Monday, March 14, 2005
Democracy Is A Continous Process
Democracy is a continuous process. The recent news from the Middle East is certainly heartening for those who wish to see it spread. In fact, it’s more of a return to democracy for some of these places. Iraq had elections back in 1958 before a military coup squashed it, and Lebanon was a thriving democracy before its civil war in 1975.
This constant fluctuation of democracy shouldn’t really be a surprise considering the fact that both the land where democracy was born (Greece) and the land which gave us the rule of law (Italy) had seen their share of despotism through the centuries. This should be a constant reminder to us that concepts like freedom and democracy can be fleeting ideals if we aren’t careful – if we give in to our base instincts and trade our liberties for security.
This is what happened in Chile in 1973 when the duly-elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown and gave way to Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Many of the Chilean middle classes acquiesced to despotism because it gave them a sense of security. Of course, the price was the loss of their freedom and a viable voice in government. They eventually got it back, but it was not before they lost their soul.
There’s a common belief among many people that places like the Middle East aren’t ready for democracy. Some of the reasons given are that it isn’t part of their culture, or that their faith is incompatible with concepts like freedom of religion. To me, this kind of thinking is too patronizing. It basically says that not only is “our way” superior, it also says that it cannot be exported.
Of course, some concepts in Western democracy, or Western-style democracy, can’t be exported. Much of it is because of social, religious and cultural differences. Also, certain concepts that came to the West were more indigenous. For example, the United States’ system of government originates from the Magna Carta and English Common Law, which in turn came from the village justice meted out by local Saxon or Norse tribal councils.
It may be news to many of you, but I had just finished a term on the Grand Jury of my county. To say the least, it was an interesting time that allowed me to see a side of the law that I would normally not see. The fact is the whole jury system is founded in the Magna Carta. The American justice system is tied to English Common Law. It’s also tied to Ancient Roman Law. The Romans gave the Western world the concept of the Rule of Law, where the people of the empire were obliged to follow the law in order to provide the Roman peace (Pax Romana). If they didn’t, the proper punishment was meted out on them.
This respect for the rule of law is found in much of what is called the Western world. This didn’t mean freedom and democracy thrived in such places. After all, a dictatorship benefits from respect for the rule of law as does a democracy. Yet, it is just that kind of respect that a society needs in order for freedom and democracy to thrive.
The West can export the rule of law and democracy, but it would be ill-fitting, especially if it tries to impose certain concepts like free-enterprise and laissez-faire capitalism. This is what happened in the former Soviet Union where many well-meaning advisors from the West convinced the Russians that they must be free economically as well as socially.
This brought disaster because, this free-wheeling style of economics brought corruption and huge social and economic gaps. This in turn produced skepticism to the whole concept of democracy. Being that the Russians were as much inheritors of the Roman Empire as the West was, they already had the rule of law well in hand. It was the rest of it that they couldn’t quite grasp.
Yet, if these same Western advisors had looked to Russian and Slavic history, they would have seen that this region had its share of reform movements. Sure, many of these movements were crushed by the autocratic regimes that ruled over them, but if they called back to the spirit that brought the reformers into being, then the Russians would have had something that had indigenous origins - something that they could call their own - to build their fledgling democracy instead of something that seemed to be imposed from the outside.
Ancient India had something similar to English Common Law in the panchayat system where each village had local power through their village councils. When India was trying to gain its independence from Britain, many in the movement harked back to this ancient panchayat system as something indigenous on which to build their fledgling nation. They didn’t quite succeed since the Indian government that came into being had a strong central government. Yet, India also had a federal system where, not only was there a central government, but many state governments as well. Eventually, even the ancient panchayat system saw a revival.
India is unique in that, not only did it blend a western style of government (federal and parliamentary), it also looked to its own past for sources to build on its democracy. In spite of its many imperfections, India’s democracy has succeeded. I was made aware of this when a colleague came to me and another fellow Indian and said that we must be proud of India’s recent government because both its Prime Minister and its President belong to religious minorities (Sikh and Muslim, respectively). Many Indians would be cynical about this because of the many other problems the country faces, but my colleague was Egyptian and he could only dream of such a thing happening in his country. So, cynicism aside, we should be thankful for such small blessings!
Harking back to the Middle East, places like Iraq also have indigenous sources which they can draw upon in their own fledgling democracies. Iraq, of course, can look to Ancient Babylon and Hammurabi’s Code – the first known written rule of government anywhere. So, Iraq and its neighbors need not look to just Roman rule of law, but their own ancient sources. Modern Iranians can look to Ancient Persia which gave the world the rules of diplomacy that much of the world still follows. (Many observers noted the irony that the land that gave us diplomatic immunity would be the place that seized the U.S. Embassy 25 years ago!)
If today’s reformers would look to their own past, they would see that their lands had some semblance to the rule of law and of reform. There’s a growing trend among Muslims to look for new ways of interpreting the Quran to make it more compatible to democracy. A similar reform movement occurred in the western nations when certain reformers reinterpreted the Bible and came up with concepts such as representative government and separation of church and state. Of course, not everyone agreed with them – some still don’t! Yet, these concepts are what helped bring about the United States and its system of government. Let’s pray that these ijtihadists win the day. [Ijtihad means interpretation.]
Democracy can be messy. Those of us who live in such lands know about this first hand. These reformers ought to be aware of this, if they aren’t already. Once they are, they have to make sure that others in their respective countries understand this as well. (Otherwise, see Russia!) America’s founders understood this too. In fact, the term “democracy” was anathema to them. Since they were students in Greek, they read their Plato and Aristotle. Both these philosophers detested Democracy. They considered it to be “mob rule”. They preferred benign tyrants until they discovered that there was no such thing.
In time, the term “democracy” won favor. First, Thomas Jefferson formed a party called the Democrat-Republicans. He was still shy to use the term and called his acolytes “Republicans”. Later, when Andrew Jackson ran for President, he dropped the “Republican” part and renamed it the Democratic Party – the oldest political party in the world. Even then, the elite establishment considered Jackson and his crowd as “rabble” and his government as “mob rule”. These elites later helped form a new party that took Jefferson’s shortened term for his – the Republican Party. So it goes to this day.
[Some people sniff that the United States isn’t a democracy, that it’s a republic. Technically, they’re correct, but, somehow, they don’t really get it!]
The recent showing of Christo’s The Gates is a perfect example of democracy in action. Firstly, there were many who questioned whether it could be considered “art”. Since I’m not really an artist nor can I call myself an art critic, I’m reluctant to say whether The Gates is art or not. Yet, that didn’t stop many people to voice their opinions. Certainly, from an aesthetically-pleasing sense, The Gates can’t be considered art like a Rembrandt or a Monet can be considered art. But, as one of those who did get to see the work, I can say that it was art in one sense.
It was, to borrow an expression from the 1960s, a “happening”. The art was the very people who came to view and admire (or pan) the work. Seeing the saffron (orange?) curtains running through the course of Central Park was eye-catching. Then, there were the people who walked around and through these curtains. If one took a birds-eye view of the place, they would have noticed not just the orange ribbon meandering through the park, but the ribbon of people meandering along with it. Here is art in an active sense. Here, also, is democracy, in both its orderly and messy fashions. Let’s hope that the people of the Middle East and elsewhere see both the order and the mess in democracy and demand the chance for both.
This constant fluctuation of democracy shouldn’t really be a surprise considering the fact that both the land where democracy was born (Greece) and the land which gave us the rule of law (Italy) had seen their share of despotism through the centuries. This should be a constant reminder to us that concepts like freedom and democracy can be fleeting ideals if we aren’t careful – if we give in to our base instincts and trade our liberties for security.
This is what happened in Chile in 1973 when the duly-elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown and gave way to Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Many of the Chilean middle classes acquiesced to despotism because it gave them a sense of security. Of course, the price was the loss of their freedom and a viable voice in government. They eventually got it back, but it was not before they lost their soul.
There’s a common belief among many people that places like the Middle East aren’t ready for democracy. Some of the reasons given are that it isn’t part of their culture, or that their faith is incompatible with concepts like freedom of religion. To me, this kind of thinking is too patronizing. It basically says that not only is “our way” superior, it also says that it cannot be exported.
Of course, some concepts in Western democracy, or Western-style democracy, can’t be exported. Much of it is because of social, religious and cultural differences. Also, certain concepts that came to the West were more indigenous. For example, the United States’ system of government originates from the Magna Carta and English Common Law, which in turn came from the village justice meted out by local Saxon or Norse tribal councils.
It may be news to many of you, but I had just finished a term on the Grand Jury of my county. To say the least, it was an interesting time that allowed me to see a side of the law that I would normally not see. The fact is the whole jury system is founded in the Magna Carta. The American justice system is tied to English Common Law. It’s also tied to Ancient Roman Law. The Romans gave the Western world the concept of the Rule of Law, where the people of the empire were obliged to follow the law in order to provide the Roman peace (Pax Romana). If they didn’t, the proper punishment was meted out on them.
This respect for the rule of law is found in much of what is called the Western world. This didn’t mean freedom and democracy thrived in such places. After all, a dictatorship benefits from respect for the rule of law as does a democracy. Yet, it is just that kind of respect that a society needs in order for freedom and democracy to thrive.
The West can export the rule of law and democracy, but it would be ill-fitting, especially if it tries to impose certain concepts like free-enterprise and laissez-faire capitalism. This is what happened in the former Soviet Union where many well-meaning advisors from the West convinced the Russians that they must be free economically as well as socially.
This brought disaster because, this free-wheeling style of economics brought corruption and huge social and economic gaps. This in turn produced skepticism to the whole concept of democracy. Being that the Russians were as much inheritors of the Roman Empire as the West was, they already had the rule of law well in hand. It was the rest of it that they couldn’t quite grasp.
Yet, if these same Western advisors had looked to Russian and Slavic history, they would have seen that this region had its share of reform movements. Sure, many of these movements were crushed by the autocratic regimes that ruled over them, but if they called back to the spirit that brought the reformers into being, then the Russians would have had something that had indigenous origins - something that they could call their own - to build their fledgling democracy instead of something that seemed to be imposed from the outside.
Ancient India had something similar to English Common Law in the panchayat system where each village had local power through their village councils. When India was trying to gain its independence from Britain, many in the movement harked back to this ancient panchayat system as something indigenous on which to build their fledgling nation. They didn’t quite succeed since the Indian government that came into being had a strong central government. Yet, India also had a federal system where, not only was there a central government, but many state governments as well. Eventually, even the ancient panchayat system saw a revival.
India is unique in that, not only did it blend a western style of government (federal and parliamentary), it also looked to its own past for sources to build on its democracy. In spite of its many imperfections, India’s democracy has succeeded. I was made aware of this when a colleague came to me and another fellow Indian and said that we must be proud of India’s recent government because both its Prime Minister and its President belong to religious minorities (Sikh and Muslim, respectively). Many Indians would be cynical about this because of the many other problems the country faces, but my colleague was Egyptian and he could only dream of such a thing happening in his country. So, cynicism aside, we should be thankful for such small blessings!
Harking back to the Middle East, places like Iraq also have indigenous sources which they can draw upon in their own fledgling democracies. Iraq, of course, can look to Ancient Babylon and Hammurabi’s Code – the first known written rule of government anywhere. So, Iraq and its neighbors need not look to just Roman rule of law, but their own ancient sources. Modern Iranians can look to Ancient Persia which gave the world the rules of diplomacy that much of the world still follows. (Many observers noted the irony that the land that gave us diplomatic immunity would be the place that seized the U.S. Embassy 25 years ago!)
If today’s reformers would look to their own past, they would see that their lands had some semblance to the rule of law and of reform. There’s a growing trend among Muslims to look for new ways of interpreting the Quran to make it more compatible to democracy. A similar reform movement occurred in the western nations when certain reformers reinterpreted the Bible and came up with concepts such as representative government and separation of church and state. Of course, not everyone agreed with them – some still don’t! Yet, these concepts are what helped bring about the United States and its system of government. Let’s pray that these ijtihadists win the day. [Ijtihad means interpretation.]
Democracy can be messy. Those of us who live in such lands know about this first hand. These reformers ought to be aware of this, if they aren’t already. Once they are, they have to make sure that others in their respective countries understand this as well. (Otherwise, see Russia!) America’s founders understood this too. In fact, the term “democracy” was anathema to them. Since they were students in Greek, they read their Plato and Aristotle. Both these philosophers detested Democracy. They considered it to be “mob rule”. They preferred benign tyrants until they discovered that there was no such thing.
In time, the term “democracy” won favor. First, Thomas Jefferson formed a party called the Democrat-Republicans. He was still shy to use the term and called his acolytes “Republicans”. Later, when Andrew Jackson ran for President, he dropped the “Republican” part and renamed it the Democratic Party – the oldest political party in the world. Even then, the elite establishment considered Jackson and his crowd as “rabble” and his government as “mob rule”. These elites later helped form a new party that took Jefferson’s shortened term for his – the Republican Party. So it goes to this day.
[Some people sniff that the United States isn’t a democracy, that it’s a republic. Technically, they’re correct, but, somehow, they don’t really get it!]
The recent showing of Christo’s The Gates is a perfect example of democracy in action. Firstly, there were many who questioned whether it could be considered “art”. Since I’m not really an artist nor can I call myself an art critic, I’m reluctant to say whether The Gates is art or not. Yet, that didn’t stop many people to voice their opinions. Certainly, from an aesthetically-pleasing sense, The Gates can’t be considered art like a Rembrandt or a Monet can be considered art. But, as one of those who did get to see the work, I can say that it was art in one sense.
It was, to borrow an expression from the 1960s, a “happening”. The art was the very people who came to view and admire (or pan) the work. Seeing the saffron (orange?) curtains running through the course of Central Park was eye-catching. Then, there were the people who walked around and through these curtains. If one took a birds-eye view of the place, they would have noticed not just the orange ribbon meandering through the park, but the ribbon of people meandering along with it. Here is art in an active sense. Here, also, is democracy, in both its orderly and messy fashions. Let’s hope that the people of the Middle East and elsewhere see both the order and the mess in democracy and demand the chance for both.
