And we call it "democracy"

Last week I got my second opinion letter posted in the campus newspaper. It was a response to the following article written a few days earlier:

Disappointing their cynical doubters yet again, millions of Iraqis took part in the Constitutional referendum on Oct. 15. Iraq, while still largely a work in progress, continued in its quest to become the region’s second democracy.

Oct. 15 served as a show-and-tell for the Iraqi security forces, who directed and led all major operations (coalition forces only played a supporting role). The results were impressive with more than three quarters of the population voting to approve the Constitution.

Iraqis showed the world that despite threats and death they will not be subdued by thugs and murderers. This encouraging development stands as more evidence that the insurgency is weakening and can be defeated if the will to continue remains. The Bush administration’s strategy of “As Iraqis stand up, the coalition will stand down” is clearly paying dividends.

The United States is 229 years old and still a work in progress. Canada is 138 and still a work in progress. Democracy is precious and, as Iraq’s experience is demonstrating, can be tenuous as well. But freedom is worth time and effort. Britain believes it’s worth it, as does the United States and 33 other nations. There are two sides in this reality: terror and regression or freedom and progress. Iraqis are with us; they voted for that which they have never known: liberty and the way forward.

It is sad to say Canada remains absent from this historic moment. If we choose not to support Iraqis, then by our indifference, exactly whom are we supporting?

D. Eric Sayers
President, Campus Coalition for Democracies UWO
Leith R.A. Coghlin
Chair, Campus Coalition for Democracies UWO

After reading that tripe, I simply had to respond. This "either you're with us or against us" mentality is so primitive and useless, it's amazing people still believe that it holds true. I had hell of alot more to say about the issue, but this is what I came up with for the paper:

I’d like to propose a round of applause for Eric Sayers and Leith Coghlin. They’ve bought into everything that they were sold about Iraq and the great freedom they’ve been given. They said that Canadians should’ve supported the US in Iraq along with those 34 other countries, but as an intelligent Canadian with a conscience, I’m forced to disagree.

It sounds wonderful that “more than three quarters of the [Iraqi] population” voted to approve the new constitution, but if you look at the fact that only 63% of eligible voters actually voted, the true number of people in the eligible voting population that truly agree with the constitution turns out to be less than 50%. And allegations of fraud within the vote aren’t far fetched at all when you look at the stats. In some areas 99% of the vote was “yes”. But serious allegations of officials simply taking away and destroying entire boxes of “no” votes must be considered. Hardly democratic if you ask me.

Which brings me to a point about the standard of democracy that we hold so high. In actuality the US is a plutocracy, not a democracy. In a democratic society the people have the power. In the US that power has been usurped and twisted to suit the needs of a few, who remain in office by convincing the people that they have control of the country. Isn’t it odd that the country is run by a man who actually lost in his first election?

So it makes you wonder how this “democracy” can be trusted to force the rule of the people upon a foreign land, doesn’t it? I think it’s fair to say that more than a few Canadians agree with the 157 other countries in the world that didn’t join the US in Iraq. And as we read earlier, the US and Canada are works in progress. Funny how arrogant we are; to believe that we have the insight necessary to influence other nations, yet when we look in the mirror we can’t help but avert our eyes. Assuming we even bother to look in the mirror in the first place.

Travis Brooke-Bisschop
Medical Sciences III

Unfortunately this actually isn't what was printed in the paper. You can find the edited version here. Some of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense (as some key points were left out) but what can ya do?

Now I wait to see if there's any backlash...