A Short Essay on the Right of Criticism
What right have I to criticize an 'imperfect democracy,' one which grants me the exercise of an assortment of civil liberties which are denied to a large section of humanity? First and foremost I criticize in order to retain the very right to criticize; it is by exercising this right to air my views and seek redress that all of my rights are made more secure. The proposition that the second amendment makes the others secure is incorrect; access to weaponry can just as easily be a hindrance to the enjoyment of civil rights as a guarantee of them (this was the case throughout most of the south and no doubt still is in many areas). It is the exercise of free criticism in the face of both government pressure and the violence of extremist groups that forms the foundation of the practical enjoyment of human rights. It exposes the means that various parties use to control the public discourse, to manipulate the social conscience, and to exploit the disadvantaged. Its persistent application in the face of violent retribution and social ostracism carves out a solid niche of liberty in which to exercise our other freedoms.
As to the choice of the object of criticism (why should I criticize the US or the West when there are worse regimes on the world stage?), there are several reasons. No one needs the critics to recognize a violent, oppressive regime; its crimes are writ large. To expose the misdeeds of the several Western Governments often takes time and expertise. This is because the governments in the west are at least in theory answerable to their people; any unpalatable action will be either covered up or 'spun.'
This leads to the second reason: criticism has a realistic chance of influencing policy. I can criticize North Korea all I want but it won't change anything. Widespread criticism and protest against, say, the US has played a role in decision making and influenced the choice of tactics and strategies in foreign policy and in armed conflict (Chomsky’s comments in "For Reasons of State" are particularly cogent). Another reason is that democracies are heir to a degree of moral legitimacy much higher than that of a dictatorship. If a dictator acts like a dictator we condemn the action but are not shocked by it. When an elected government acts in a morally obnoxious manner the matter is more serious; these actions do not reflect only upon a small elite, they reflect upon the nation as a whole.
Criticism is essential if one wishes to maintain a sense of integrity. It is worse to allow a democracy to become corrupted than to allow a dictatorship to remain a dictatorship. The implication that either one is a 'good guy' or one is as bad as Hitler betrays a lack of moral insight. Rulers (whether democratic or dictatorial) form an entire moral spectrum as do systems of government. It is possible to have a bad system of government with a fairly good (or conscientious) ruler and a good system of government with a corrupt ruler. Simplistic assertions that someone (whether Bush or Ahmedinejad) is 'as bad as Hitler' do little to help us deal with the problems of foreign policy and are useful only as a tool for political mobilization (in support of a war, for instance). The questions we need to tackle are those which deal with the effects of policy, whether they cause more suffering than they prevent, not whether we happen to like the guy who is promoting them. This war against Iraq has caused massive suffering and the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. This was predictable (and predicted) before hand. The administration chose to go to war anyway. The only way such a large amount of suffering could be justified is to prevent more suffering; it hardly seems reasonable to believe that this war has prevented any suffering. On the contrary, the fallout of the conflict could result in more harm than if we had simply let Hussein's regime stay in power (for however long it may have lasted). The deaths in Iraq are not simply collateral damage justified by the achievement of some great goal; there is no goal to achieve at this point, other than simply stopping the cycle of violence which the US government initiated.
A word about 'collateral damage.' First it should be noted that Western Governments have, in the quite recent past, targeted civilian populations in order to achieve political goals (a standard definition of terrorism). This was quite frequent during World War II and Vietnam and was at least one goal of the bombing of Belgrade during the Kosovo conflict and the "Shock and Awe" campaign against Baghdad. In addition, a number of civilian targets were attacked (TV and radio stations, water treatment plants, etc,). On the other hand, many groups which are generally defined as "terrorist" do not have the commission of such acts as their primary raison d'etre. Hamas is a notable example of this: it is better defined as a social movement with political and military wings (the latter of which engages in some acts which can be reasonable defined as terrorist). Acts of terrorism are not the reason for its existence nor do they comprise the majority of its activities. It is also not the sole tactic of its military wing, which also engages in "legitimate" military operations such as the attack on the border outpost in southern Gaza. The common denominator is a willingness to use violence which will almost certainly result in civilian casualties as a means to further political objectives (whether regime change or an end to occupation). In shear numbers, the use of '"legitimate" military force has without a doubt resulted in a much larger death toll then that resulting from acts of terrorism. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict provides a clear example of this, where at least five Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli over the past six years. Certainly the people of the global South have more to fear from western 'Smart bombs' then westerners have to fear from the crude munitions cobbled together by “terrorists.”
I point this out not to legitimate “terrorism” but to delegitimate military violence as an acceptable instrument of foreign (or internal) policy. The acceptance of military violence as not only necessary but virtuous leads us to mourn one group of victims by creating a much larger number of victims who more often than not had nothing to do with the original crime. We grow sensitive to the deaths of a thousand but numb to the deaths of a hundred thousand. This may be criticized as ‘excessive body counting’ but it remains to be seen if there is any other way for us to gauge the ethical worth of actions of such power and magnitude. Certainly, the ideals that ‘we’ are supposedly fighting for cannot be used to legitimate the use of large-scale violence if there is no evidence that such violence is either effective in their defense or useful in transplanting them to other societies. The Bush administration has invaded three countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti) and overthrown three regimes, including an elected one (Aristide). In none of these countries has a government cognizant of and respectful towards civil liberties arisen. Violence tends to beget more violence, resulting in a culture increasingly accustomed to solving conflicts (including domestic ones) with the use of force. This necessarily results in an erosion of civil liberties. In addition, these civil liberties are often purposefully curtailed in an attempt to deal with the ‘blowback’ from military campaigns abroad. It would seem as if the ‘body count’ is the accurate measure of our foreign policy.
posted by Abu Mahmoud @ 11:21 PM
2 Comments:
Very thoughtful piece...wonder if you wrote this in response to a specific question/situation?
I wholeheartedly agree with your point on the necessity to exercise a fundamental right in order to retain it. At a minimum, exercise of freedom of speech, whether in the U.S. or China, keeps it on the agenda and reminds incumbents that they are not beyond scrutiny. I often wonder what prompts responses such as those of the high school students polled shortly after 9-11, who viewed the Patriot Act positively, and the specter of the Bill of Rights (or portions of it) being rescinded as necessary or inconsequential. It is perhaps indicative of a generation not practiced in the exercise of constitutional rights and therefore ignorant of the implications of such a rollback. My optimistic side hopes it is simple ignorance on part of the teens (akin to a farmer discounting the import of the NEA and the preservation of the opera?), and not that the current school system/corporate media has birthed a generation of Fascists. Or (clutching at straws here) perhaps it was the sample selected.
I, too, been asked many a time why I seem so fixated on the wrongs of the U.S. administration, and not on the multifarious, nefarious Arab and other regimes which abound. In addition to the points you so perspicaciously make, I would add: I live here! My primary responsibility is to participate in the processes of the country in which I am resident, and to check the policies of its government. When I lived in Pakistan (for a very brief period), my criticisms were directed primarily at that government. The fact that I pay taxes--not to Saudi, Sudanese, or Chinese government--but to the U.S. government, augments my responsibility as a "good citizen" to engage in dissent against it. My right wing high school polysci teacher taught me well:-).
You are a bit more optimistic than I about the receptivity of the U.S. government to public outcry. My feeling is that even in the Vietnam case, the primary reason for the U.S. withdrawal was not so much public outcry, but rather the realization by the military industrial complex that the war had became unprofitable. Certainly in the Iraq War, this administration seems oblivious to public opinion; and despite the results of November's election, showing clear dissatisfaction with existing war policy, the "loyal opposition" seems bent on accelerating--not attenuating--the war effort. It may be that long range and catastrophic economic effects, similar to that experienced by the Soviets after their decade-long occupation of Afghanistan, will be required to rein in the U.S. war machine. By the same token, I in no way discount the import of independent mass political action (i.e., the exercise of constitutional rights while they still exist, at least on paper), and indeed people of conscience must--like the Freedom Riders--continue to express themselves against the criminal policies of this administration, even in the absence of a sure victory. I'm not familiar with the title by Chomsky you mention; so perhaps looking into it will give me increased insight.
I wrote this over the course of an afternoon last summer in response both to what was happening in Lebanon and to a book I came across which criticized critics like Chomsky for being too concerned with 'the body count' of US foreign policy. It really got me fuming; it was the typical zionist refrain that 'we are noble because we don't target civilians' (snort, chortle). This nobility of intention gives the West carte blanche to kill on a massive scale yet still claim the moral high ground. Blow up an apartment building full of people? Simply claim that you were aiming for the 'terrorists' inside. Wipe out an entire family driving in a car? You were simply engaging in an extrajudicial execution of a 'known terrorist/militant.' As long as you can come up with a suitable multisyllabic descripion of what you are doing, you are not only justified, you are heroic. I have no doubt that if Bush decides to go nuk-yu-lar on Iran a chorus of cheerleaders will come out of the wood work ready to pounce like harpees on any one who pays too much attention to the bodycount. I guess over the last half of a year I've become a bit less optimistic then I was when I wrote this.
Post a Comment
<< Home