Liberal Democracy in Endgame?
October 5, 2010
The trial of outspoken Dutch politician, Geert Wilders,is a great example of the kind of problem (crisis being such an overused and overhyped word) faced by liberal democracy: a man on trial for stirring up hatred again Muslims by using his freedom of speech. It is, of course, arguable that it is not so much Wilders as it is the small number of outspoken advocates of Islamic violence against the West who have really stirred up such hatred by way of reaction; but to say that makes one sound like a bigot in a day and age when the left has been, by and large, taken over by middle class lobby groups and identity politicians. Gone are the days when the left opposed totalitarian terrorists committed to returning the world to radical patriarchal feudalism; now they are apparently more concerned with people who say hurtful things.
But the Wilders case is itself complicated by the fact that he has described his case as a battle for freedom of speech while himself calling for the Koran to be banned. Denying freedom of speech in order to preserve freedom of speech? That is the tragic dilemma Western democracies will increasingly face: can democratic freedoms be preserved in the face of groups who enjoy such freedoms while yet working to destroy them? Or do we have no choice but to allow our opponents to choose the weapons, and thus to determine the outcome?
I remember reading in a history book while at school that in 1933 the Nazis proclaimed that they were using democracy in order to destroy democracy. I'm no fan of the cyclical view of history, but the parallels are interesting.
But the Wilders case is itself complicated by the fact that he has described his case as a battle for freedom of speech while himself calling for the Koran to be banned. Denying freedom of speech in order to preserve freedom of speech? That is the tragic dilemma Western democracies will increasingly face: can democratic freedoms be preserved in the face of groups who enjoy such freedoms while yet working to destroy them? Or do we have no choice but to allow our opponents to choose the weapons, and thus to determine the outcome?
I remember reading in a history book while at school that in 1933 the Nazis proclaimed that they were using democracy in order to destroy democracy. I'm no fan of the cyclical view of history, but the parallels are interesting.
