|
Flash to neocons (and America): Freedom is not government
An editorial in the April 10 New York Post epitomizes the utter fatuousness of neoconservatives’ assumptions about “democracy”—a word they continually misuse—and of their belief that it can be easily implanted in Muslim countries:
The joyous celebrations that greeted coalition forces yesterday in Baghdad indicate that something new may be afoot in Iraq—perhaps, for the first time in the Arab world: a genuine yearning for democratic government. [Italics added.]The Post could not be more wrong. The celebrations in Baghdad indicated that the people were happy to be relieved of cruel oppression, not that they longed for any particular form of government, nor, for that matter, that they are capable of any government. As the subsequent horrendous looting in Baghdad suggests, such mass enthusiasm may reveal the very opposite of a will and readiness to live under the rule of law. The Duke of Wellington, no friend of mass democracy, put it very well in a letter he wrote in 1811 while campaigning against Napoleon’s forces in Spain and Portugal:
The enthusiasm of the people is very fine and looks well in print; but I have never known it to produce anything but confusion. In France what was called enthusiaism was power and tyranny, acting through the medium of popular societies, which have ended by overturning Europe and establishing the most powerful and dreadful tyranny that ever existed … I therefore urge you, wherever you go, to trust nothing to the enthusiasm of the people. Give them a strong and just and, if possible, a good government; but, above all, a strong one, which shall enforce them to do their duty by themselves and their country.I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the neoconservatives have been completely correct in their call for the overthrow the Hussein regime—and disastrously foolish in their expectation that all peoples on earth are equally ready for democracy. As Thomas Sowell as written, before there can be a successful democracy, there must be first be a tradition of liberty under the rule of law. A further problem is that “democracy,” properly understood, is not a desideratum. Democracy does not mean freedom or individual rights or rule of law or representative institutions or limited government or separation of powers or checks and balances or any of the other good things we say we believe in. It simply means rule by the people, which, as our founders well understood, can be as lawless and tyrannical as rule by a single man or a despotical elite. Up through the mid 20th century, we described our form of government not as a simple “democracy” but as a federal republic, a representative republic, a constitutional, democratic republic. We saw America as a “mixed government,” a republican balancing of political forces that assures liberty, not a democratic unitary state. Our more recent description of America as a pure democracy, and thus as an expression of pure will, has coincided with a devastating loss of traditional political—and cultural—understandings.
Therefore, since pure democracy is neither possible for the people of Iraq at this stage of their history nor desirable for any society, it would be better if we spoke, not of “democratizing” Iraq, but of helping it acquire a more decent, representative, and free government under the rule of law. Fortunately, some members of the administration, including President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, do occasionally speak in those more moderate and sensible terms. The same cannot be said of the neoconservatives. Comments
(Oops) I meant to say: Excellent little post, Mr. Auster. Posted by: Paul Cella on April 13, 2003 2:09 AMSkepticism is certainly in order, and you may well be right, Mr. Auster, but let us not forget that similar things have been said about Germany, Japan, or South Korea, or for that matter all of Latin America. Turkey also comes to mind. Posted by: Gracián on April 13, 2003 10:27 AMA more nuanced way of putting this would be that wherever you go, people must have a certain amount of government, so a reasonably safe and orderly society can exist. Some restraints are always mandatory; it’s the fatal flaw in the anarchists’ argument, and to some extent in that of the libertarians. Look, Iraq is not unique in the sense that a breakdown of government has produced disorder. When the Germans invaded in May 1940, the Dutch town where we lived was temporarily evacuated, for our safety. There were, however, French and Belgian troops present. Well, in a week or so the Germans had won and the civilians were allowed to return - to devastated homes. Busted doors and windows, all kinds of stuff stolen. Did the Germans do all this? No, the Germans were well-disciplined; the perpetrators had been our allies, the Belgian and French soldiers, now vanished for parts south. They’d even crapped in the beds. (It’s a cultural thing; “Le chie-en-lit”). Come September 1944, we were liberated by Polish troops trained in England. (Precious little thanks the Poles got for their trouble, but that’s another story). Anyway, this time widespread ciminality exploded, under the guise of settling scores with people who had been “wrong”. Shaving the heads of girls who had associated with Germans was the least of it; there was robbery, rape and murder, most of it never dealt with. My father was asked to join the “internal forces” orchestrating this mayhem but he got disgusted and told them to stuff it. As to Iraq’s future form of government, let’s remember that the bulk of any population is not too particular about political details as long as they have a chance at reasonably good lives; the American Founding Fathers too were an elite minority. So let’s hope that the Iraqi refugees we’re sending over have absorbed some of our better notions, and give them a chance. Posted by: Wim on April 14, 2003 11:39 AMIt seems possible Wim has come close to the truth with the idea (worded slightly differently) that the bulk of any population is concerned more with the chances of leading reasonably comfortable lives than with the form of government. This certainly seems true for Europe and America. But I question whether an Islamic country would voluntarily consent to dominance by non-Islamic peoples. It would be interesting to know whether there are Islamic cultures satisfied with dominance by non-Islamic people. (Turkey might be the example.) Posted by: P Murgos on April 14, 2003 8:11 PMOne point that seems to have been missed in regard to Turkey is that Turkey is now some 98% Muslim. Though it is liberal by Muslim standards, the Turkish regime has indulged in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing against Christian minorities since its inception in the 1920s and imposes severe restrictions on the remnant of Christians still living there - including those of Turkish ethnicity. Thus, the idea that Turkey is an example of Muslims living agreeably under non-Muslim rule is simply not accurate. Turkey is very much under Islamic rule. It just happens to be a more liberal form than what is found in Saudi Arabia, for example. Posted by: Carl on April 14, 2003 9:31 PMThanks to Carl for the helpful information. (Amazing that the Bush Administration’s “friend” Turkey is not vilified as South Africa was for apartheid.) Still, Turkey wants to be part of the EU, which the commentators here expect (correctly it seems) to abolish the cultures of its members. Turkish leaders must see this threat, yet Turkey supposedly craves joining the EU. Posted by: P Murgos on April 15, 2003 7:47 PM |