Democracy has another martyr. Now we wait to see whether its enemies will have the ultimate triumph. Will parliamentary rule be restored in Pakistan? Or will the country collapse into the most terrifying sort of rogue state - a nuclear-empowered one - or simply subside back into its familiar condition as a hell's kitchen of tribal corruption and safe haven for resting terrorists? Somehow we must get past the hideous obstacle of George Bush, whose bizarre misjudgments nearly succeeded in discrediting the whole concept of liberal interventionism: there is a sound reason why, in spite of Mr Bush, no serious contender for the White House (or for Downing Street, for that matter) will actually renounce the principle of free-world intervention. Every responsible member of the political class is aware that the West actually has no choice. Its values are not simply being challenged in a global struggle for territory and influence as they were during the Cold War. They are under positive threat of destruction from a fluid alliance of Islamist fundamentalists, feudal warlords and corrupt dictators, all of whom see the spread of democracy as a viral threat to their survival.
The appeasement argument then generally takes on a patronisingly racist dimension: "Democracy is fine for Europeans and their New World descendants, but there are many peoples in the world who are just not ready for self-government. They actually prefer being governed by a strong dictator even if he is corrupt." So, I ask, if these benighted populations are so bovine and content under their dictatorships, why do they flee to our borders in such numbers that we are sinking under the responsibility of accommodating them? And if life under a tinpot tyrant has its consolations, how come so few people are attracted to it? Why are there not crowds of clamouring migrants going in the other direction to enjoy the charms of a voteless, voiceless existence?
No comments:
Post a Comment