|
A Critical Test
By
James S. Robbins
published in the Baltimore Sun
January 30, 2005
The battle lines are drawn in the war of ideas as Iraqi citizens vote today in their first free national election.
When he took the oath of office for the second time Jan. 20, President Bush used the moment to make an unapologetic tribute to freedom and to reaffirm the principles that undergird Western liberalism: liberty, the individual and self-government. The policy of the United States, the president proclaimed in his inaugural address, is to support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.
As if in response, Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden's prime contractor in Iraq, released an audiotape denouncing the same principles President Bush pledged to promote. "We have declared a bitter war against the principle of democracy and all those who seek to enact it," Iraq's top terrorist stated.
This frank exchange is a useful primer for those who believe that the war on terrorism is at its core a struggle against global privation or a cross-cultural misunderstanding that can be settled by seeking common ground. Far from it; this is an ideological war that resists compromise.
Put plainly, Mr. al-Zarqawi and other Muslim radicals see democracy as a form of apostasy, in which man-made law replaces the word of God. Elections, representative government and popular sovereignty are therefore "the essence of infidelity and deviation from the true path," according to Mr. al-Zarqawi's credo. And any who seek to promote this "malicious ideology" in Iraq or elsewhere will be treated as infidels and put to death.
Such a clash can be difficult for people who live in liberal societies to appreciate. After all, compromise is the essence of democracy. But the radical Islamists are pursuing a universalist vision of Islamic law, or at least their interpretation of it, and utopians seldom seek the middle way. The voice of the people has no place in a political system that follows rules ordained by God.
For Mr. al-Zarqawi and others of his kind, law was created to rule man, not vice-versa. Those who disagree have no place in their world.
Our opponents' rhetoric has seldom been so literal. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its satellites attempted to mask the authoritarian consequences of socialist rule behind the term "people's democracy." They obscured the lines of cleavage between East and West by claiming to represent the same human aspirations of freedom, dignity and equality, but to do so more effectively.
The terrorists make no such claims. They do not promise to give people the liberties they want. Rather, they seek to supply the guidance they need. They make no pretense of allowing people to live freely. Instead, they want to force them to live justly.
All of this underscores a fundamental fact: No free people would voluntarily choose to live in the type of society Mr. al-Zarqawi advocates. This is why the terrorists resort to violence. They are seeking to compel people for their own good. Their acts are sanctified by their beliefs.
These contrasting approaches to nation-building were clearly demonstrated in preparations for today's elections in Iraq.
While the U.S.-led coalition seeks to promote voter participation through a media campaign that stresses hope for the future of the country, the terrorists hang posters showing headless bodies with thumbs ink-stained from the polling place.
Iraq, therefore, has become a critical test case in the struggle between these competing visions of humanity. The majority of Iraqis are eager to build a democratic state. They view the very fact of elections as a victory over their totalitarian past and over the terrorists' plans for their future. And most desire to live in a society that affords them the same freedoms and opportunities that citizens in established democracies take for granted.
Freedom, however, must be earned. The coalition can support the nascent Iraqi democracy, but it cannot ensure its viability. When the Iraqi people select a government, they will take ownership of democracy, and it will be theirs to defend. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, they will have a republic, if they can keep it.
Copyright 2005, The Baltimore Sun
|
