Freedom vs. Democracy: How The U.S. Government Created a Crisis in the Middle East

Capitalism Magazine ^ | July 18, 2006 | Peter Schwartz

[FreeKeys]

Hezbollah, which has been waging war on Israel, and America, for years, is the immediate cause of the current fighting in the Middle East. The broader cause, though, is the United States government.

When Washington declared that freedom could be advanced by elections in which Hezbollah participated, and by which it became part of Lebanon's government, we granted that terrorist entity something it could never achieve on its own: moral legitimacy.

We gave legitimacy to Hezbollah--just as we did to such enemies as Hamas in the Palestinian Authority and the budding theocrats in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people all came to power through democratic elections promoted by the U.S. But a murderer does not gain legitimacy by getting elected to the ruling clique of his criminal gang--nor does anyone gain it by becoming an elected official of an anti-freedom state.

The premise behind the Bush administration's policy is the hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections--a premise stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy.

The typical American realizes that there ought to be limits on what government may do. He understands that each of us has rights which no law may breach, regardless of how much public support it happens to attract. An advocate of democracy, however, holds the opposite view.

The essence of democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the notion that the government should not be constrained, as long as its behavior is sanctioned by majority vote. It is the notion that the very function of government is to implement the "will of the people." It is the notion espoused whenever we tell the Lebanese, the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the Afghanis that the legitimacy of a new government flows from its being democratically approved.

And it is the notion that was categorically repudiated by the founding of the United States.

America's defining characteristic is freedom. Freedom exists when there are limitations on government, imposed by the principle of individual rights. America was established as a republic, under which the state is restricted to protecting our rights. This is not a system of "democracy." Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government--no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. You are free to own your property--no matter how large a mob wants to take it from you. The rights of the individual are inalienable. But if "popular will" were the standard, the individual would have no rights--only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass mood of the moment. The tyranny of the majority, as the Founders understood, is just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarch.

Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the existence of liberty that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the means of safeguarding individual rights. There can be no moral "right" to vote to destroy rights.

Unfortunately, like President Bush, most Americans use the antithetical concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" interchangeably. Sometimes our government upholds the primacy of individual rights and regards one's life, liberty and property as inviolable. More often, however, it negates rights by upholding the primacy of the majority's wishes--from confiscating an individual's property because the majority wants it for "public use," to preventing a terminally ill individual from ending his painful life because a majority finds suicide unacceptable.

Today, our foreign policy endorses this latter position. We declare that our overriding goal in the Mideast is that people vote--regardless of whether they value freedom. But then, if a religious majority imposes its theology on Iraq, or if Palestinian suicide-bombers execute their popular mandate by blowing up Israeli schoolchildren, on what basis can we object, since democracy--"the will of the people"--is being faithfully served? As a spokesman for Hamas, following its electoral victory, correctly noted: "I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. . . . It's not possible for the U.S. . . . to turn its back on an elected democracy." All these enemies of America--Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiites--abhor freedom, while adopting the procedure of democratic voting.

If we are going to try to replace tyrannies, we must stop confusing democracy with freedom. We must make clear that the principle we support is not the unlimited rule of the majority, but the inalienable rights of the individual. Empowering killers who happen to be democratically elected does not advance the cause of freedom--it destroys it.

Cartoons by Cox and Forkum.

[FreeKeys]

"A pure democracy ... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party... Hence it is that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in thier deaths." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 10

[SAJ]

Thank you very much for citing Mr. Madison's utterly accurate comment about the notion of 'democracy'!

[NutCrackerBoy]

The developments are certainly problematic in each of these three: Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, and Iraq. However, the author pinpoints the wrong problem. None of these is a pure democracy in which majority legitimately rules no matter what. The problem is that the rule of law is broken. In Iraq for example, the armed militia are not permitted under the Constitution. But there they are.

[Andy from Beaverton]

democracy = mobocracy

[TechnicalEcstacy]

Conventional wisdom assumes that an election constitutes a democracy. When you've changed administrations a few times in a non-violent way, then you can start to call it a democracy.

[kesg]

If we are going to try to replace tyrannies, we must stop confusing democracy with freedom. We must make clear that the principle we support is not the unlimited rule of the majority, but the inalienable rights of the individual. Empowering killers who happen to be democratically elected does not advance the cause of freedom--it destroys it.

[Just A Nobody]

There are some very interesting points in this article.

All of which are not necessarily pertaining to the subject of said article.

America was established as a republic, under which the state is restricted to protecting our rights.

That is of course unless 1-10 object to your right.

[Eurotwit]

bookmark

[TomasUSMC]

The premise behind the Bush administration's policy is the hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections--a premise stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy.

---

Exactleeeeee.

Today our troops find themselves fighting and dying to defend an Iraqi Government that democratically voted to mandate that
....ISLAM shall be a major source of Law
and
....NO LAW shall contradict ISLAM.

We are winning battles for Islam - NOT Freedom.

Let the Iraqis die for Islam, Americans should never be asked to.

[Just A Nobody]

America was established as a republic,.....This is not a system of "democracy."

I suggest we begin to fix our "republic" instead of governing like it is a democracy.

The commies that stand outside the White House with their rabid signs chanting, "this is what democracy looks like" should also be informed of the difference.

[GeronL]

seems accurate enough. You cannot impose freedom

[DB]

I do believe Hitler was initially elected.

So what.

It just means those who voted for him were as screwed up as he was.

The only "moral legitimacy" was that when the bombs started falling on their heads they deserved it as much as Hitler.

[hosepipe]

Good work...

[miliantnutcase]

I like the cartoons.

[Biscuit85]

All the mess should blamed on Carter

[defenderSD]

This editorial is oversimplified criticsm of the Bush Administration and previous administrations. When you look at the entire world, there is much more protection for individual rights in democracies than in non-democratic dictatorships and communist governments. It's easy to take shots at the disappointing results of democracy in the Middle East. But the dictatorships and mullocracies, such as Saddam's regime and the Iranian regime, have been complete disasters that invaded other countries, strongly supported terrorism, and have run dangerous WMD programs. Conditions are far from ideal for democracy in the Middle East, but some form of democracy is usually better than dictatorships.

Notice how the author writes: "We must make clear that the principle we support is not the unlimited rule of the majority, but the inalienable rights of the individual", but he has no specific suggestions for practical ways to protect the rights of the individual. Also, the US government has made clear that we support the inalienable rights of the individual, but it's not easy to implement that policy in the Middle East. There are numerous protections for individual rights in the new Iraqi constitution, but armed groups in Iraq are not following the constitution and the laws of Iraq.

[navyguy]

Have to agree with you there. Eventually, as the Palestinians did with Hamas, the Iraqi's will elect an Islamic facist government.

It's high time for the West to understand and recognize that Muslim coutries WANT strong arm facism, socialism, public executions, genital mutilation, honor killings, mass murder in the name of Allah and the jackboot of political oppression on their necks at all times. They will use Democracy to achieve it.

Islam compels them to it. They quite simply cannot help or control themselves. And the minute they had it they would IMMEDIATELY start working to achieve the same thing here. As far as I am concerned they already have stated this.

[defenderSD]

"Have to agree with you there. Eventually, as the Palestinians did with Hamas, the Iraqi's will elect an Islamic facist government. It's high time for the West to understand and recognize that Muslim coutries WANT strong arm facism, socialism, public executions, genital mutilation, honor killings, mass murder in the name of Allah and the jackboot of political oppression on their necks at all times. They will use Democracy to achieve it."

Yeah, but that hasn't happened yet in Turkey to any great extent, which is also an Islamic country. I wouldn't equate Turkey or Iraq with the Palestinian territory. Each country is unique and they all have a chance to achieve a functioning democracy that protects individual rights to some extent. You have to keep in mind that in the Middle Ages there were no protections for individual rights in Great Britain, which is now a strong democracy and a champion of individual rights. In the 12th century, armed knights rode around the country killing anyone who opposed them at will. The murder rate in Britain at that time is estimated to be 10 times higher than the current US murder rate.

The problem, of course, is that the belief system of some parts of the world is still back in the 12th century, but that doesn't mean there can never be great change and progress as happened in Europe over the last 700 years. We just can't wait 700 years for progress to happen; somehow progress has to be greatly expedited.

[AZLiberty]

The premise behind the Bush administration's policy is the hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections -- a premise stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy.

In any democracy -- even our limited democracy -- voters can make mistakes. U.S. voters have done it many times, and they have suffered the consequences. The Palestinians elected Hamas and they are beginning to suffer the consequences. The Lebanese elected a number of Hezbollah members to their government -- and gave Hezbollah excessive military power -- and they are also beginning to suffer the consequences. Hopefully, they will get the chance and take the opportunity to correct their mistakes through future elections.

[John Lenin]

Yes, it is better to keep them in the 16th century so they can breed like rabbits while the west depopulates itself. What does he think will happen when they outnumber us 50 to 1 ?