Heart and mind
Heart and mind
Posted 01:16am (Mla time) Feb 02, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the February 2, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
IT'S not without drama, and some of the moments were perfectly moving. That was the spectacle of Iraqis voting in free elections for the first time since 1953, amid the mayhem wreaked by those opposed to them. The picture that appeared on our front page last Monday of an Iraqi woman holding her ID and ballot card as she prepared to vote in her city of Sadr said it all. I remember a similar picture I saw after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, of a woman lifting her veil for the first time in her life. These are great, almost epochal, changes.
Yet for all this, much of the world may be forgiven for having a skeptical, if not cynical, view of the elections in Iraq. "This is democracy," AP quotes an elderly Iraqi woman in a black abaya, who is holding up her thumb stained with purple to show that she voted amid smoke and gunfire. Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi himself says, "(This is) the first time the Iraqis will determine their destiny."
Well, yes and no.
The yes is patent. Free elections are a boon to a nation, particularly where they are taken seriously. And nothing can be more serious than people defying threat to life and limb to be able to vote. We had that, too, almost two decades ago this year, during the "snap election" of January 1986, people trooping to the polls amid the threat of violence from Ferdinand Marcos' henchmen.
But the no is just as patent as the yes. If the Iraqi elections truly represented democracy, the first thing the Iraqis would be deciding, well before whom they want their prime minister to be, is whom they want to run their country. The first question they should be answering, well before whether or not they want their interim prime minister to remain in power, is whether or not they want the Americans to remain in their country. That is the one question staring not just Iraq but the world in the face, but that is the one question the Iraq elections are not asking.
The essence of democracy is freedom. No freedom, no democracy. The concept of freedom at the margins, or a limited freedom within the confines of occupation, is not democracy, it is hypocrisy. A longer chain does not make for democracy, it only makes going to the prison john easier.
The concept of an "imposed democracy" is a contradiction in terms. One country cannot invade another and force democracy down the throats of its citizens. Democracy doesn't thrive in those conditions, only resentment does. Not least because history has yet to record a country that invaded another at great cost to itself in life and money for altruistic ends. On the contrary, history records those invasions to arise from selfish motives and result in a tyranny worse than the one they end. Indeed, even if the occupation were wrought for altruistic motives, democracy would still not sprout from it like skeletons from the Hydra's teeth. Democracy is choice, or it is nothing at all. One country determining what is good for another is not freedom, it is fiat.
You do not have to look very far to see what happens when you "impose democracy." The Philippines is Exhibit A. The reasons George W. Bush used to justify invading Iraq were the same reasons William McKinley used to justify invading the Philippines (Bush has quietly dropped any reference to weapons of mass destruction, which has become embarrassing). That is the "White Man's Burden," also called "manifest destiny," which is the duty of countries like America to bring civilization to the uncivilized. That that is a monumental presumption, of course, never occurred to them. Gandhi said it best. When asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?" he answered, "I think it would be a very good idea."
The result of American rule in the Philippines has been to produce a schizophrenic country, a country that is democratic in form but autocratic in substance, a country that is free and egalitarian in ritual but is slavish and iniquitous in essence. It is a country that enjoys free elections and a free press, which may not be sneered at -- they are true harbingers of democracy. The worst elections, one where the choice is limited to “trapos” [traditional politicians] or entertainers, are better than no elections at all. And the most cantankerous press is better than a muzzled one. To see the virtues of the first, one need only compare martial law with what went after. The worst of what went after is still better than the best of martial law.
But this same country is one that is unequal in the extreme and free only to obey Washington's bidding. It is a country where pockets of affluence float in a sea of utter destitution. It is a country where one set of law applies to the rich and another to the poor. It is a country where taxes take on the aspect of tribute, or “balato,” to public officials, and where public officials are free to collect them as their due. It is a country that, so long as it has free elections and a free press, feels free to oppress its people, who respond by fleeing to other shores.
It is the logical consequence of "imposing democracy." It is the contradictory result of a contradiction in terms. You teach someone the meaning of liberty after enslaving him, and he will learn the meaning of liberty only with his head and not with his heart. You teach someone the meaning of equality after oppressing him and he will learn only the formal properties of equality and not its substance. You teach someone the meaning of fraternity after making him a stranger in his own country, and he will learn only to say the word "brother" and not mean it.
The other choice is to resist. They now call the Iraqis who are fighting the American occupation of their country troublemakers and terrorists. That's what they called Sakay, too.
Posted 01:16am (Mla time) Feb 02, 2005
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the February 2, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
IT'S not without drama, and some of the moments were perfectly moving. That was the spectacle of Iraqis voting in free elections for the first time since 1953, amid the mayhem wreaked by those opposed to them. The picture that appeared on our front page last Monday of an Iraqi woman holding her ID and ballot card as she prepared to vote in her city of Sadr said it all. I remember a similar picture I saw after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, of a woman lifting her veil for the first time in her life. These are great, almost epochal, changes.
Yet for all this, much of the world may be forgiven for having a skeptical, if not cynical, view of the elections in Iraq. "This is democracy," AP quotes an elderly Iraqi woman in a black abaya, who is holding up her thumb stained with purple to show that she voted amid smoke and gunfire. Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi himself says, "(This is) the first time the Iraqis will determine their destiny."
Well, yes and no.
The yes is patent. Free elections are a boon to a nation, particularly where they are taken seriously. And nothing can be more serious than people defying threat to life and limb to be able to vote. We had that, too, almost two decades ago this year, during the "snap election" of January 1986, people trooping to the polls amid the threat of violence from Ferdinand Marcos' henchmen.
But the no is just as patent as the yes. If the Iraqi elections truly represented democracy, the first thing the Iraqis would be deciding, well before whom they want their prime minister to be, is whom they want to run their country. The first question they should be answering, well before whether or not they want their interim prime minister to remain in power, is whether or not they want the Americans to remain in their country. That is the one question staring not just Iraq but the world in the face, but that is the one question the Iraq elections are not asking.
The essence of democracy is freedom. No freedom, no democracy. The concept of freedom at the margins, or a limited freedom within the confines of occupation, is not democracy, it is hypocrisy. A longer chain does not make for democracy, it only makes going to the prison john easier.
The concept of an "imposed democracy" is a contradiction in terms. One country cannot invade another and force democracy down the throats of its citizens. Democracy doesn't thrive in those conditions, only resentment does. Not least because history has yet to record a country that invaded another at great cost to itself in life and money for altruistic ends. On the contrary, history records those invasions to arise from selfish motives and result in a tyranny worse than the one they end. Indeed, even if the occupation were wrought for altruistic motives, democracy would still not sprout from it like skeletons from the Hydra's teeth. Democracy is choice, or it is nothing at all. One country determining what is good for another is not freedom, it is fiat.
You do not have to look very far to see what happens when you "impose democracy." The Philippines is Exhibit A. The reasons George W. Bush used to justify invading Iraq were the same reasons William McKinley used to justify invading the Philippines (Bush has quietly dropped any reference to weapons of mass destruction, which has become embarrassing). That is the "White Man's Burden," also called "manifest destiny," which is the duty of countries like America to bring civilization to the uncivilized. That that is a monumental presumption, of course, never occurred to them. Gandhi said it best. When asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?" he answered, "I think it would be a very good idea."
The result of American rule in the Philippines has been to produce a schizophrenic country, a country that is democratic in form but autocratic in substance, a country that is free and egalitarian in ritual but is slavish and iniquitous in essence. It is a country that enjoys free elections and a free press, which may not be sneered at -- they are true harbingers of democracy. The worst elections, one where the choice is limited to “trapos” [traditional politicians] or entertainers, are better than no elections at all. And the most cantankerous press is better than a muzzled one. To see the virtues of the first, one need only compare martial law with what went after. The worst of what went after is still better than the best of martial law.
But this same country is one that is unequal in the extreme and free only to obey Washington's bidding. It is a country where pockets of affluence float in a sea of utter destitution. It is a country where one set of law applies to the rich and another to the poor. It is a country where taxes take on the aspect of tribute, or “balato,” to public officials, and where public officials are free to collect them as their due. It is a country that, so long as it has free elections and a free press, feels free to oppress its people, who respond by fleeing to other shores.
It is the logical consequence of "imposing democracy." It is the contradictory result of a contradiction in terms. You teach someone the meaning of liberty after enslaving him, and he will learn the meaning of liberty only with his head and not with his heart. You teach someone the meaning of equality after oppressing him and he will learn only the formal properties of equality and not its substance. You teach someone the meaning of fraternity after making him a stranger in his own country, and he will learn only to say the word "brother" and not mean it.
The other choice is to resist. They now call the Iraqis who are fighting the American occupation of their country troublemakers and terrorists. That's what they called Sakay, too.
posted by Dante at 1:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home