Ponderations

Damn - stepping into really dangerous territory here, but it is time to flesh out a thought that has been a small kernel for a long time.  I considered it back when we were going to war in Iraq, justified by a laundry list of reasons, one of which was to "spread democracy", the idea that all people deserve and can function with the right for self-determination.  Such thinking has been at the heart of American intervention for a long time, although most often the war cry does not recognize how the enemy has changed, does not benefit from analysis of our previous folly.  The thought once more emerges as the "democracy we proudly created" in Iraq falls into disarray and ruin.

Are all cultures really capable of or suited to democracy?

I can only imagine how we look from the outside sometimes, why to oms our nation is at once amazing and perplexing.  We are a nation that, now more than ever, has great divides among its people (perhaps later we will ponder how this has happened over time).  Yet we all live under a single government and must cope with its incompetence and inefficiency.  Thus it amazes to hear the administration's criticisms of  the Maliki government in Iraq. Words like "greater inclusiveness" and "tolerance" flow so easily from the lips of those who are our betters, who know what rights we need and don't need, yet want leaders in other countries to surrender a power that they themselves cling to.  Still we - Americans - do not rebel, do not rise up, do not kill indiscriminately, terrorize our fellows, or behead those who disagree with us.  There is some sort of value, some sort of morals, some cultural element that allows for our displeasure while maintaining some semblance of order.

I would propose that what does that is our Bill of Rights.  It seems that, as long as a people are not persecuted, hounded, marginalized and denied their rights as protected by our constitution, then discontent will likely never cross over to armed rebellion.  As long as we are, at our core, who we were, we persevere.  Of course, this interpretation of things is a cautionary tale to those who are seemingly moving to curtail or infringe upon those rights they do not like, while making up news ones.  It is likely our cultural values will not permit those so treated, so denied, to simply accept this mandate unchallenged.

But back to Iraq (well, not literally).  Here is where the ice beneath my feet gets thin and I piss people off.  I simply do not think that all cultures can exist as democracies.  I find no better way to say this than to propose that a certain level of maturity is necessary for a democracy to function - that and a list of inalienable rights that are shared (and protected) by all.  Some of it is a cultural commitment to "the common good", which means that culture needs some common center (again our rights).  Maybe part of it for our nation emerged from a shared religion and, usually, only symbolic antagonism between sects of it.  Perhaps some cultures - indeed some religions - "need" a dictatorial form of government, in the sense that it evolves from the culture naturally).  Perhaps some cultures require periodic extermination of large groups of dissidents so as to maintain general order. The example of Iraq surely shows that Saddam, for all his brutality, kept a "cork in the bottle" and that imagining that we would place our culture's governmental template over Iraq, pull that cork is what has lead to a thus far never-ending shedding of blood.

This is indeed a cautionary tale on a number of fronts.  First, it suggests that we tread more lightly and stay our big stick when it comes to building the world in our image.  This is not a position in which I consider one form or culture superior to another; in fact that is what those wanting to impose democracy are doing - somehow our way is best.  What I am suggesting is that cultures be taken as they are and that we not play God by intervening.  Second, it speaks to our own modern times.  It begs us to remember the glue that holds this plan together.  Part of that glue is that our inherent rights are sacrosanct; that they transcend the fools we elect to represent us.  If those rights are not transcendent, then we have no reason to cooperate with our leaders.

In addition (out on that ice again), what are the implications of multi-culturalism for our future?  Is there a point at which the rights, goals, understandings, values, ad morals are no longer shared?  As opposed to our perspective, many cultures are not oriented toward "live and let live". They cannot accept that you are not like they are, do not dress as they do, do not worship as they do, that you have a right to be different, perhaps that God does not run our government.  In essence, they do not recognize the rights that bind us, do not recognize a "Common good" beyond what their country can do for them.  As our society becomes one of many cultures who vary in acceptance, tolerance, rights, and responsibilities, is there a point at which it is no longer our culture, perhaps better put as "the culture that is was", that adopted our form of government?  When does the culture cease being what it was and, when that happens, what follows?

Again, this is not to devalue any culture; it is simply to ponder whether our own dedication to allowing all viewpoints will be our undoing as a nation. Do we fail to recognize how unique, yet tenuous, our social contract has been?