Opinion> Walter Williams> Democracy Is Impossible

	23 May 2012 Should Black People Tolerate This? Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.… Read More.
	16 May 2012 Should We Obey All Laws? Let's think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a … Read More.
	9 May 2012 Leftist Race-baiters MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in a recent debate with former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, called … Read More.

Democracy Is Impossible

After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and "experts" in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that "Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy." It's good to see the removal of a tyrant, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little hope for the emergence of what we in the West call a democracy. Let's look at it.

Throughout most of mankind's history, personal liberty, private property rights and rule of law have always won a hostile reception. There's little older in most of human history than: the notion that a few people are to give orders while others obey those orders; the political leadership classes are exempt from laws that the masses are obliged to heed; and the rights of individuals are only secondary to the rights of the state. The exception to this vision feebly emerged in the West, mainly in England, in 1215 with the Magna Carta, a charter that limited the power of the king and required him to proclaim and recognize the liberties of English subjects.

The Magna Carta served as inspiration for other instruments of personal liberty, such as habeas corpus and bills of rights, and five centuries later served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. The ideas of liberty and limited government were cultivated by great British philosophers — such as Francis Bacon, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and David Hume — and on the Continent by the likes of Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Through the works of Western philosophers and the politicians influenced by them, including the founders of our nation, the idea emerged that political leaders couldn't run roughshod over the common man.

The key point to recognize is that Western transition from barbarism to civility didn't take place overnight; it took centuries. More importantly, for the most part Western civility and its institutions were not transplanted; they emerged from within Western civilization. Where they were successfully transplanted, it was done through Western colonialism, such as in the cases of the U.S., Canada and Australia.

In Libya and most other countries in the Arab world, what we know as personal liberty is nonexistent. According to Freedom House's 2011 "Freedom in the World" survey, as well as Amnesty International's annual report for 2011, most North African and Middle Eastern countries are ranked either "repressive" or "not free." Moreover, I believe that there's little prospect for Arabs ever being free and that Western encouragement and hopes for democracy are doomed to failure and disappointment. Most nations in the Middle East do not share the philosophical foundations of the West. It's not likely liberty-oriented values will ever emerge in cultures that have disdain for the rule of law and private property rights and that sanction barbaric practices such as the stoning of women for adultery, the severing of hands or beheading as a form of punishment, and imprisonment for criticizing or speaking ill of the government.

What should the West do about the gross violations of human rights so prevalent in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere? My short answer is to mind our own business. The only case in which we should interfere with Middle Eastern affairs is when our national defense or economic interests are directly threatened. That is, for example, if Iran were to meddle with Middle Eastern oil shipments or if we discovered good evidence of its building nuclear weapons, then we should militarily intervene. What they want to do to one another is none of our business.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment

What is written here is not what most of us want to hear. Nor is it politically correct. But the reality is, we have enough to do in our own nation. Those in other countries, except in extremely rare instances where horrendous oppression and violence is occuring, need to solve their own problems. And we cannot force other societies and cultures to suddenly change their underlying values that form the foundations of a political system. The failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are sad examples of this. I wish this column would get broad dissemination.

Comment: #1
Posted by: David Horn
Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:10 PM

Report this post

What is written here is not politically correct, rather it is the truth. A truth so deep down that it will be rejected offhand by many who cannot see beyond what they desire to be true, what they desire to make true. By attempting "relevance" in education we have produced generations unable to look into the hearts and minds of others. Others are not relevant, therefore not understandable. A mental default sets in; "Beep. We are all people and desire the same things. Beep." That is easier than considering what someone else truthfully desires. This author and column are most likely to gain broad suppression by receiving no acknowledgement. Which MSNBC anchor could deal with it? I can hear the "Beeps" now.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Tom
Tue Nov 1, 2011 6:37 AM

Report this post

Dr. Williams is right in his analysis of history and is most likely right in his pessimism for the prospects of the Middle East. However, it is wrong and even dangerous to call what we have and what they need "democracy". That term has three main meanings which people freely interchange and confuse. --- First is majority rule, but if majority rule means no protection for the minority, then democracy becomes the mob rule the Founding Fathers thought it was and rejected. Remember, the Greeks invented democracy and then voted to kill Socrates. --- The second meaning of "democracy" is a system with elections, but while it is a good thing to have the opportunity to periodically throw the bums out and bring in new bums, elections by themselves are often nothing but shams, fig-leafs for dictators, and no better than the mob rule of the first meaning. Remember, the East German dictatorship held one-party elections and even had "democratic" as part of their name. --- The third meaning of "democracy" is a system of freedom with the protection of rights under rule of law under a constitution, which is the meaning Williams and the people he quotes have in mind. But too often the discussion starts with one definition and then switches to the other meanings in a way that intermixes freedom and the violation of freedom in one dangerous package deal. --- What the Middle East needs is NOT democracy but LIBERTY, with all the beliefs and institutions necessary to sustain it. If we can barely hold onto that ideal in America, what hope is there for the Middle East?

Comment: #3
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed Nov 2, 2011 6:29 AM

Report this post

Already have an account? Log in.