Friendly Country hosts celebration of Terrorist Killers

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by UDS *
**Sua

It may be a sweeping assumption that, because a country is an Arab country, it cannot be a democracy. Sweeping, but possibly true; I can’t think of a clear counter-example (Tunisia, possibly?) but this may reflect on my limited knowledge of political conditions in the Arab world, and I suspect that different Arab countries enjoy varying degrees of democracy.

I never said that because a country is Arab it cannot be a democracy. Such a statement would be racist, and I am (hopefully) not a racist. What I did say is that no Arab country is a democracy. And that is a statement of fact. (I assumed for purposes of this discussion that nothing would change in the next five years.)
Certain Arab nations (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, and several others) have made limited democratic reforms, primarily in the creation of a legislature with some powers - though some are “consultative” only. However, in each case, the country either severely limits the formation of opposition parties (particularly Egypt, which hasn’t recognized a new opposition party in decades), or has the monarch choose the government, not the legislature.

As for Tunisia, it is a “republic”, in which the President won the last “election” in 1999 unopposed with nearly 100% of the vote. In the legislature, the ruling party won 92% of the vote. The prime minister and cabinet are appointed by the President, not the legislature. It is about as democratic as the USSR was.

Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

It’s an even more sweeping assumption that, because an Arab country is unlikely to be a democracy, it must be a stranger to the rule of law, and the government can do anything it wants. A government with little or no democratic mandate may still respect the law and respect individual liberties.

To my mind, a government without a democratic mandate, by definition, does not respect individual liberties. But in any event, even a dictatorship that respects economic rights does not respect political rights. That’s kind of the point of dictatorship.

You are assuming that no Arab government would feel constrained in banning a meeting because it felt the views likely to be expressed would not be to its taste. That seems to me unwarranted. Moreover by holding an undemocratic government responsible for everything that happens within its territory, are you not implying that such a government should be totalitarian, and should ignore the rule of law in order to control everything that happens?

I’m not saying that a nation should be totalitarian - far from it. I’m saying that they should be democratic.
However, if a government deprives its people of the franchise, it must bear the consequences of that choice along with the benefits.
You keep referring to “rule of law”. A dictatorship is “rule of man”. Even if the law says X, a dictatorship, without checks on its power, can either (a) ignore the law, of (b) (which may answer your question more directly) change the law, at its whim.

Not every Arab country is governed like Iraq.

Of course not. But a “liberal” dictatorship is still a dictatorship. They “dictate”.

Sua

[Jackmannii]

Pjen (assuming you are monitoring this discussion and not off uncovering more appalling examples of “hypocrisy”):

The “celebration” you cite does not single out terrorist bombers for remembrance (though some of the participants will undoubtedly have a number of them in mind). If, a few years from now, in a climate of better relations between Israel and the Palestinians, some group chooses to hold a ceremony of remembrance for all Palestinians who died in the years of conflict, it would not outrage me if the event were held in the United States.

[UDS]

Hi Sua

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**

You keep referring to “rule of law”.
**

I do, and I think it’s an important point. Consider the United Kingdom. Until 1829, voters had to pass a religious test. The UK imposed substantial property qualifications on voters until 1867. It did not have universal adult suffrage until 1928. And even today the electoral system attaches much greater weight to the votes of some voters than to those of others, and is designed to minimise the number of voters who are repesented by the candidate of their choice.

Similarly the United States. In the past there have been legal restrictions on voting based on sex, race, educational attainment, “condition of servitude” and other factors. Even now the electoral system is regarded as being less than a model for other countries to follow, and there can be a presidential election in which the candidate with the most votes is not declared the winner.

Both of these countries have plainly moved towards democracy over a long period and (although both can undoubtedly be called democracies now) they could still make more progress in improving their implementation of democratic principles.

But at all times since 1776 (in the case of the US) and well before that (in the case of the UK) both would be recognised as countries subject to the rule of law. The government (the king, the president, or lower officials) could not do whatever they pleased. They had to act according to law. They didn’t always do so, and when they didn’t they weren’t always effectively sanctioned but, in general, what the government could do was determined by law, and if they wanted to do something else they had to get the law changed, which might be straightforward, or it might not.

I suggest that many countries which do not measure up to our standards of democracy are nevertheless subject to the rule of law. In particular I cannot accept that because (say) the King of Jordan inherited a position of power rather than being elected to it, it necessarily follows that he or his ministers can do whatever they please, without restraint, or that they can change the law at a whim to allow them to do as they please. It does not follow; it is an entirely separate matter.

The rule of law long predates democracy, and as a protection of individual political rights it is probably more effective than democracy. [Here trot out hackneyed example of Hitler coming to power through apparently democratic structures, and then having to overthrow the rule of law before he could implement his offensive policies.] In order to argue that the undemocratic governments of Arab countries can do anything they want, and therefore that everything that happens in those countries is desired by their governments, it is not enough to show that they are undemocratic; it is necessary to show that those countries are all without the rule of law. They may be, but I await evidence of it.

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
The reason I brought up their origins is that it’s often best to remember that certain terrorist organizations do not start out as such-that often, they can evolve from legit organizations, which may or may not affect how people feel about them.

Can I ask exactly how you’re defining “legit” and “non-legit” in this context? I don’t think the British government that put down the Easter Rising would agree that the Volunteers were a legit organization.

And of course, terrorist groups can later evolve into legit groups-though I would think this would be rare.

The Official IRA for all intents and purposes evolved into the Workers Party, who are definitely legit, if essentially irrelevant.

And then of course there’s the African National Congress.

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by Pjen *
Apologies to Ruadh- the title was aimed to be interesting, but not to be critical of the ROI. If it had been held in NI, I would have said the same.

Pjen, the title doesn’t bother me because it’s “critical of the ROI”, it bothers me because it’s nonsensical. But I don’t suppose there’s much point continuing this line of argument.

I believe that at least an intellectual defence can be mounted to support such movements of national liberation (ANC etc.) that require the acceptance of a level of ‘terrorism’.

But what your OP asked for was a defence of the killing of English children. See the difference? Maybe that’s why you’re not getting the response you’re looking for.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by UDS *
**Hi Sua
But at all times since 1776 (in the case of the US) and well before that (in the case of the UK) both would be recognised as countries subject to the rule of law. The government (the king, the president, or lower officials) could not do whatever they pleased. They had to act according to law. They didn’t always do so, and when they didn’t they weren’t always effectively sanctioned but, in general, what the government could do was determined by law, and if they wanted to do something else they had to get the law changed, which might be straightforward, or it might not.

Neither were dictatorships. They could be described as oligopolies, of what have you, but in both cases, absolute power did not rest in the hands of one person or institution. There was a division of power, in both cases between military might and the purse-strings. Thus, each institution in power “had” to obey the law because the other institution with power could force them to do so.

I suggest that many countries which do not measure up to our standards of democracy are nevertheless subject to the rule of law.

Agreed, if there is a division of power.

In particular I cannot accept that because (say) the King of Jordan inherited a position of power rather than being elected to it, it necessarily follows that he or his ministers can do whatever they please, without restraint, or that they can change the law at a whim to allow them to do as they please. It does not follow; it is an entirely separate matter.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that they will do as they please, and of course, the ultimate limitation is that they cannot do things that will provoke revolution. But certainly they can - there is nothing to stop them. No institution exists with real power to prevent violations of the rule of law.

I mean, what it the power of law? The power of law is the power of the institutions that uphold the law. If there is no institution with real power to make sure that other wellsprings of power in the society act in a lawful manner, there is no “rule of law.” An individual dictator may deem it prudent to adhere to the law, but that is not, of itself, rule of law. The next dictator may disagree.

The rule of law long predates democracy, and as a protection of individual political rights it is probably more effective than democracy.

Agreed, but only in situations where power is divided.

In order to argue that the undemocratic governments of Arab countries can do anything they want, and therefore that everything that happens in those countries is desired by their governments, it is not enough to show that they are undemocratic; it is necessary to show that those countries are all without the rule of law.

Agreed, but see above.

Sua

[UDS]

Hi Sua

(This is all a bit of a sideshow as far as Pjen’s original point is concerned.)

I guess the bottom line is that “not a democracy” is not the same thing as “dictatorship”. We can have constitutional systems which have other checks and balances, or other divisions of power. Or we can have constitutional systems which have the appearance of democracy or of dictatorship, but are in fact regulated by unstated but effective divisions of power.

Consider the Lebanon. The country is only governable at all on terms which secure at least the assent, if not the wholehearted support, of influential figures within the Christian, Sunni and Shia communities, and to a certain extent the assent of the government of Syria also – and perhaps even the government of Israel. But leave aside external influences (which perhaps go to questions of national sovereignty and independence rather than to questions of democracy –v- dictatorship). The conduct of the government must be to some extent acceptable to all three communities in the Lebanon and, if the government fails to observe this restriction, it is likely to lose all power to govern. Whatever formal constitutional arrangements Lebanon may put in place, and whoever controls executive power, the political reality is that the government cannot do as it pleases. In particular the executive can have no assurance that it can act illegally with impunity, or that parliament will change the law as it wishes.

The Lebanon is perhaps a particularly clear example, but I suspect the same is true, to some extent, in many other Arab countries. The constituencies which must be placated are not necessarily divided on religious grounds. They could include the army, for instance, or a propertied class. I don’t know. The point is that it remains to be demonstrated to me that everything significant which happens in an Arab country happens because the government wants it to happen rather than because they feel constrained to allow it to happen.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by UDS *
I guess the bottom line is that “not a democracy” is not the same thing as “dictatorship”. We can have constitutional systems which have other checks and balances, or other divisions of power. Or we can have constitutional systems which have the appearance of democracy or of dictatorship, but are in fact regulated by unstated but effective divisions of power.

Agreed. My position is that, currently, regardless of form of government, the Arab nations are in actuality dictatorships.

Consider the Lebanon.

Glad you brought that one up. Were it not for Syria, I would place Lebanon firmly in the “democratic” camp. Definitely not a Western-style liberal democracy - its division of offices and power along confessional lines is incompatible with liberal democracy - but undoubtedly a democracy.

But I think you understate the influence of Syria. Lebanon is effectively a satellite state of Syria - the relationship is very akin to East Germany and the U.S.S.R. in the Bad Old Days. Syria plays the role of the “dictator” in Lebanese politics - its word is final, with no effective balance of power.

Sua