prakash.persad@yahoo.com

SOFT UNDER-BELLY OF SECULAR DEMOCRACIES

The horrific attack on innocent citizens in Mumbai (on-going as this article is being written) must give the world an urgent reason to pause and rethink a new course of action to protect its population from terrorists.

Given the still unsolved bombings in our own capital city, those in New York, India and elsewhere, it would seem that life has, of late, acquired a hitherto unusually high level of uncertainty.

The destruction of the twin towers and other events have made travel burdensome. Most times travellers are angry with the authorities but they cannot really be blamed for protecting their country’s borders. After all, their nation was the victim of the attacks. Indeed, the more stringent the security checks, the lower the probability of the success of a terrorist event.

A cursory glance at the countries being subjected to terrorist attacks would indicate that, in the main, they are secular democracies. India, the largest democracy in the world, has been subjected to a number of attacks this year.

Clearly, the very freedoms guaranteed by democratic societies are being exploited to cause grievous harm to the very same societies and their citizens. It could be inferred then that democracy is in fact unwittingly providing the platform and mechanism for those with distinctly anti-democratic values to carry out their dastardly missions.

The principle of natural justice has, somewhere in its core, the principle of reciprocity. It would be fair then to subject those who do not believe in or adhere to the ideals of a free society to the standards they upkeep.

Some may argue, especially the so-called liberals, that we must not so do and it would be immoral and illegal to so do. But this principle and practice already exists in law.

When a person breaks the law and is found guilty, he/she is jailed, thereby removing, for the period of the sentence, some rights and privileges that law-abiding citizens enjoy. They thus are subjected to a different set of conditions. They abused their rights and privileges afforded by the society to cause harm to society and therefore are differently categorised and treated.

The same should be applied to terrorists, anarchists and dictators.

Many are concerned, and rightly so, when the rights of citizens are abrogated. So care must be taken to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place. There is a saying “the law is an ass” because it can be unwittingly burdened by the criminal and terrorist elements.

It is inconsistent and illogical to hold those who do believe and practise democratic ideals to the standards of democracy for this puts the law-abiding society at a severe disadvantage, holding the wrong end of the stick. After all, the good of the many must outweigh the rights of the murdering few. If we do not invoke this principle then we are denying the very rationale for the creation of civil society.

Terrorists declare that they are fighting a war.

Now war is normally declared so that both combatants are aware that indeed they both engaged in battle.

Terrorism is undeclared war on unsuspecting citizens.

It is thus the worst kind of crime that can be committed by anyone. It is cold blooded, premeditated mass murder and maiming of unsuspecting, innocent people going about their daily lives.

The punishment then must match the crime. Since they are the ones who declared war, then they should be treated as war criminals with a higher level of punishment.

Democratic societies are becoming increasingly diverse as a result of the globalisation of trade and other economic activities. In an effort to accommodate the resulting cultural, religious and ethnic diversity, changes have been made. Perhaps an unwitting consequence is an overdose of “political correctness.”

Too much of anything is not good and thus political correctness must be balanced with common sense. This requires the tempering (and taming?) of the cadre of lawyers who put their careers above the need and good of society. They should balance their seemingly insatiable desire for fame and money with a healthy dose of societal ethics and morality.

The principle of reciprocity must also be applied in the global arena in the areas of trade and international relations. Democratic nations should not trade with those who are run by dictators and who engage in and support terrorist activities.

In this regard western democracies have shown a high degree of hypocrisy. The result is that not only are their citizens paying the price but also many others.

There must be a new global paradigm, one in which places human life as paramount and the abdication of violence as a mechanism for the resolution of territorial and other disputes.

Key to this is the separation of religion and state and the proclamation by all religions that all of mankind, irrespective of their religious beliefs, are equal brothers/sisters.

Thus the words infidel and pagan and the associated beliefs and practices must be banned from civilised society.

Those countries that wish not to conform to this set of values must be treated as pariah states.

* Prof Prakash Persad is the director of Swaha Inc