Liberty & Security Wrestle in Pakistan, as Elsewhere: What Does this Mean for 21st Century Democracy?

In many parts of the world, people are presently facing the question, on a societal scale, of whether or not free and open democracy can coexist with measures taken to protect against extremism. The question is an old one and goes to the root of whether it is possible, as a matter of natural law, to vote away one's rights or to vote against democracy.

To take a serious look at this question, we must first consider that: democracy is not an ideology and it is not a system; it is quite simply the idea that no form of government can be legitimate unless it is (regularly) chosen by a free and sovereign people. That can be implemented in a number of ways and need not be contrary to anyone's culture or faith.

But, a new problem has come into play in recent years, which has existed throughout modern times and essentially has always been part of the mix between populist rhetoric and authoritarian rule, from Hellenic city states to the Roman empire up through the 20th century: that is whether the need to be secure justifies overruling the protections that allow for a population of free individuals to choose its government.

Famously attributed to Ben Franklin, but possibly written by diplomat Richard Jackson is the tenet "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Clearly, one cannot secure one's liberty by stamping it out, just as one cannot save a village by burning it.

There are countless cases of dictators committing mass murder under the auspices of a prolonged security operation or state of emergency, so it should not be shocking that authoritarian rulers expect to persuade that mass detention, the suspension of civil liberties and attacks on opposition activists can be justified by security concerns, so long as no one is killed.

In Pakistan, we have seen a tragic loss of life —the authorship of which is still undetermined— when a bomb attack targeted Benazir Bhutto's celebratory convoy upon her return after years in exile. Now, we are seeing a general who has ruled as a quasi civilian leader for nearly a decade, targeting all the levers of a democratic state, and making the claim that security and extremism are his concerns.

Maybe. What if? But there is no way to trust in that justification, because as Ms. Bhutto quite rightly points out, extremists are being ignored by the 4,000 police surrounding her home, and the legal system has been dismantled by military decree, added to which we have the constnt problem of a general claiming he plans to save democracy by stamping it out.

There are clearly real security issues in Pakistan. As there were in 1864 when the United States was at war with itself, but still held national elections. As there are at all times in the Philippines, whose government confronts several rebel factions, or even in Spain, where Basque separatists continue to harass the democratic state.

In 2004, when the Spanish ruling party talked of suspending elections because there had been a terror attack, it was top ranking military and police who said they would not stand by and watch the constitution ignored by the government. When the US Dept. of Homeland Security, under Tom Ridge, contemplated suspending November elections, it was the president's own party that responded to public outrage and moved to bar such a move.

Security and liberty are not at odds. They are parallel streams whose tributaries often intersect, but they have their own course and should not be mixed for the political gain of any faction or ideology. This much we should be able to agree on. From there, we need to take a very serious look at what motivates a people to sign away its rights in the confusion of a dangerous moment.