Did The New York Times Criticize 'Epic Fury' Using the Man Investigated for...
Gavin Newsom Is Many Things. 'Pro-Family' Is Not One of Them.
Rep. Tom Tiffany Introduces Legislation to End Birthright Citizenship Loophole Being Explo...
Oregon Senate Committee Guts Gun Control Bill
President Trump Blasts Tucker Carlson: 'He’s Not MAGA'
GOP Rep Defends American Foreign Policy, Explains Why Operation Epic Fury Was Inevitable
Senator Tim Sheehy Helps to Forcibly Remove Crazed Protester During Senate Hearing
Tony Gonzales Suspends Campaign After Finally Admitting to the Affair He Denied for...
State Department Says That U.S., Venezuela Have Re-Established Diplomatic Relations
Federal Court Sentences Illegal Alien to Prison for $343K SNAP Benefits Fraud
CENTCOM: U.S. Has Destroyed More Than 30 Iranian Ships
NY AG Letitia James Sues Video Game Maker Over Loot Boxes
New Jersey Man Pleads Guilty in $600M Nationwide Catalytic Converter Theft Ring
U.S. House Rejects Resolution to Stop Strikes on Iran
Juror Bribery Plot in Feeding Our Future Fraud Trial Leads to 57-Month Sentence
OPINION

Democracy Is Impossible

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Democracy Is Impossible

After Moammar Gadhafi's downfall as Libya's tyrannical ruler, politicians and "experts" in the U.S. and elsewhere, including French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, are saying that his death marked the end of 42 years of tyranny and the beginning of democracy in Libya. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said Gadhafi's death represented an opportunity for Libya to make a peaceful and responsible transition to democracy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "Now it is time for Libya's Transitional National Council to show the world that it will respect the rights of all Libyans (and) guide the nation to democracy." German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that "Libya must now quickly make further determined steps in the direction of democracy." It's good to see the removal of a tyrant, but if we're going to be realistic, there's little hope for the emergence of what we in the West call a democracy. Let's look at it.

Advertisement

Throughout most of mankind's history, personal liberty, private property rights and rule of law have always won a hostile reception. There's little older in most of human history than: the notion that a few people are to give orders while others obey those orders; the political leadership classes are exempt from laws that the masses are obliged to heed; and the rights of individuals are only secondary to the rights of the state. The exception to this vision feebly emerged in the West, mainly in England, in 1215 with the Magna Carta, a charter that limited the power of the king and required him to proclaim and recognize the liberties of English subjects.

The Magna Carta served as inspiration for other instruments of personal liberty, such as habeas corpus and bills of rights, and five centuries later served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. The ideas of liberty and limited government were cultivated by great British philosophers -- such as Francis Bacon, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and David Hume -- and on the Continent by the likes of Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through the works of Western philosophers and the politicians influenced by them, including the founders of our nation, the idea emerged that political leaders couldn't run roughshod over the common man.

The key point to recognize is that Western transition from barbarism to civility didn't take place overnight; it took centuries. More importantly, for the most part Western civility and its institutions were not transplanted; they emerged from within Western civilization. Where they were successfully transplanted, it was done through Western colonialism, such as in the cases of the U.S., Canada and Australia.

Advertisement

In Libya and most other countries in the Arab world, what we know as personal liberty is nonexistent. According to Freedom House's 2011 "Freedom in the World" survey, as well as Amnesty International's annual report for 2011, most North African and Middle Eastern countries are ranked either "repressive" or "not free." Moreover, I believe that there's little prospect for Arabs ever being free and that Western encouragement and hopes for democracy are doomed to failure and disappointment. Most nations in the Middle East do not share the philosophical foundations of the West. It's not likely liberty-oriented values will ever emerge in cultures that have disdain for the rule of law and private property rights and that sanction barbaric practices such as the stoning of women for adultery, the severing of hands or beheading as a form of punishment, and imprisonment for criticizing or speaking ill of the government.

What should the West do about the gross violations of human rights so prevalent in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere? My short answer is to mind our own business. The only case in which we should interfere with Middle Eastern affairs is when our national defense or economic interests are directly threatened. That is, for example, if Iran were to meddle with Middle Eastern oil shipments or if we discovered good evidence of its building nuclear weapons, then we should militarily intervene. What they want to do to one another is none of our business.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement