The Difference Between Republicanism & Democracy

I am none too fond of democracy.

I understand that this qualifies as an unusual statement to make in the twenty-first century now that conservatives and liberals alike are so enthusiastic about invoking 'democratic rights' or the best interests of the democratic state to justify their domestic and foreign policy decisions and actions. One can hear them proclaiming from mountain tops that democracy is the root of all good in a political system. Why should the United States invade Iraq, Mr. Bush? Why, to bring them democracy, of course!

The root of all good in a political system - nay, the only proper function of the state - is the protection of individual rights. These individual rights have very little to do with the logically indefensible 'democratic rights' that were invented by the social democrats (I'm thinking here of the right to an education, the right to health care, or the newly discovered right not to be offended, among countless others). Rather, individual rights are the logical corollaries and consequences of the one basic right of every human being: the right to one's own life.

So what does holding this position make me if not a democrat? As the title of this blog suggests - and I know that a lot of my readers have inquired about this - it makes me a constitutional republican. In a Canadian republic, the legislature would still operate democratically but politicians would possess no power to violate the rights of their state's citizens under any circumstances. In Canada, that would mean no Human Rights Commissions violating the right to free expression, no federal confiscation of private property, no coercive taxation, and no compulsory unionism.

I stumbled across this video the other day which does, I believe, an excellent job of distilling the difference between a democracy and a republic down into an easily accessible and relatively concise presentation. Although the video is far from perfect, I hope that it will function as something of an introduction to the idea of a constitutional republic to freedom-loving Canadians.

What Lies Beneath: The Authoritarianism Of Global Warming Activism

I'm sure that most who subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic global warming do so with the best of intentions. A lot of people seem pretty sure about it. Besides, with politicians and pundits insisting that the “science is settled,” expressing skepticism has become unpleasant. In the best of cases, the failure to fall in line is greeted with sanctimonious incredulity and, as a norm, with accusations of greed, selfishness, and heresy. That’s the thing about settled science; once you close the book on intellectual discourse you close your mind to other opinions or theories. And then you get the Spanish Inquisition. Or contemporary Iran.

Well, regardless of the standard, these global warming activists do not have the best of intentions. Authors David Shearman and Joseph Wayne Smith have published a book revealingly titled “The Climate Change Challenge & The Failure of Democracy.” You’ll never guess what the book’s thesis is.

The authors stand with Al Gore and his legion of disciples who see anthropogenic global warming as the greatest crisis to have ever faced humanity. Extinction is where we’re headed if a change isn’t made soon, they insist. Alright, we're still in familiar apocalypse territory. But, hold on, because we’re about to dive face-first into the real crazy.

Shearman argues that the climate change crisis is the most pressing problem facing humanity today and that the modern liberal-democratic state, in light of its “flaws and contradictions,” is not equipped to deal with the threat. But wait, Shearman and Smith have a solution! Since Western liberal democracies – e.g. the “institutions, laws, and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance” – are not capable of confronting the problem head on, it is incumbent upon rational and progressive citizens to call for the implementation of authoritarian governments to replace our democracies and do what is necessary to fix the AGW problem. I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in. Okay, moment over. Are you shocked? Betrayed?

I have a friend whose husband just cheated on her. When she found out she was understandably devastated and professed to be surprised. But, after a bit of time had passed, she admitted that she wasn’t actually all that shocked. He had always been overly flirty and would sometimes take it too far. This pretty much runs parallel to my reaction to the Shearman book. The anthropogenic global warming movement is cloaked in good intentions but it is difficult to forget Henry Louis Mencken’s words: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Even the "moderate" solutions proposed to deal with AGW involve impracticable levels of economic control by the government and a stranglehold on industry. Although I know that most AGW true-believers are well-meaning, on some level I've always been of the opinion that some of them flirt with authoritarianism far more than is healthy and that it was only a matter of time before they cheated of democracy. Um. Yes. Don't worry, the analogy is over now.

Now for the obligatory caveat: “Of course most global warming activists don’t want to replace our liberal democracies with dictatorships.” But, if nothing else, the Shearman book does us a favour by demonstrating where "solutions" for global warming would take us. Not directly into despotism but certainly on the road towards it. At the end of the day, the science is not settled on anthropogenic global warming and the debate is far from over. But even if climate change proves to be a catastrophic problem for humanity, strangling our economies and plunging the civilized world into dictatorship would be catastrophic too.

Pakistan: Just How Safe Are The Nukes?

I was recently linked a Newsweek article by Graham Allison that raises questions about the safety of Pakistan's nukes. The article suggests that the barriers between terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Pakistan's nuclear technology have been weakening steadily in recent years - and particularly in the wake of former Prime Minister Bhutto's assassination - and that the nightmare scenario of 'The World's Biggest Suicide Bomber' is becoming increasingly possible. This is an issue I've been pushing for some time and Allison does a good job of summarizing the principal concerns.

"As recently as November, Musharraf told reporters that Pakistan's custodial arrangements for nuclear weapons and material are 'the best in the world' and that so long as he is in power 'Pakistan's nuclear weapons will be safe.'"

As I posted earlier, Musharraf is holding on to power by a thread and US politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson and endeavouring to undermine what little control he has left.

Allison points to the real threat of corruption in the Pakistani government as a source of concern:

"The design of Pakistan's nuclear control system creates risks of insider theft. This system addresses first and foremost Pakistan's fear that if India, its archenemy, knew the location of the country's weapons it could launch a pre-emptive attack that eliminated them. The notion that there are sophisticated electronic locks on all Pakistani weapons and that only Musharraf has the codes just isn't credible. Were that the case, an attack that killed Musharraf could eliminate Pakistan's ability to retaliate. Instead, Pakistan has dispersed its weapons and distributed oversight to multiple strategic and security authorities. But these arrangements by necessity increase the likelihood that corrupt officials could successfully divert weapons or materials."

It is no secret that the Pakistani government is riddled with corruption and, even worse, Islamic radical sympathizers. The risk is nothing to scoff at as it stands today. Now remove Musharraf from the situation and you understand just how vulnerable the country is right now. There is exactly one - that's right, one - man standing between al-Qaeda and Pakistani nukes and that is General Musharraf. Hillary's characteristically parochial approach to foreign policy would be absolutely disastrous to the health of Musharraf's regime and, as a result of the instability his failure to retain power or legitimacy in Pakistan would cause, could more than feasibly lead to terrorists packing dirty bombs.

Of greatest concern, of course, is the threat that Pakistan poses to North America. Musharraf's decidedly pro-Western policies have been a crucial element in the US government's avoidance of major conflict with the Islamic state. Without the General at the helm of the country, Pakistan would quickly descend into anarchy and warlordism and it would then become impossible for the West to ignore the threat such a state would pose. Calls for revamped democracy from the leftists in North America are supremely unhelpful, with all this is mind, since democracy in Pakistan would be a death-blow to Musharraf's rule by providing power and legitimacy to socialist and jihadist political parties. The biggest advantage of Musharraf's rule is that his policies do not reflect in any real way the spirit of the people of his country.

As the article explains:

"The larger society [of Pakistan] has a decidedly negative view of the United States. In a 2007 Pew poll, two out of three Pakistanis named the United States as the greatest threat to their country."

Anti-Americanism (and don't think that gets us off the hook, Canada!) has never been stronger in Pakistan and with Bhutto's assassination, anti-Musharraf sentiment is becoming dangerously popular as well. A worrisome combination by any measure.

Those are just the highlights of the article. Read it in its entirety if the subject interests you.