People's choice

In the history of our dealings with Iraq, we have made many false assumptions. Amongst those assumptions of which the United States seems to be frequently guilty, is to equate the holding of elections with true Democracy and to equate Democracy with freedom and justice and stability. George Bush offered us the prospect of free elections in Iraq as a goal; a marker of success in building a Liberal Western style democracy, while ignoring the centrifugal effects of strong religious, ethnic and cultural disparities. While we can always find Iraqis who would welcome these things, we seem to be discovering that they may lack the numbers and the power to stand against the popular urges toward Fundamentalism and theocracy.

Holding the recent Iraqi elections, held by an occupying power that has backed certain candidates as an example of Freedom on the March, is a contrived argument, but the Palestinian Elections which seem to have put Hamas, a violent organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel using all means including terrorism, is a good one. Iran too has elected fanatics and militants with nuclear ambitions and other countries, like Iran, have willingly elected dictators and tyrants. It can be strongly argued that governments largely controlled by dictators, kings Sheiks and Shahs have done a far better job of insuring peace and stability with a smaller charge against the account of Liberty than leaders elected by angry, deluded and hostile citizens.

Perhaps we too have elected leaders with certain ambitions, yet so far, our Constitution’s checks and balances have limited such attempts in extent and duration. Of course other countries with exemplary constitutional frameworks have put people like Adolph Hitler in power, illustrating the dangers of weakening our Constitution’s protections against duly elected tyranny.

We have survived other, temporary curtailments of civil rights, yet never before has it been so easy for a President to create a war without the due process formerly required of him. By endless repetition, he has contrived a war against no particular entity, but rather a category of enemy so amorphous and diverse that the struggle may be eternal and could provide an equally long-lasting call for ever greater executive power.

Have we willingly, or even gleefully, given up the only defense we have against the fate to which most democratic efforts have fallen?