Democratic Tendencies

John Horvath 01.01.2009

Is Iraq moving closer to democracy while Europe is moving in the opposite direction?

The shoe-throwing incident by Muntadhar al-Zaidi in mid-December has made him a local and international hero. It's not so much in the boldness of his action, but that he did something that most people around the globe dreamed of doing, albeit with different sorts of objects. While analysts everywhere put al-Zaidi and his action in the spotlight, guaranteeing him more than his fair share of fifteen minutes of fame, the true significance behind the incident went unpronounced.

Most western observers who wrote about the shoe-flying incident did so with undertones of glee and admiration, but at the same time they were careful to not let this admiration and glee show too much. Phrases like “aalthough that action was not expressed in a civilized manner” or “although there is no doubt that the action itself was not exactly pleasant” were often used as qualifiers. Hence, most practiced a form of self-censorship, adding that they personally don't condone such behaviour. The net result of this is that feelings and actions of many in the west similar to that of al-Zaidi were thus further repressed by notions of what is considered decent and proper behaviour when personally confronting a politician.

Those who espouse the glories of western liberal democracy often forget that the modern version is missing one key element: the right to revolution and civil disobedience. One of the architects of the liberal democratic tradition, Thomas Jefferson, summed it up best when he noted that the tree of democracy needed to be nurtured with blood from time to time, as this was its natural manure. Clearly, in most contexts the reference to blood as the natural manure for democracy should be taken figuratively. However the end result is usually more or less the same: leaders should be held to account for their actions and not feel comfortable within the dictates of constitutional rules and regulations. Indeed, countries often celebrate revolutions (and some very violent ones, at that) in where tyranny was overcome. The French Revolution of 1792 and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 are merely two such examples.

In the case of the Hungarian Revolution, it's ironic that some who were involved in its suppression of the uprising ended up celebrating the revolutionary event. In fact, these same individuals have been praised by their western counterparts for the minimal role they played in the regime change of 1989. This only goes to show how perverted present day concepts of democracy and freedom really are.

It's questionable whether a revolution, such as the Hungarian Revolt in 1956, could occur once again in Europe. This is not because people aren't suppressed by a surveillance society which impoverishes them materially as well as aesthetically. The December demonstrations and protests in Greece is a perfect example of this. Nor is it because European authorities don't use violence against public demonstrations and protests: Sweden, Italy, and Hungary are just a few countries in Europe where police violence in the form of live ammunition (including the use of sharp sabres) have been employed which caused not only severe injuries but in some cases even death.

The difference between then and now is that western governments are much more sophisticated and refined in their methods of repression, so much so that a revolution or sudden grassroots change is very difficult to achieve in this day and age in Europe. This is one of the reasons why the governments of Central and Eastern Europe were so keen on joining NATO: not so much for protection against a resurgent Soviet Union (although this is a concern for some), but for protection against their own populations.

There are many hurdles to grassroots change in the Third Millennium within western societies

First there is the obvious media campaign which seeks to demonize any form of anti-government protest. The term "enemies of the state" in the past has been replaced by the simple term of "terrorist" in the present. Then there is the use of the police to contain and ultimately break up any form of street protest. Finally, there are laws which are formulated in such a way so as to deter any who may think or act outside of what has been deemed to be "appropriate" behaviour.

To illustrate just how repressive Europe has become in this respect, one has to look no further than a recent Hungarian law which forbids the throwing of any form of food or produce as a means of protest. In other words, a person in Hungary can be jailed for up to five years for simply throwing an egg at a politician. What is more, this law doesn't contravene any European laws since throwing food is considered by the European Union as equivalent to throwing any other type of object, such as a rock. This Hungarian law not only is the logical extension of existing European legislation, it also reinforces other restrictive legislation already in place within the country, such as the fact that being in proximity of a violent demonstration means that you can be charged for providing psychological support to a riot or that two people simply standing in the street can be considered an unauthorized gathering.

The mere fact that in many places in Europe protesters have to ask permission to hold a demonstration is not only one of the most vivid examples of political repression in Europe, but that it actually contravenes existing accords on the subject, such as the Helsinki Accords. Furthermore, it's ironic that if a person were to do in Hungary what Muntadhar al-Zaidi did in Iraq, they would face a penalty up two and a half times more severe than what the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W. Bush is now facing in Iraq.

Naturally, this is not to say that the situation in Iraq is a lot better than in Europe, even Hungary. The brother of Muntadhar al-Zaidi has said that the reporter has been beaten in custody. Then again, in Europe torture and the physical or mental abuse of detainees is not uncommon. In Hungary such abuse was widespread during the bloody crackdown of street protests in 2006. In a separate case, a detainee who had recently undergone a kidney transplant wasn’t given his medication while in detention.

It seems that while some countries are making progress on the road to democracy, European and other western countries appear to be going in the opposite direction. The problem for those obsessed with relying on the long arm of the law is that such repressive measures might in the end backfire. For instance, the problem with trying to prevent people from throwing food at their leaders by threatening them with stiff penalties is that it may ultimately lead some to cross the Rubicon; after all, if throwing an egg at a politician is considered by the state to be equivalent to a violent crime causing bodily harm, you then might as well throw rocks instead. Since it makes no difference whether the intended target bleeds or not, and since you have come this far anyway, then you might as well make sure that you hit them – nice and hard.