|
|
| Civil society, missile defence, and Iraq: Can idiotic government proposals be blocked by effective and active involvement by civil society? |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
It is normally not possible for civil society and regular citizens to best judge government proposals and decisions. That’s the reason democratic governments are elected in the first place; to supposedly look out for our best interests with their vast ‘expertise,’ ‘knowledge,’ and ‘experience’ (please don’t laugh). At least that’s what many of us in Canada hope they do.
However, there are certain issues that appear periodically on any country’s political landscape that are blatantly non-beneficial and costly from a societal perspective. Because it is society that will have to bear the burden and consequences of these government actions, the question of how and whether civil society can recognise the stupidity of such proposals, and mount an effective opposition to them, is something that has been bothering me for some time. To illustrate what is meant by a “blatantly non-beneficial and costly” potential government action I will discuss two relevant and recent issues: the Iraq War and the issue of whether Canada should participate in the proposed North American Ballistic Missile Defence Shield.
One thing that I have always admired about ‘western’ civilisation is the ability of regular individuals to vent their disagreements with their respective governments. A popular form of dissent is of course holding a demonstration in public. But to be perfectly honest, I took part in a demonstration or two in my life, and I never felt like I was getting anywhere. In fact, most of the time I felt a little silly chanting the cheesy slogans.
That’s not to say that demonstrations and public opposition at government action are necessarily useless. I’m sure you can find examples of governments taking heed when public opposition was particularly strong. But that will likely depend on two factors. One factor is to what extent is the government determined to achieve that which is troubling the demonstrators. The other factor is when considering the nature and extent of the protest(s) are the costs of ignoring the protesters acceptable politically? Practically speaking, I would argue that these would be the general considerations a government would make in this sort of situation.
So when the stakes are high, and these days I believe there many high-stakes issues out there in this dangerous and increasingly lawless world we are living in, can civil society effectively participate in the political decision making process to block what I described previously as idiotic decisions that may be taken by governments against the interests of society as a whole? Or, has apathy by the masses combined with indifference by politicians at society’s future interests overridden this principle’s effectiveness practically? Are most members of society satisfied with simply electing their representatives to their respective parliaments and being confident that he/she will act in their best interests?
So now we get to two issues that are relevant in this context. Iraq and missile defence. Perhaps public protests weren’t enough to stop the war in the United States, but considering that England, America’s most significant co-conspirator of the Iraq war, experienced a record 2 million protestors in London, who were effectively ignored with impunity by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is really something citizens of these societies should ponder. The implications for the future of ‘democracy’ don’t appear too promising if elected representatives can simply get away with actions that are contrary to the interests of society, as well as being against their wishes.
Perhaps if this war were of immense necessity as far as the UK’s national interests were concerned, and Tony Blair had no choice but to risk his own citizen’s lives, Iraqi lives, and scarce resources wasted on such an adventure, then Tony Blair could have been forgiven for his decision and for ignoring massive public opposition to the war. But as most of us have learned, this war was founded on completely false or irrelevant premises. The original excuses pertaining to weapons of mass destruction were laughably false. If the UK and the US were so concerned about ordinary people suffering under ruthless dictatorships, then that would naturally entail that they should occupy every country that fits that profile, including some of their allies. It should also entail that from now on they will cease to support such ruthless dictatorships militarily, economically, or covertly, as they have done repeatedly in the past (including, of course, supporting the now deposed Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein).
It is likely that the hypocrisy surrounding the pre-war bonanza was not lost on British citizens, as reflected by the sheer extent of the protests. I would like to believe that if a war to protect a nation were imminent it would hardly need an elaborate drama to convince the public that their sacrifice in blood and treasure is necessary. After all, it isn’t Tony Blair that is making the big sacrifice when making these decisions, except of course to his integrity. Society pays for this war through taxes and through their children. Mr. Tony Blair, in the meantime, has the luxury of using fabricated intelligence reports as he comfortably debates the British parliament on the merits of joining America’s so-called ‘coalition’ while his soldiers are shelling Iraqi cities and getting shot at in the hot Iraqi desert.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Riyadh Bseiso
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
