Whether the US should invade Iraq is a moot point. The challenge now is how best to salvage the situation (and make sure it doesn't happen again.) Given this, the elections on Sunday are a positive first step towards what one hopes will be a constitutionally limited government that protects property rights, but does little else. This goal is being endangered, however, by the careless use of the word "democracy." The new mantra from the Bush administration and its followers in the media is "democracy=freedom." In his speech Sunday celebrating the Iraqi elections, Bush declared, "There's more distance to travel on the road to democracy. Yet
Iraqis are proving they're equal to the challenge." Democracy, according to Bush, is the end destination; it is the final goal for Iraq. Unfortunately, this is entirely wrong. Democracy, at best, is only a means to achieve the end--political liberty. In some cases (Hong Kong, for instance), democracy was absent, yet freedom thrived. Democracy is a process by which political leaders are chosen. There is no guarantee that freedom will ensue from this. Most likely, when Bush speaks of a democracy, he has in mind the form we find in a Western federated republic. Iraq will be better off when Bush starts to admit this.
For more on this, see my essay "What is Democracy?" Also see Walter Williams' "Are we a republic or a democracy?"
Comments