DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, president Bush stated that the people behind them indulged in terrorist acts because “they hate freedom”, As is unfortunately all too often the case in the President’s pronouncements, this statement was extremely superficial and uninformed. Al Qaeda does not “hate freedom”, but rather the western ideologies, rooted in Christianity, which are, rightly or wrongly perceived as being historical enemies of Islam.

The most absurd aftermath of this tragic episode was the invasion of Iraq, an action which, in the course of time, received many different justifications and explanations, none of which was even remotely acceptable. The most enduring justification consisted in the need to “bring Democracy” to Iraq, which was then led by a ruthless dictator who had subjected some of his people to acts of considerable savagery. According to current Conventional Wisdom, Democracy is now flourishing and, as a consequence, the people of Iraq are now “free”.

This statement begs a question, in the sense that a correct definition of “freedom” has to be agreed upon, and an assessment then has to be made as to whether this freedom now exists in the newly democratic Iraq to a larger degree than in the preceding years.

Two factors, among many, could easily be chosen as parameters, mainly because in the western psyche they are very intimately connected to the concept of freedom.

The first of these, of course, is the position of women in society. It is safe to say that in the recent past women in Iraq had much greater freedom than they have now, and participated much more actively than they do now in social and political activities. The outlook for the future seems very bleak.

Freedom of Religion also comes to mind: In the pre-invasion Iraq, people of different religious beliefs seemed able to live side by side and even intermarry. The Christian community, a rather small minority, lived in peace and even flourished, while now the Iraqi Christians are intent in fleeing a country in which they seem to have no future.

In many Countries which have never been “liberated” and in which “democracy” has not been imposed these basic issues don’t seem to be a problem.

The concept of “freedom” cannot be limited to the dubious privilege of being allowed to criticise the existing Government, but has to encompass an entire spectrum of social and moral factors.

The fact is that “Democracy” – which means “the rule of the people” – and “freedom” are not synonyms and that these definitions should be reconsidered before new attempts at imposing democracy bring about further debacles. I strongly believe that if the rule of some of the twentieth century’s most ruthless dictators (for example Hitler or Stalin) had been subject to a completely “free and fair” referendum, the existing government would have been confirmed by a landslide. On the other hand, organizations which come to power through perfectly legal elections (I’m thinking of Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which I respect and understand) are not necessarily committed to the safeguard of freedom as we understand it.

The next time a Western Power decides to impose elections – as was the case of Gaza some years back – a firm decision has to be taken beforehand: either the results of the elections are accepted no matter how distasteful they may appear, or else all the western democratic expertise on election-rigging has to be put in place in order to ensure the triumph of the most obedient, acceptable and “freedom-loving” party.