Bush's
contempt for democracy
Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Robert Jensen 2003
posted on ZNet, Counterpunch and Common Dreams web site.
by
Robert Jensen
Many
around the world are skeptical when George Bush says he wants to use war to help
create democracy in Iraq. As a step toward bolstering his credibility, Bush
might start taking seriously democracy in the rest of the world, and at home.
U.S.
reaction to the weekend news that Turkey’s parliament had rejected a proposal
to accept the basing of U.S. troops for an Iraq war only confirmed what has long
been obvious: The Bush administration believes democracy is wonderful -- so long
as it doesn’t get in the way of war.
Let’s
remember the basic notions behind democracy: The people are sovereign. Power
flows from the people. Leadership is beholden to the people.
If
those ideas are at the core of democracy, Bush’s recent reaction to the will
of the people suggests he has contempt for the concept.
Bush
has a habit of praising as “courageous” those leaders who most effectively
ignore their people. In the U.K., polls show more than half the public against
the war, and close to a million people turned out for the Feb. 15 protest in
London. In Spain, 2 million hit the streets of Barcelona and Madrid, and 74
percent oppose the war. But Bush has praised the courage of prime ministers Tony
Blair and Jose Maria Aznar in remaining fanatically prowar in the face of
massive public opposition.
Silvio
Berlusconi is another favorite of Bush. The Italian prime minister has to ignore the 80 percent of his people who object
to the war, and on Feb. 15 the largest demonstrations in the world were in Rome,
where police put the crowd at 1 million and others estimated two to three times
that many.
But
perhaps the most courageous leader in Bush-speak is the prime minister of
Turkey, Abdullah Gul.
The Bush team found that it took some convincing (and $15 billion) to secure the ruling Justice and Development Party leadership’s support for U.S. use of bases for a war. In that effort, as a former Pentagon planner and ambassador to Turkey explained, “the biggest problem is that 94 percent of the Turks are opposed to war.”
After
winning over the key leadership, U.S. officials faced another problem: The
Turkish constitution requires a vote of parliament to allow those new U.S.
troops. With tens of thousands of Turks protesting in the streets during the
debate, the proposal failed by a narrow margin.
The
State Department, expecting a favorable vote, had prepared a statement of
congratulations. Because the initial reports out of parliament suggested the
proposal had won, that statement was released and -- you guessed it -- it
applauded the Turkish government for its “courageous leadership.”
U.S.
officials hope to reverse the vote later this week. No doubt Bush’s people
will be tough negotiators, but the Turks also can expect understanding of the
problems that Gul and his party face. During earlier negotiations between the
United States and Turkey, one U.S. official explained the process was
time-consuming because, “We are dealing with a new and inexperienced [Turkish]
leadership that is feeling very much caught by the situation.”
“Experience”
in this context means the ability to ignore and override the will of the people,
an endeavor in which U.S. politicians have considerable experience.
And
what of democracy at home? When asked about his reaction to the hundreds of
thousands of Americans who rallied on Feb. 15 to oppose a war, Bush brushed them
off as irrelevant. To pay attention to the largest worldwide political event in
recent history, he said, would be like governing by focus group.
Of
course, political movements -- people coming together because of shared
principles to try to affect public policy -- are not quite like focus groups,
which are convened by folks in advertising and marketing to test out their
pitches. Demonstrations are real democratic expressions of the strong
commitments of people; focus groups are a research tool used to craft
manipulative slogans and advertising strategies in order to subvert real
democracy. But let’s put aside the president’s confusion and go back to his
assessment of how the system should work:
“The
role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case,
the security of the people,” Bush said.
That’s all well and good, but beside the point. The question is, does Bush think “the people” have any ideas about their own security that are worth considering?
---------------
Robert Jensen, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas
at Austin, is the author of Writing
Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream and a
member of the Nowar Collective. He
can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.