Who Owns Democracy?

I ought to have made up my mind about Iraq by now. After three months of hearing acrimonious debate about the issue around campus and on the radio, I ought to have joined those who shout "Traitor" or "No Blood for Oil." But I have not done so. My main reason: the language that both sides of the Iraq issue use in order to defend their position strikes me as far too vague and unfocused on the long-term interests of both the United States and Iraq to persuade me. And I suspect that despite polls showing that 75 percent of the American public regards war as inevitable, there are many others in this country who share my indecision and my disgust at the debate surrounding it.

All sides of this controversial issue freely float around certain words, as though they had clear, unambiguous, fixed meanings, when in fact they do not. Chief among these words are "freedom" and "democracy." Not only are these words not as precisely defined as either side of this debate would lead the public to believe, but they are also largely indefinable. Just as Justice Hugo Black knew pornography when he saw it, the average American knows a democratic institution or a free country when he sees it, but ask him to define just what makes it free, and he may very well give you a blank stare.

One of the most appalling misuses of the word "democracy" thus far in the debate occurs in the argument presented by ultra-pacifists that the failure of the Feb. 15 protests to sway President Bush against war is a sign that the President has no respect for democracy. I cannot imagine how those who advance this argument have arrived at the naive understanding of democracy that informs this view of the Bush administration. When a million people stage marches and protests for a particular cause, this is surely an impressive sight and one that might lead the administration to cancel its war plans--assuming, of course, that it chooses to ignore the decision of 279 million others to stay home. As every Democrat who shouted foul about the 2000 election knows, democracy dwells in percentages, not in raw numbers.

Equally appalling is the claim, made by both advocates and opponents of war, that only those on their side of the issue care about freedom. Protesters of the war argue that they seek to defend Iraq's freedom to determine its own destiny and identity--a form of freedom they seem to regard more highly than the traditional forms of freedom like those of speech, press, and religion, all of which are non-existent in Iraqi society. Proponents of war, on the other hand, argue that their main concern is the freedom of the Iraqi people from the harsh regime of Saddam Hussein, even if that freedom does not lead to a democratic government in Iraq.

How exactly has it become a fundamental tenet of political discourse that a people or an ethnic group has an absolute right to self-determination, no matter how it uses that self-determination to oppress minorities and minority viewpoints within its midst? When did the cause of freedom become an excuse for installing over a people a puppet regime that may or may not have that people's interests at heart?

While it is fitting that the anti-war and pro-war coalitions fight over the merits of a war with Iraq, it is disingenuous for either side in this debate to claim that only its side truly represents either democracy or freedom. Neither coalition has really presented any vision for Iraq that would combine both self-determination and freedom from political oppression. Neither side is willing to admit that Iraq needs to be liberated from Hussein on the one hand and from extended foreign occupation on the other. Those who oppose war should focus on finding alternate means of removing Hussein from power; those who support it should deal with the specific questions raised by a potential American occupation of Iraq--most particularly, the question of how long such an occupation will likely last.

Were both sides of the war debate to avoid claiming that they alone stood for freedom and democracy, millions of Americans who have not made up their mind about war--among whom I count myself one--might be more willing to make a decision regarding war. Inflammatory rhetoric and partisan bickering seldom work to convert the politically indifferent to a particular cause. Reasoned arguments that do not distort the complexity of the situation in Iraq are needed, not shouts of "Traitor" or "No Blood for Oil." It is a shame that neither side seems able to bring such clear-headed reason to the debate. It would be much more helpful if the ultra-pacifists and the warmongers, who both desire a democratic Iraq free from Hussein, would concentrate their energies on finding a means of reaching that end. Such cooperation would serve the United States, Iraq, and the world far better than so much of the discourse--if it can even be called that--I hear from campus protesters and the talking heads on CNN.

J.R. Wilheim is a Columbia College senior concentrating in history and religion.