Democracy, If We Like the People Who Are Elected

I have been writing a lot about politics lately, but I do intend to address other topics, just not right now. My apparent obsession is probably the result of my recent obsession with public radio. Thanks to the internet, I can listen to a continuous mix of NPR, PRI, APM, and the BBC. New Hampshire Public Radio is one of my favorite feeds. The recent events in Gaza and the resulting political shakeup have gotten a lot of coverage.

In case you are unfamiliar with these events, I will attempt to provide a brief summary based on various Wikipedia articles: The Palestinian National Authority governs two area, Gaza and the West Bank, which are separated by Israel. The two largest political organizations in the Palestinian National Authority are Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is the more secular, moderate organization; Hamas is Islamist and radical. Both have armed branches; Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and the EU. President of the PNA, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), is a member of Fatah. In the last elections, in January 2006, Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council with the highest percentage of the popular vote (44.45%). In response, Israel and the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN) instituted economic sanctions against the PNA, including Israel withholding tax revenue. During 12-14 June 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza. In response, President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government. The United States and Israel have shown support for Abbas and have resumed aid to the PNA.

Days later, on 19 June, Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert met with President Bush. Their joint press event focused on the situation in Palestine. Bush made several comments concerning democracy. This is part of one of his responses:

It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy, or a potential Palestinian democracy. And what that should say clearly to people all around the world is that we are involved with an ideological conflict that is a monumental conflict. And those of us that believe in liberty and human rights and human decency need to be bound together in common cause to fight off these extremists, and to defeat them.

You can only defeat them so much militarily. We have to also defeat them with a better idea. It's a better idea that's being practiced by our friend, Israel. It's called democracy. And that's the fundamental challenge facing this century: Will we have the courage and the resolve necessary to help democracy defeat this ideology. And I will tell the Prime Minister, once again, I'm deeply committed to this cause, whether it be in Iraq, or Lebanon, or the Palestinian Territory, or anywhere else in the Middle East, and around the world.

In response to another question, Bush said the following:

First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. Secondly, we recognize that it was Hamas that attacked the unity government. They made a choice of violence. It was their decision that has caused there to be this current situation in the Middle East, about which we'll be spending some time discussing.

Matt, what you're seeing now in this part of the 21st century is going to be played out over time. This is an ideological struggle. We're looking at the difference between a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace, that want a better way for their people, that believe in democracy -- they need help to build the institutions necessary for democracy to flourish, and they need help to build security forces so that they can end up enforcing what most of the people want, which is to live in peace -- and that's versus a group of radicals and extremists who are willing to use violence, unspeakable violence sometimes, to achieve a political objective.

In the first response, Bush talks of the need "to fight off the extremists," but extremists are represented in a democracy, too. He seems to working from the idea that in the Middle East there are a few small groups of people who want to establish Islamist states, but the vast majority of people want to be free and want others to be free. Earlier, he refers to "the moderate people, the ordinary Palestinians." The trouble is that the data does not support this view. Almost half of Palestinians voted for a party that wants to destroy Israel and institute Islamic law. To a significant extent, Palestine is a land of extremists.

In the first paragraph of the second response, Bush says something very telling. He says, "First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. " This is all literally true, but the implication that the President is more legitimate than the Hamas-led government is false. He could just as accurately have said, "First of all, we recognize the Parliament of all the Palestinian people, and that's the Hamas-led Parliament. They were elected; They're the Parliament." This suggests that Bush only recognizes governments and parts of governments that he likes. This is a very troubling policy for a man who claims to be spreading democracy to hold. More troubling domestically is the suggestion that Bush considers heads of state to be more important and better representations of the people than legislative bodies. This may explain Bush's extensive use of signing statements, but that is another topic all together.

In the next paragraph, Bush refers to "a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace" as the good guys. Democracy doesn't only represent those who believe in peace. If democracy only represented those who believe in never using violence, then Bush wouldn't be in office. In fact, almost everyone around the world believes in both peace and violence. The disagreement is over when and how to use violence and what kinds of peace are acceptable. Hamas wants peace too; they just want to destroy Israel first.

A couple of times Bush mentions democracy as opposed to another ideology. He never clearly states what this is, but from the context it appears that he is talking about extremism. Extremism is not itself an ideology, however. Islamism (activist or political Islam) is an ideology. I assume that Bush knows that Islamism is the ideology he is opposing but couldn't say anything like "We will eliminate Islamic fundamentalism." The problem is that democracy is not the opposite of extremism or Islamism nor does it oppose them. Democracy by itself allows both to flourish and provides representation to both.

I am not saying I support Hamas. I do not. I am not even saying there is no hope for a peaceable Palestinian state. I just think that we need to be honest about what we want other governments to look like. Bush's goal is not democracy in the Middle East. He wants a Middle East that won't attack Israel or the United States and won't build nukes, which is a fine goal, but it is not democracy. The best way to get a Middle East that won't attack us is probably to leave them alone, as Ron Paul suggests. The existence of Israel and our alliance with them may be a problem for this, however, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to many Islamists. I am not sure it would even be possible to sufficiently cut ties with Israel to convince Islamists that we are not supporting Israel. Ron Paul has spoken of avoiding entangling alliances, but I don't know what he would do with our existing alliances.

On a lighter note, I have a couple of suggestions for what we could call what Bush is actually trying to spread, since it is not actually democracy:

• Philiarchy: Government by those we like
• Inferiocracy: Government by those who recognize that they have to do what better nations like the United States say to do

Please comment if you can think of any more appropriate terms or if you think I have been unfair to Bush in any way. I want to avoid attacking straw men or taking cheap shots at anyone.

The Danger of National Conceit

The mythology of the United States, those ideas that form the nation's self-image, includes the idea that the United States is the greatest society that has ever existed or will ever exist, although it will probably go on in greatness forever. This is accepted as an obvious fact by politicians from both major parties and by the general public. Questioning this is considered heresy. If any newly-elected senator said, "I would like to thank the voters of this state giving me the opportunity to proudly serve a pretty good country," his supporters would be appalled and wonder if he thought they had just elected him to the Canadian parliament.

Supporting this idea that the United States is the greatest nation of all time are other similar assumptions. Most Americans take for granted that democracy is the greatest political ideal and that the American brand of democracy is the best possible system of government. It is certainly better than all those crazy systems with prime ministers and unscheduled elections that no one really understands. Americans also take for granted that the ideals on which the nation was supposedly founded are the greatest of all ideals and that America is the greatest possible expression of those ideals.

I do not know how long this idea has dominated the way the United States views itself, but it is almost certain that this has not always been the case. The founders and their contemporaries were likely optimistic about their attempt to form a nation, but they would have been fools to think that it was the greatest one on earth. If not for an apathetic British populous and advantageously exploiting centuries of animosity between the French and English, the United Sates would not have won independence. For the majority of the time since the United States gained independence, the United Kingdom was more powerful. Elements of the myth of greatness likely arose with the idea of Manifest Destiny. It would be interesting to look at historical documents (letters, speeches, etc.) to see when and how this idea developed and gained popularity. I will leave any additional historical speculation or research to Daniel. As for contemporary influences, I believe that the emphasis on self-confidence and positive reinforcement in today's society has helped to reinforce this concept. People are taught to believe that they and everything they are a part of are the best some category and that category is the one that really matters.

This actually points to part of the reason that rational people accept this idea so completely. We judge ourselves by our own standards, and we assume that people in other countries are using the same standards. This is why we are confused when other countries don't like us, and we think that it must be because they are envious. The idea that America is the best is so deeply rooted that when we start slipping in one of our criterion of greatness we adjust the criterion.

I don't know exactly how other countries view themselves or us, but I assume that most are not so conceited as to think of themselves as the greatest nation of all time. Last summer I visited Scotland, and as soon as I got off the airplane I was amused to see posters welcoming me "to the best small country in the world." These were just tourism posters, of course; more serious Scottish self-evaluation is far less exalted. Some countries probably see themselves as the best at certain things or in certain categories, but few if any see themselves the way we do.

By this point, I have likely infuriated some people (if anyone is actually reading this), and such people may have quit reading, but in case any have made it this far, a few qualifications are in order. I am not saying that I do not think America is really great. America is great. It is the most powerful nation in the world. It has the highest GDP (nominal, PPP) of any nation in the world (although the total for the EU is higher by most measures). It has a good system of government. I really like it here. I like capitalism and the republican form of govern. The United States may be the greatest nation (whatever that means) in the world at the moment, but it is far too soon to make any historical judgments. The U.S. is still in its rookie season or sophomore season compared to the careers of the great empires of history. It is also foolish to claim that certain American ideals are superior to competing ideals in every way. God did not give ancient Israel a republic with three branches of government. Chances are that for some future society a different system will work much better than ours could.

Regardless of how great America may actually be, it is very dangerous to accept America's greatness as an absolute fact. For one, thinking that we are better than everyone else is a good way to make them all hate us. More importantly, accepting any uncertain principle as an absolute leads to a temptation to wrap it up with true absolutes. This is largely the cause of the misdirected passions of the religious right. If Christians accept certain political principles as absolutes, then it is logical to promote them with the same unwavering determination with which the gospel should be promoted. I am not saying that Christians should not be involved in or passionate about the political process. Christians should not, however, put any political ideal ahead of the gospel or anywhere near it. The gospel and all of Scripture should inform political decisions, but politics must never be made into a gospel. This is true for both domestic and international politics. God is neither a Republican nor an American. Just as Christians should not support any political party with absolute zeal, they should not support the spread of American political ideals overseas with absolute zeal. Instead, they should carefully and constantly examine the entirety of both in the light of the Scriptures.

If we are to stop thinking of America as the absolutely greatest nation of all time, we must develop a new image of our nation. I believe it is safe to apply the instructions given in Romans 12:3 to our nation as well as to ourselves: "For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned" (ESV). I believe Philippians 2:3 is also applicable here: "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (ESV). Sober judgment and humility will serve us well as we think about ourselves and our nation.