November 5, 2007 at 10:49:58

Bush and Musharraf's Self-Serving Definition of Democracy

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Ron Fullwood (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

“I would at this time venture to read out an excerpt of President Abraham Lincoln, specially to all my listeners in the United States," Musharraf said on Pakistani television. As an idealist, Abraham Lincoln had one consuming passion during that time of crisis, and this was to preserve the Union… toward that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties. His justification was necessity and explaining his sweeping violation of Constitutional limits he wrote in a letter in 1864, and I quote, ‘My oath to preserve the Constitution imposed on me the duty of preserving by every indispensable means that government, that Nation of which the Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the Nation and yet preserve the Constitution?’”

Lincoln's actions in suppressing the rights of the "enemy" southerners reflected the attitudes of the more radical of his supporters who regarded the ascension of their Republican party in the southern statehouses as an inevitable political destiny of the war. And so it is, in all military campaigns, that in the pursuit of our ‘enemies,’ we become so convinced of the rightness of our cause that we detach ourselves from the consequences of the dehumanization of our opponents. When opposing powers war, how do we distinguish between lawful opposition and insurrection?

The quote Musharraf so blithely adopted was Lincoln addressing the question of the suspension of the privilege of the writ in a July 4, 1861 message to a wary Congress; clearly torn between defending against subversives who advocated secession, and the application of the absolute power of his executive Presidency. Lincoln felt that the preservation of the confederation took precedence over all else; noting that the Constitution was conceived, not only to secure liberty, but to secure the "formation of a more perfect Union"

However, a year after the war ended, the Supreme Court would rule that Lincoln had exceeded his authority. And despite Congress' acquiescence in its subsequent approval of Lincoln's arbitrary actions in its passing of the Habeas Corpus bill of 1863, the court found that the president was not protected by the constitution in his suspension of the citizen's rights, even in wartime.

That opinion has not dissuaded American presidents in the centuries thereafter from using the power of government to mandate loyalty, stifle opposition and imprison those they considered enemies of the state. In wartime, or in an 'emergency,' a weak franchise may wrongfully view opposition as treason and seek to crush it. But in the absence of the full consent of the governed, such a heavy hand by an omnipresent government is nothing less than tyranny.

Unlike the anti-democratic rulers in the U.S. today, and in Pakistan, Lincoln believed that adherence to the principles of democracy would distinguish any victory in a manner that would provide for the durability of the Union and foster a national affirmation of the rights of the individual. "It was that," he said, "which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men."

Unfortunately, in Bush and Musharraf's self-serving definition of the democracy Lincoln so eloquently defended, the preservation of their own power is paramount to whatever instigation of democracy they claim to defend.

1 | 2

Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.