|
|
Can
we sacrifice freedom and democracy on the altar of fighting
terrorism, or is this not fundamentally at odds with the basic
creeds of freedom and democracy themselves?
If
we are truly believers in democracy, then we must fully support
that spirit of dissent with courage and conviction, and recognize
that it is only with democratic institutions firmly in place - an
independent judiciary, free media, a vibrant civil society - that
we can accommodate a broad spectrum if political perspectives,
whether modern or traditional, liberal or Islamist, and guard
against the excesses of tyranny in all its forms and
varieties.
As for those autocrats masquerading as
leaders, who (along with their cronies and henchman) advance the
self-serving notion that a half-century after independence their
people still lack the maturity to handle the responsibility of
democracy, what can we say other than to reject them
wholeheartedly and without reservation?
In
countries with such leaders, elections are largely a facade and
the media is complicit in this act of deception. Governments that
come to power through such a flawed process cling to it like
leeches, and the vicious cycle is perpetuated. This problem must
be tackled at its root.
But
in Southeast Asia, there remain diehard systems which insist that
freedom and democracy can be deferred until economic development
is achieved.
There may be some common-sense truth in the
argument that when a person is starving he does not care about
freedom or the right to vote.
But the lesson drawn
from this proposition is false. Democracy is not about the choice
between starvation and freedom.
It is about the freedom
to overcome poverty and tyranny without compromising in the
success against either.
Freedom
and democracy are not merely theoretical constructs or abstract
moral doctrines to be dissected and debated in academic halls or
intellectual forums.
On the contrary, they are part and
parcel of the self-evident truths that distinguish man-kind from
the rest of God's creatures, and they are as dear to us as the
ruddy drops that visits our hearts and keep us alive.
|
Anwar
Ibrahim on freedom, democracy and the rule of law
Anwar
Ibrahim
Journal of Democracy [Issue: Oct 2007]
08 Nov
07
Malaysia’s former deputy prime minister
recently wrote an inspiring piece (below) which was published in
the latest issue of the Journal of Democracy. Although he was
talking about Malaysia, note how similar the situation is with
Singapore.
On reading the historic address of
President Ronald Reagan before the British Parliament 25 years
ago, I was struck by the president's account of his conversation
with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in which she said that
most Englishmen today would agree with Thomas Jefferson that "a
little rebellion now and then is a very good thing."
John
Locke basically said the same thing back in the seventeenth
century. According to Locke, all men have the right to resist the
ruler, even of a legitimate political society, if he manifestly
abuses his power. When oppressed people resist tyranny, it is not
they who disturb government.
Locke wrote that rebellion
is an opposition not to persons but to authority, and that it is
tyrants who are the true rebels.
Yet given the gap
between Locke's theory and the practice of the preceding
centuries, such observations may sound like little more than
pious platitudes.
Even in today's world, bold statements
about freedom and democracy that are detached from real-life
experience may be viewed as pompous moral pronouncements.
Today
I intend to relate my own experiences regarding freedom and
democracy. So let me begin by saying that mine is a real-life
story about what it is like not to have freedom and
democracy.
It is about being on the wrong end of the
political stick, about unjust decrees administered by unjust
politicians, and about the collapse of the rule of law.
The
story begins more than thirty years ago when, as a student
leader, I was arrested by the Special Branch - Malaysia's shadowy
internal security and policing agency - under a farcical law
called the Internal Security Act, which arbitrarily rescinds the
civil liberties enshrined in the Malaysian constitution.
At
the time, I had no need for an attorney because I was afforded no
opportunity to defend myself in court (habeas corpus has enemies
in the strangest of places). What was my transgression?
Organizing a nationwide student protests against the
administration for its failure to make good on promises to assist
the poor.
The government's modus operandi was
predictable: Evidence of my anti-government activities was
sufficient to paint me as a traitor, and so either I would own up
to the crime and issue a public confession, or else take a
two-year holiday in federal prison. That was it. No trial. No due
process. No jury. With the stroke of the pen held by the minister
of internal security, my civil rights were confined to the cold
walls of imprisonment for the next twenty months.
Fast-forward
to 20 September 1998, barely two weeks after I was dismissed as
Malaysia's deputy prime minister and minister of finance.
Although the atmosphere in Kuala Lumpur had become tense, not
even the egregious injustice that I had suffered a quarter of a
century earlier prepared me for the disastrous events that were
about to lead my country into political turmoil and even greater
depth of unfreedom.
I had returned home after addressing
a public gathering at Freedom Square, where hundreds of thousands
has assembled to make the call for Reformasi. While I was holding
a press conference in my home in front of a large audience of
supporters, a SWAT team stormed my property and within minutes I
was snatched away in an unmarked car on the way to Federal Police
headquarters.
Some time after midnight, blindfolded and
with my hands tied behind my back, I was assaulted - repeatedly -
until I finally passed out. Who was my assailant? Not some
low-level thug just taking orders. I fell to the fists of the
country's chief of police himself.
This interplay of law
and politics was acted out with frightening precision - a
combination of brute force and unlimited political power. Yet
what strikes me now as much as it did back then is that we were
not living in some tin-pot dictatorship. We were in a country
claiming to be a democracy that protected the fundamental
liberties of its citizens.
Yet in one fell swoop, the
might of the law knocked me out cold, and it banished me from the
halls of power into solitary confinement for another extended
"vacation".
Throughout these ordeals my passion
for freedom and justice has grown in intensity, which is why the
implications of our conversation today are so grave.
First,
we must recognize the global impact of decisions, taken in places
where the rule of law is considered sacrosanct, that undermine
freedom and democracy. We can beat around the bush or we can call
it what it is: a double standard on part of the United States in
its foreign and domestic policy.
Tyrants and dictators
around the world readily gloat over the so-called wisdom of such
transgressions - from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, to suspension
of habeas corpus, to the euphemistically phrased practice of
rendition.
These policies do a profound disservice to the
thousands of people struggling to reform societies trapped in the
throes of authoritarianism. Thus the war on terror, with all its
bluster and bravado, has paved the way in many U.S.-allied
countries for brutal and unchecked repression, which is some
places threatens to nullify the reform efforts of an entire
generation.
Can we sacrifice freedom and democracy on the
altar of fighting terrorism, or is this not fundamentally at odds
with the basic creeds of freedom and democracy themselves?
We
must also dispense with the preposterous notion that Muslims are
incapable of accepting democracy because of something hardwired
into Islam itself.
Jefferson taught us of our inalienable
rights as human beings, and Muslim scholars have also expounded
on the sanctity of life, property, and conscience, noted that the
Prophet of Islam exemplified the traits of an accountable leader.
If we are truly believers in democracy, then we must
fully support that spirit of dissent with courage and conviction,
and recognize that it is only with democratic institutions firmly
in place - an independent judiciary, free media, a vibrant civil
society - that we can accommodate a broad spectrum if political
perspectives, whether modern or traditional, liberal or Islamist,
and guard against the excesses of tyranny in all its forms and
varieties.
As for those autocrats masquerading as
leaders, who (along with their cronies and henchman) advance the
self-serving notion that a half-century after independence their
people still lack the maturity to handle the responsibility of
democracy, what can we say other than to reject them
wholeheartedly and without reservation?
In countries with
such leaders, elections are largely a facade and the media is
complicit in this act of deception. Governments that come to
power through such a flawed process cling to it like leeches, and
the vicious cycle is perpetuated. This problem must be tackled at
its root.
We must also consider a broad spectrum of
socioeconomic issues that cannot be divorced from the discourse
on freedom and democracy. In India, politics has always taken
precedence over economics.
But in Southeast Asia, there
remain diehard systems which insist that freedom and democracy
can be deferred until economic development is achieved. There may
be some common-sense truth in the argument that when a person is
starving he does not care about freedom or the right to vote.
But the lesson drawn from this proposition is false.
Democracy is not about the choice between starvation and freedom.
It is about the freedom to overcome poverty and tyranny without
compromising in the success against either.
This approach
is highlighted by the democratic success of Turkey and Indonesia.
To be sure, Turkey is still grappling with threats from the
military, while Indonesia remains saddled with serious
socioeconomic issues. these difficulties notwithstanding, their
march toward freedom must not be derailed.
I am here to
offer tribute to those friends who remain steadfast in their
commitment to freedom and justice. I wish to honor President
Ronald Reagan's enormous contribution to the cause of freedom and
democracy, and to say that I am proud to be associated with the
work of the National Endowment for Democracy
(www.ned.org).
Freedom
and democracy are not merely theoretical constructs or abstract
moral doctrines to be dissected and debated in academic halls or
intellectual forums. On the contrary, they are part and parcel of
the self-evident truths that distinguish man-kind from the rest
of God's creatures, and they are as dear to us as the ruddy drops
that visits our hearts and keep us alive.
|
|
