereditary bureaucracy that was professional but not especially representative. Turkey was dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by an iron-fisted dictator, Ataturk. He envisioned a democracy, but not before he cleared the ground of centuries’ worth of illiberal, corrupt, tribal and religious impediments that would have dragged premature elections into chaos. If he had been for “democracy” first and civil society second, Turkey would certainly be the worse for it today.
The point here isn’t suggest which systems are better or worse, but to point out that different systems – even undemocratic systems – can be better for particular societies at particular points in their history. What’s important is that the societies make their own decisions about these matters, using whatever methods constitute legitimacy inside their own borders.
Arab governments are famously dysfunctional – brutal, corrupt, oppressive. They also come in quite a range of constitutional styles, from absolute monarchies to military dictatorships, theocracies, and “elective dictatorships” (as in Egypt and Algeria). The oppressiveness does not come from the style of governance, but from the underlying social and cultural problems that arise from tribalism and clan loyalty, severe sexual repression, weak traditions of transparency and citizenship, and lack of separation between church and state. Whatever coat of paint you slap over a mess like that, it will start to peel and blister before too long. Certainly some people in these countries wish for a more representative politics, but many others fear – and rightly so – the consequences of majoritarianism without restraint in a winner-take-all culture. Despotism, for all its hideous flaws, at least provides stability. When you’re talking about violence, a state-run monopoly is often preferable to a competitive free-market, if those are your only choices.
Bush is right in a large and vaporous way when he says that terrorism emerges from the sick societies of the Middle East. But with his characteristic impatience for the quick and easy answer, he has pinned America’s and the world’s chances on the solution least likely to be effective by itself: that is, political reform. Bringing freedom to the people of Iraq does not mean giving them the vote. It means breaking the power of the tribes, the clergy, and the men who tyrannize their wives, daughters and sisters. It means dismantling corrupt client-patron systems inside the government and the economy, creating a sense of national identity and citizenship beyond clan and confessional affiliation, and building trust and respect for the impartial administration of law. Once that’s done, Iraqis will give themselves the vote, and be glad to have it. Vote first, and you’re just ensuring that the underlying pathological situation now has a patina of majoritarian legitimacy, which makes the problems that much harder to uproot at the source.
The British undertook the “civilizing project” with great gusto and seriousness in India and elsewhere across their empire. It took several hundred years, and the gritty details of colonialism were not what you would call glittering examples of Western values. The results of this experiment speak for themselves, down to the present day. Like us, their motives combined idealism and venality, but unlike our current leadership, the Brits understood the scope and ambition of what they were trying to achieve and refused to settle for success that was symbolic only.
By combining the stiff-necked self-righteousness of the “liberal” imperialist with the shallow commitment of Bush’s imbecilic faith-based photo-op governing style, we’re not only doing long term harm to American interest, power and prestige, but also doing violence to the genuine ideals of democracy and freedom. We’ve raised impossible expectations with our rhetoric, while our actions have set the worst possible example. They may not have self-determination in Iraq, or civil society or rule of law, but they have Democracy, damn it! Didn’t you see the election? And “democracy,” like “freedom” and “liberty” are the holy words of our crusade. Dissent from this orthodoxy only at your peril.
A traumatized American citizenry celebrates “democracy” in Iraq through clenched teeth, clinging to this last greasy loin-cloth of moral respectability to justify an international policy bordering on the criminally insane. It’s plain rotten that our leaders have put freedom-loving, patriotic American citizens in the position of having to choose between their common sense and their moral self-image, and if I sound angry, I am. I don’t like having my faith in the goodness of this country and its democratic system contingent on accepting lies and self-serving propaganda. And I don’t like that our only path to redemption is to throw another country to the floor of hell in the name of our most cherished values.
8:53:20 AM 
|
|
