On The Importance of Democracy vs. Constitutionalism

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/world/middleeast/mohamed-morsi-of-muslim-brotherhood-declared-as-egypts-president.html?pagewanted=all

While New York Times, despite its liberalism, is probably the best news source in the United States and possibly the world, its comments section tend to be dominated by extremely saccarine liberals who make me feel queasy.

I mean comments such as these:

Are we Egyptians? No. The people of Egypt chose who they wanted, it is not right for us to say what is right or wrong if we are not the voters. If we truly believe that democracy is the best form of government, then we must believe in the people of Egypt and let them forge their destiny.

Best wishes to Egyptians on their way to democracy. As for us, let’s remember it’s their collective choice, Islamist or not. No more supporting Mubaraks of the world and meddling with sovereign nations’ internal affairs just for “our” interests.

Americans have no right to complain about the choice
by the majority of Egyptians. American voters have repeatedly
voted for the wrong president and congressional representatives.
With a dysfunctional the political system, based on
free choice of the people, they should not throw stones on
Egyptians. With so many Tea party radicals in the congress
the absurdity is crystal clear. First show a good voting record
then criticize others in Egypt and elsewhere.

Liberals and “progressives” are needless to say not consistent on this. After all if a state such as California bans gay marriage in a democratic referendum or as in many states restricts abortion by acts of a democratically elected legislature, they will desire the courts to overturn such acts.

So would you or not agree that the most important quality of a government is not democracy but rather a constitutional regime which protects the political, personal, and economic freedoms of the people? The two are not synonymous-most ancient democracies such as Athens were essentially mob rule where people whose ideas were not liked such as Socrates were liable to be persecuted. On the other hand, while Imperial Germany was not a democracy (the monarch having the power to appoint the Chancellor), it was a constitutional regime in that basic freedoms were guaranteed to people.

This is not a thread, however, to discuss whether the Muslim Brotherhood will simply be an exponent of mob rule or will be a government that guarantees freedoms.

[John_Mace]

Poison the well much?

Liberals think anti-SSM laws violate the US Constitution. How does what is happening in Egypt violate the Egyptian constitution? The US has a long and troubled history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Just because someone thinks we should MOOB, doesn’t mean they think the results in Egypt are good either for them or for the region.

In the end, you’re offering a false dichotomy. Any constitution must be democratically ratified to be legitimate. So, they’re both important.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

[QUOTE]

@John_Mace

Poison the well much?

Liberals think anti-SSM laws violate the US Constitution. How does what is happening in Egypt violate the Egyptian constitution?

For example the Egyptian Constitution does not require any religious tests for one to be President yet Mr. Morsi desires it to be otherwise. And even if the Constitution of Egypt did not explicitly forbid it, I’d expect activists (to rightfully) complain. After all in South Africa Apathareid was legal and constitutional in a technical sense but it was immoral.

The US has a long and troubled history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Just because someone thinks we should MOOB, doesn’t mean they think the results in Egypt are good either for them or for the region.

The comments I quoted were closer to the idea that a government is good just because it was democratically elected and ignored differences between a constitutional and a democratic regime.

In the end, you’re offering a false dichotomy. Any constitution must be democratically ratified to be legitimate. So, they’re both important.

If a government can offer both as in the US it is great but this is not possible in countries which a majority of people don’t support rights. For example during the Reconstruction, the US military occupied Southern states to basically force them to produce constitutions that respected the rights of both whites and blacks.

[John_Mace]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

For example the Egyptian Constitution does not require any religious tests for one to be President yet Mr. Morsi desires it to be otherwise.

The US constitution forbids religious test, and so it would be unconstitutional to try and pass a law that required one. If the Egyptian constitution has no sanction against such tests, then there is no reason they can’t pass a law requiring such.

And even if the Constitution of Egypt did not explicitly forbid it, I’d expect activists (to rightfully) complain. After all in South Africa Apathareid was legal and constitutional in a technical sense but it was immoral.

Eh. Just because someone doesn’t condemning something doesn’t mean they approve it. As I said in the first post, it’s NOOB what the Egyptians want to do, but if we can, of course, pull back any aid we give them if we think such a move is in our best interests. We had no problem dealing with a secular dictator, so maybe it’s not so much of a problem dealing with a religious one. It’s what we do in Saudi Arabia, after all.

The comments I quoted were closer to the idea that a government is good just because it was democratically elected and ignored differences between a constitutional and a democratic regime.

No, they didn’t say it was “good”. They said it was “right”, in the sense of what the people want.

If a government can offer both as in the US it is great but this is not possible in countries which a majority of people don’t support rights. For example during the Reconstruction, the US military occupied Southern states to basically force them to produce constitutions that respected the rights of both whites and blacks.

The southern states were part of the US. Egypt is not. Look at a map.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

While New York Times, despite its liberalism, is probably the best news source in the United States and possibly the world, its comments section tend to be dominated by extremely saccarine liberals who make me feel queasy.

In reality:

In reality

While the crazies over at the Media Research Center have accused the Times of having a liberal bias[1], there have been several instances where the paper has blatantly supported neoconservative policies. For instance, in the wake of Iran-Contra, one editor acknowledged that the Times frequently adhered to the Reagan administration strategy of heavily reporting on human rights abuses in Nicaragua by the leftist Sandinista government as a means to support the right-wing Contras. At the same time, the newspaper usually ignored worse cases by other Central American governments supported by the Reagan administration.[2] More recently, Clark Hoyt, public editor for the Times, steadfastly refused to issue corrections for a discredited story involving the ACORN pimp hoax.[3]

It may be more reasonable to say that if the paper of today has any actual bias, it trends toward American exceptionalism and preserving the establishment status quo, rather than toward any broad political ideology. After all, the same newspaper which once published The Pentagon Papers now sidelines the release of leaked Afghan War documents in favor of personal attacks on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.[4] The Times’ coverage of the leaks was strikingly suspect when compared with other media outlets; the paper chose to focus on doing its best to make sure the US didn’t look bad, and refused to admit the documents showed that government officials had ever lied about anything.[5] Following the same lines, it also led the charge on not calling waterboarding torture when it was being done by the US [6], while at the same time not caring to be pedantic when it came to the same abuses done by others.[7]

Iraq War coverage

The most notable controversy the paper has faced was that centering on its coverage leading up to the Iraq War[8]. Especially troublesome were stories backing the American government’s position on WMD’s in Iraq, authored prominently by reporter Judith Miller.[9] Miller’s articles, which more or less echoed the claims of Bush administration officials, were then cited by those very same officials as justifications for war. Truthiness in motion, you could say.

Not to be outdone, fellow Times journalist Thomas Friedman backed the war effort to the extreme, repeatedly asserting (contrary to the reality on the ground) that all was well, and that we were likely to see the end of the conflict somewhere within the next Friedman Unit. So widely criticized was the Times coverage on Iraq, they even had to print a half-hearted apology when all was said and done.[10]

Despite all of the above, the New York Times does manage to produce some high quality journalism, remaining one of the most respected published newspapers today.

1.↑ For example, the MRC operates a website critical of the newspaper, TimesWatch.org.
2.↑ “Questionnaire for the New York Times on Its Central America Coverage.” Extra!: January/February 1988.
3.↑ NYT and the ACORN Hoax
4.↑ The Times channels the Nixon administration
5.↑ NYT vs. the world: WikiLeaks coverage
6.↑ “From the 1930s to 1999 the New York Times described waterboarding as torture 81% of the time; from 2002 to 08, 1.4%” - Yep
7.↑ NYT and “torture”: Searching for a justification
8.↑ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/29/iraq.usa1
9.↑ Ackerman, Seth. “The Great WMD Hunt.” Extra!: July/August 2003.
10.↑ NYT “Apology”

[BrainGlutton]

Every time I have heard the “rule of law is more important than democracy” argument invoked, it was wrong. E.g., when George Will defended the Marcos regime in the Philippines, or perhaps it was the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

[Trinopus]

@BrainGlutton

Every time I have heard the “rule of law is more important than democracy” argument invoked, it was wrong. E.g., when George Will defended the Marcos regime in the Philippines, or perhaps it was the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

And…suppose the people do make some horrible mistake and elect the wrong guy. Suppose we really blow it, and fall for some slick-speaking sly bastard who intends to sell us all to the devil. Okay…

What possible mechanism could anyone propose to “fix the problem?” What procedure do we want in place to overrule the people’s vote? Do we want a commissioner, or czar, or committee, standing around, watching over our shoulders, having the power to say, “Oops! You just elected Smith, but since he isn’t acceptable, Jones is actually now the President.”

(A rough kind of solution does, of course, exist: civil war.)

[2sense]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

So would you or not agree that the most important quality of a government is not democracy but rather a constitutional regime which protects the political, personal, and economic freedoms of the people?

I would not agree. There are no natural and fundamental political, personal, and economic freedoms to be protected. We have to decide for ourselves what those words mean. How those freedoms are determined is the important thing. It’s not hard to imagine construing these constitutional rights in such a manner as to drive the bulk of the people into peonage. (One could argue that the modern Republicans have done just that.) Governments should be judged on results and not intent. And they should be judged by the people themselves. This is not only morally proper but also prudent. There is no guarantee that you or I or any other individual will approve of the behavior of a government. The best safeguard we have against tyranny is to spread political power as broadly as practical. Then more people will have to be convinced to acquiesce and continue to acquiesce. A self-interested cabal cannot resist public pressure to reform.

[Tom_Tildrum]

I tend to discount any argument premised on the comments following an article. Perhaps that makes me distrustful of democracy to some degree.