America’s slippery slope

Finally, the “war on terror” has allowed America to launch “preemptive” wars (actually wars of aggression) in Afghanistan and Iraq and the use of drones to indiscriminately bomb these countries and others like Yemen and Pakistan. It has also allowed drones to be used for surveillance on continental USA. In these wars and indiscriminate bombings, thousands of innocent civilians die either as collateral damage or as mere suspects. This is a war being fought on many fronts and without any end in sight. Every day, the systems of surveillance and control intensify – from monitoring all global money transfers and individual bank accounts to hacking into emails, telephone records and social media. Now even America’s allies like the EU are not spared these evils.

Let us assume, just for argument’s sake, that the civilians who die due to these bombardments are collateral damage – unintended victims of aerial strikes against suspected terrorists. But even the real targeted victims deserve due process. How can one man have power to decide to summarily execute suspects without trial in an impartial court? Today, the US president and his security team are the ones who decide who the suspect is; then they proceed to investigate, establish a case, prosecute it, judge, issue a sentence of death and execute it with drones.

This arbitrary use of power means that victims of these drone attacks are not tried in a court of law to prove their guilt or otherwise – they are killed summarily. Rarely in the history of this world has so much power over life and death been concentrated in so few hands. Initially Americans thought that the war on terror was aimed at foreigners. This led many to acquiesce to draconian measures against migrants – like ruthless deportations. It also led many Americans to support aggressive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of homeland security. As Snowden has shown, the creeping hand of totalitarian control is taking root in America itself, as no citizen is now free from surveillance.

Since 9/11, the US has been on a slippery slope towards a totalitarian government. Of course, the formal structures of the democratic system remain – seemingly free, fair and regular elections, political party competition, a mass media that believes itself to be free, a judiciary that is independent, a parliament that makes a lot of noise, regular changes in government, vibrant civic associations etc. But increasingly, America’s democracy is largely based on adherence to procedures and rituals.

Beneath the appearances, individual liberty in America is being systematically eroded under the excuse of national security. Indeed, the “war on drugs” in America, which routinely sends scores of young black males to jail, has now been joined by the “war on terror” in the contemporary lexicon of fear. Meanwhile, American citizens are being conditioned to large-scale systems of surveillance and pre-emption based on information that is not being publically disclosed. So successful has been Big Brother that most Americans do not seem bothered by this.

There is ample evidence to show that the existence of democratic institutions and processes is not incompatible with the perpetration of totalitarian practices. Slavery and Jim Crow in America thrived in spite of – and precisely through – these democratic institutions and processes. The worst legislations in America’s south during the Jim Crow era were passed using America’s democratic processes. Current legislations promoting a “war on drugs” that have led to the mass incarceration of black males have equally been promoted through America’s democratic institutions.

Many people may be willing to tolerate these growing intrusions on civil liberties in the naive belief that the leaders of democratic nations carrying them out are good fellows with noble intentions; and that no law-abiding citizen needs to fear. But this is a dangerous argument; for we must remember that totalitarianism does not need to be brought about by evil men like Idi Amin, Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Indeed, it can be brought about by the cumulative effect of the actions of otherwise well-intentioned leaders whose every action is justified by immediate necessity. As the saying goes, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions and is traversed at a creep rather than a gallop.

This brings me to the principle of proportionality i.e. that a response to a problem must be proportional to the provocation. On 9/11, America lost two and a half buildings, four planes and 3,000 lives. Since then, three people have died on American soil as a result of a terrorist act – during this year’s Boston marathon. I do not seek to downplay the tragedy of those who lost loved ones or the potential for worse terrorist attacks. But America’s response to 9/11 is clearly out of proportion to the threat terrorism poses. Indeed, most American deaths due to some form of terrorism since 9/11 have happened in foreign lands as a result of its aggressive and preemptive wars.

Meanwhile, in 2010 alone, there were 31,672 deaths due to firearm and 35,498 motor vehicle deaths across America. Indeed, since 2001, over 550,000 Americans have died in car accidents, nearly 400,000 due to firearms. In spite of this much higher casualty rate, the US government has not imposed draconian legislation on roads or on gun ownership. Instead, this year legislation seeking to increase background checks on people purchasing guns was defeated in the Senate.

Yet since 9/11 America has launched preemptive wars abroad that have led to the death of more than a million people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Pakistan. It has passed draconian laws, installed systems of surveillance around the world, taken control of all bank records, reinforced airport security to absurd levels, killed, tortured and jailed thousands of people. Indeed, it cannot be justified by the argument that the American state is driven by the desire to protect its citizens against death since all death, whether in a road accident or firearm is still death. What makes deaths at the hands of terrorists intolerable to Americans while that at the hands of bad drivers and trigger-happy gun owners more tolerable?

It is difficult to justify America’s post 9/11 actions at home and abroad merely by the fear of terrorism. Instead it seems that terrorism has only furnished the US state with an excuse to employ its vast array of technological capabilities to promote totalitarian control at home and abroad. Some may argue that a country with deeply entrenched liberal democratic traditions as America cannot slip into totalitarianism. But we need to remember that democratic institutions, traditions and norms can slowly and incrementally be eroded.

The lesson liberals should take from this is that the victory of liberty is never secure. Liberal democrats, while recognizing that sometimes states can be justified to curtail individual liberties for the sake of national security, should be clear what restrictions are justifiable and for how long. Here, it is important to reiterate the benchmark set by the philosopher, Frederick von Hayek. He argued that every new invasion on individual liberty must be justified – not merely by its effect on the problem it is designed to solve or the danger it is designed to avert – but by its effect on the system of liberty as a whole.

amwenda@independent.co.ug