democracy

Leon Wieseltier, a writer that I frequently criticize, penned a prescient piece for The New Republic: "Eyeless in Cairo."

I have long argued that while not everyone in the world wants to vote in a republic or even necessarily be engaged in their own governance, I don't believe there is a person that believes power should be totally unaccountable to citizens. Similarly, I doubt there is a person who yearns to live in a society where there is no redress for injustice. This article covers similar ground - the prospects for democratization in Egypt and whether current US policy will reproduce Iran circa 1979.

This is an incredible passage:

Can one be for democracy in some states and against democracy in other states? As a matter of principle, of course not: democracy is universalism as a political order. It is premised on a certain conception of the individual and society, on an understanding of dignity and freedom that would be meaningless if it did not apply to all people. By bringing all people under a single philosophical description, it ignores, without regret, the social and economic and cultural distinctions among them. It equalizes. But policy, even when it is based in philosophy, is not philosophy; it cannot be indifferent to consequences. And the democratization of undemocratic societies is emphatically a policy of destabilization. In the anarchy of the attempt, all kinds of evils may be loosed. Unfree people dream of more than just freedom; they dream also of power, and vengeance, and exclusiveness, and heaven.

Which country has the greater respect for democracy - in the sense of power to the people - the U.S. or Iran? This is a question about culture, not which government is more democratic, that would be an absurd proposition.

No matter who won the election in Iran, remember that they were voting for a puppet. The true power in Iran lies with the religious leaders, not with the person the people (including the women, unlike other allies of ours in the Middle East) vote for. Looking at the evidence, I have no idea if the election was stolen or not, I think the evidence is maddenly muddy in both directions.

But as I was biking into work this morning, I was thinking about all the people in Iran that have taken to the streets to protest what they believe is a stolen election. I was mentally comparing it to the election in the U.S. in 2000 - when there were significant voting irregularities in Florida that led many to believe they could not trust the official results.

What did Americans do? It is true that some went to the streets to protest. But I think far more were content to grumble amongst themselves and joke about leaving the country. Certainly, as a proportion of the population, far more in Iran have put themselves in far greater danger by protesting in the streets than did U.S. citizens.

There are a number of variables that make comparisons difficult - Iran has a greater proportion of young people (the people who tend to be the most passionate about having a voice in their governance it seems). Iran's society is much more in flux than was ours in the year 2000. Perhaps Americans have a greater faith in "the system" and the idea eventually the true winner would be found -- but I think that is a hard case to make.

Those of us who have spent a lot of time outside the U.S. are often struck by just how passionate others are about their politics. Maybe Iranians just care more about democracy than Americans ... I haven't made up my mind about it, it is just something I'm considering and trying to figure out how I feel about it.