I was born in and have grown up in a democratic country. Having studied a limited amount about other regimes, monarchies, communisms, dictatorships and systems which have given rise to genocides; comparatively, democracy looks like one of the best political options for governance.
Likewise, I respect and support the notion of “human rights” like life, liberty, free speech and so on.
Therefore a first read of Michael Cotey Morgan’s article about Ignatieff I was left with an initial nod to the notion that democracy and human rights should be pursued and protected.
However, the more I contemplate the article, the notion of cosmopolitanism and pursuing the lesser evil I am forced to play devil’s advocate.
In the article, cosmopolitanism requires moral imagination when truly about ethics and responsibility. Ignatieff uses this to say all humans in all countries should receive our assistance when in dire need. The more basic question however is; based on what moral standard?
In law there is a notion of “intent” when some act is considered criminal or not. For example, to murder someone is wrong, but to kill someone in self defense is not a crime. But in both cases you first need to know what the crime is ie. murder.
Therefore we have to consider whether democracy is something worthy of “anti-perfectionist” results. Why should western civilizations be the imperialists pushing democracy on other nations? Ignatieff justifies the war in Iraq because of the end result. In other words he didn’t agree with the reasons the US entered Iraq but the end justified the means. In Ignatieff’s view, the US rid the Iraqi people of a terrible dictation who killed and tortured his own people.
This idea however of the end justifying the means runs contrary to the idea of “intent” as seen as a necessary element in law.
If you are willing to use force to uphold the notion of democracy and human rights, the rights should be defined.
It is always possible that this type of rational not only could be used to justify the anti-perfectionism result that Ignatieff acknowledges and accepts but also leaves it for him to extend the limits and value of the word, “rights” to enforce one’s own personal belief system. Recently in the news Ignatieff has challenged Harper on the issue of women’s rights to be discussed at the G8 summit this summer. Ignatieff believes a woman’s right to abortion is a mandatory inclusion in the rights of a woman. Regardless of how any one person feels about this topic, Ignatiff fails to realize that a large portion of Canada’s own population disagrees with him on the abortion issue. What right would a country such as ourselves or the US have to ensure rights for others when we don’t have a great grasp on the “rights” limits?
Another example of concern with regard to basic human rights can be seen with regards to education. Most Canadians would probably agree that many countries in need of our intervention do not respect the rights of their children to be educated, sometimes it is gender discriminatory. Look at Canada’s own situation with regard to aboriginal people and education. For decades we have forced young aboriginal persons to share the “white man’s” schooling. However, we only gave them limited education and support. In the meantime, they haven’t learned traditional lessons on hunting and fishing. With a mediocre classic Canadian education they don’t compete well on the job market. When they try to go back to their cultural roots they aren’t trained for traditional native life. Is it any wonder that there is a drinking and drug abuse problem on reserves? Are we going to export this type of education human right to other countries?
Should we take the plank out of our own eye before we invade other countries to remove the speck from theirs?
Ignatieff does argue that this type of skepticism can lead to inaction; therefore he justifies his action with pragmatism and anti-perfectionism. Although war may be the only way to protect democracy and human rights, he acknowledges innocent deaths may occur and the results may not be guaranteed.
Certainly the result in Iraq today is still arguably not better than before, but his point is understood and I have some sympathy for it.
I wonder, when the European settlers came to North America and rounded up the aboriginal people, whether they thought they were doing a good thing for those savage people.
So my point is that democracy works for us and it may be good for others, but we shouldn’t pursue the spread of democracy through force. Sometimes basic human rights should be protected in other regions of the world by countries like Canada. However, we should be fairly clear as to what those rights are from a limited point of view.
Although Ignatieff’s perspective of the lesser of two evils in theory sounds good, defining the lesser of the two is not always easy.
A politician of any land must have the ability to assess issues as they arise. There are practical and moral judgments to be made. Ideology is great for papers, but doesn’t translate that well in action. As Ignatieff formed his views in academia he may he may have learned the translation isn’t so easy in practice.
