On many occasions we hear institutions and nation-states wage conflict with others in the name of democracy. The primary objective to an institution’s leverage of the “democratic cause” is to garner support from its citizens. However any citizen who takes credence to this “call to arms” indiscriminately does so at the risk of paying great tribute to the vices of irrationality and injustice.
From a political standpoint, democracy is broadly defined as a government structure (along with its implementations) that speaks for and represents the ideas and common will of the citizens it governs. Consider a near future where all nations are “democratic” by our previous definition; under which banner will these “free” nations rally for support if they find themselves locked in severe opposite interests? Can we favor one democracy as been more righteous over another’s? Unless the citizens of all nations are homogeneous in creed, beliefs, and culture, democracy alone will not be sufficient or even germane for long-term halcyon stability between nation-states.
The primary cause of all conflicts between individuals or nation-states does not rest in the politics that govern them but the diversity and differences themselves. If we are to cast our ballot for favoring a conflict, we must understand the reasons and our interests in its stake; and that it be based on, if not lawful, then at least moral and ethical convictions, and not in the name of democracy.
-MH, feb 2004