Listen up, third-worlders. Here's what it like to be a lover of
democracy at this moment, with Egypt's army having just killed a couple of
hundred Muslims demonstrating for the return of democracy.
No, I'm not going to add to the
six dozen ironies already piled up by the developments in Egypt. I'm just going to explain what's
democratic and what isn't.
That killing now, by a dictator
installed by an Army coup. It's
not, as it may appear, the opposite of democracy. It's not like all the strongman takeovers the U.S. has
opposed, not like one aristocratic clique overthrowing another in South
America, not like a warlord suddenly declaring a heavenly mandate in Asia, not
like a Bolshevik few striking in Europe.
Those are all deniers of democracy. This is an expression of it. A circuitous expression, yes, but nevertheless an
expression.
Here, in big chalk, is the
circuit. Begin with the fact that
the U. S. is a democracy. The
things that it does or does not do express the will of its people. ("Democracy" means "rule
by the people," right"?)
Not all the people, but a majority, which means the most votes in
Congress. Votes in the past show
that any action that makes Israel less secure will be voted down — if it
manages even to be brought up. Action
against the dictator installed by the army coup will in the eyes of Congress make
Israel less secure than it would be under a militant Muslim president installed
by an election. It's bound to be
voted down or kept from coming up.
To be believed that paragraph requires,
probably, six pages of little chalk — whether or not Congressmen do express the
will of the people here, whether their vote can be predicted, whether that vote can make a difference in Egypt, why they
think an army regime in Egypt will make Israel more secure — but there's just
not space here to supply it.
You'll just have to trust me.
Anyway, if you believe as I do that
American action against the Egyptian ruling general could stop him (for one
thing we could cut off the money that pays his army) then yesterday's killing
in Cairo is an expression of democracy, American democracy. It is the will of the American people
that the Egyptian people be denied their will.
Forget
trying to relieve the pain of this by showing your abhorrence of killing,
Americans. ("I didn't mean that. They shouldn't go that far.")
Any time you want other people to do your will they can (as Clausewitz has
shown) force you to become a killer just by refusing to do it, up to the
end. If you vote for Israel's security here (or for a Congressman who
will vote for it) you show that you want to kill the Egyptians who refuse to
accept the removal of their president. You're a killer.
And
forget all the sophistical demonstrations that the elected president wasn't
really elected or wasn't really a president or that the coup wasn't really a
coup. The man got a majority of the votes in an election that qualified
neutral observers called reasonably free. There's no reason to believe
that another election would turn out differently. The will of a majority
of the Egyptian people has been expressed. And that's all democracy
means, or needs to mean.
So
forget, third-worlders, all those golden benefits promised you under the word
"democracy." And don't think it has anything to do with the
goodness of a people. It doesn't assure virtue. All democracy
assures is that the majority of people in your country, the people who most of
the time will have the greatest power, or potential power, will have in place
the machinery by which they can express their will. That's good, maybe
golden, especially when time comes for a transfer of power, but if it's good
it's good only internally.
Externally,
in dealing with other nations, you can no more count on it being good than you
can count on the human will being good. And allowing it to be
collectively expressed isn't going to improve the odds. Whatever the
collective will is, though, whether it's good or bad, remember: it's just the
will of one people, in one country. If that will denies the will of
another people in another country, if it denies them even unto death, that
could be very bad. We can call it terrible names —
"hypocritical," "evil," "criminal." But we
can't call it "undemocratic."
No comments:
Post a Comment