When the English settlers in America broke loose from Great Britain and founded a nation at the end of the eighteenth century, the prospects for a republican form of government, a government that derives its authority from the assent of the governed, were not clear. Could such a nation survive and prosper? Indeed, over eighty years later the United States fought the Civil War testing whether, in the words of Abraham Lincoln “any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” Fortunately, that question was answered in the affirmative, but not before hundreds of thousands of Americans died.
The rapid spread of democracy in the latter half of the twentieth century makes it easy to forget that democracies do not always successfully take root. Regular elections are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for democracies. Democracies also rely on the rule of law and transparency in public commerce. Democracies depend on a mature political culture. People must be willing to respect the political process and the liberty of others. People in successful democracies recognize that sometimes political decisions do not go your way. Political losses are not a reason to take up arms.
In his book The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, Fareed Zakaria argues that wealth is a key component to successful liberal democracies. He cites the scholarly work of Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi who found that per capita income is highly correlated to the longevity of democracies. In countries with a per capita income of $1500 (in current dollars) or less, a democratic government lasts only eight years. Longevity increases with per capita income. The values between $3000 and $6000 appear to define a transitional range, where the results could go either way. Frankly, for democracies to survive a majority, or at least a strong plurality, must have an economic stake in the survival of democracy. The advantages of maintaining democracy must out weigh the disadvantages of loosing transient political arguments so that citizens internalize the self-imposed disciplines of democracy.
With the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra and the attendant unrest leading to even more deaths, Iraqis appear to be reaching a critical political point. Will the various groups, the Shiites, Sunnies and the Kurds realize that a small minority is deliberately trying to sow violence? Will they allow their tribal and religious sensitivities to overwhelm their judgment and reward those who would destroy a mosque for political advantage? The question reduces to whether enough Iraqis have a sufficient stake in a democratic and free Iraq to isolate and remove extremists.
Iraqis are rightly proud that their land was the “Cradle of Civilization.” But those glories are millennia old. Before the Iraqi people is a real and present choice whether to be the cradle of democracy in the Middle East or to descend into internecine violence. Ultimately, it will be an Iraqi decision, one that cannot be made on their behalf.
Perhaps we should cling to the optimistic hope that this bombing could split Arab Sunnis from those foreign insurgents with whom they have been allied. After all, if the country descends into chaos, Arab Sunnis are dramatically outnumbered. If Iraq splits into Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions, the Kurdish and Shiite regions will be oil-rich and the Arab Sunni region will be oil-poor. In a very real sense, Sunnis have the most to loose if Sunni extremists manage to divide the nation into separate countries or provoke Shiites and Kurds into a militant response.
Of note here is the fact that the CIA World Factbook lists the current per capita income of Iraq as $3400. This places Iraq on the dangerous end of countries that may or may not maintain long-term democratic institutions.
Danish Cartoons and the Press
Sunday, February 12th, 2006In the Supreme Court Building, a careful observer will note a frieze depicting historical figures in legal history from Moses to the first US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall. One sculpted figure is a representation of the Prophet Mohammad grasping both a Koran and sword. The depiction is honorific recognizing Mohammads contribution to the law. Some Islamic groups have requested that the figure be sand-blasted away. Representations of Mohammad are discouraged in some Islamic sects and this figure offends certain religious sensibilities. Representations of Mohammad are allowed is other Islamic traditions. The Supreme Court declined the request because removing the figure would compromise the historic and artistic integrity of the work. There have been no violent responses to this refusal.
In September of 2005, the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, published cartoons lampooning and deriding Mohammad as leading a violent religious tradition. It is reasonable to expect that some Muslims would take offense at the ridicule of their key religious figure. It was tasteless for Jyllands-Posten to criticize radical Islamists in a way that more broadly insults all Muslims. Some upset with the cartoons demanded that the Danish government take action against the newspaper. The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has rightly and courageously stood up for press freedom. He claims that he has no authority to control the press and he would not want any such discretion. As a consequence, some outraged Muslims have resorted to burning embassies and threatening those associated with the cartoons with violence. Some the violent protests have resulted in deaths. There is no doubt that Syria, Iran, and some radical Muslims have deliberately inflamed emotions and incited this violence. There are even some particularly egregious images that are purported to be published by the Danish newspaper, which were never published by them.
The two depictions of Mohammad, in the Supreme Court and in the Jyllands-Posten cartoons are different. One is honorific and the other insulting and critical. Yet both are equally protected expressions. A free society allows for open expression, the congenial and scholarly as well as the exploitive and mean-spirited. Enduring offense is one price we pay for freedom. In the modern Western world, this principle is not in dispute.
The reaction by some in the Islamic World reflects a pre-Enlightenment view of belief and is one more indication of the present clash of civilizations. Radical Islamists are not only devote and certain believers, but are convinced that this certainty entitles them to compel proper observance on the part of others. This mirrors the medieval views of a Christianity too anxious to use force to enforce belief. The modern ethos recognizes that orthodoxy cannot be imposed. If one manifests outward compliance with religious observances out of intimidation, there is no genuine faith and belief. Teaching and personal witness are the means that others are brought to faith.
What is somewhat more disconcerting is the confused reaction of the Western press. One the one hand, some European newspapers, in solidarity with their Danish colleagues, have republished the controversial cartoons. If such republication were a journalistic judgment that showing the cartoons was necessary to understand the controversy that action would be appropriate. However, in some cases this republication was just an assertion of the right to publish. This approach is counterproductive. Imagine for example if a newspaper published a racially-bigoted cartoon. Would republication be salutary? It is possible to separate assertion of a right of publication from the gratuitously offensive exercise of the right.
One the other hand, some news organizations appear to apply a double standard with respect to publication of religiously offensive material. When a controversial photographer Andres Serrano displayed a crucifix in urine, CNN and other mainstream organization had little difficulty in showing the photograph to make clear to readers and viewers the nature of the controversy. By contrast, now there is a reluctance to publish the Danish cartoons out of an excessive deference to Muslim religious sensibilities. Why?
One possibility is that the dominant media sources have internalized terminal political correctness believing that it is impermissible to offend any group save Christians, especially Conservative Christians.
Another possibility is that media have been successfully intimidated. Offended Christians may generate complaints, pickets, and boycotts, but little violence. By contrast, certain radical Islamic groups can be counted on to react violently to media interests abroad. If the media can be forced to alter their coverage by violence or potential violence, they will only encourage more of it.
Whether out of political correctness or fear and intimidation, the double standard of the main stream media with regard the publication of offensive material has been less than noble and heroic.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »