From 'Why democracy is wrong'
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/dem.wrong.html
The issue [of illegal immigrants in democracies] is
perfectly illustrated by the treatment of asylum seeker on
board the Norwegian container ship Tampa, when it entered
Australian territorial waters. The right-wing government led
by John Howard made a stand on the issue, deliberately
refusing to admit the asylum seekers to Australian
territory. They were kept on board the ship, and prevented
from leaving it by soldiers of the elite force SAS. They
were isolated from the media and lawyers: only the Norwegian
ambassador was permitted to visit the ship. In effect they
were placed in detention - which is in any case the normal
treatment of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, in
Australia. The people on the ship obviously have no
political rights, none at all. There is no question of them
voting in Australian elections, or participating in any way
in the political process there. They are guarded by
soldiers, who prevent all access to the rest of society, yet
they have committed no crime in Australia.
The question for the defenders of democracy is this: if a
recognised legitimate democracy can treat one group like
this, why not others? From the point of view of an illegal
immigrant, a western democracy such as Britain or Australia
has most of the characteristics attributed to dictatorships
or 'authoritarian regimes'. Yet they meet the criteria of
Freedom House for political freedom. If a clever
dictatorship can arrange repression, in such a way as to
meet the standard of 'democracy' and 'freedom' applied to
illegal immigrants, then why is such a dictatorship wrong?
And if any dictatorship can meet these standards, merely by
clever administrative arrangements, than why is dictatorship
fundamentally wrong?
And from the other side: why is a political regime, which
treats people like the Howard government treats refugees,
morally desirable? Why is it noble and good? It is not
because the system failed - the Australian democracy works
perfectly well. Howard was democratically elected, in free
and fair elections, in a society with a free press and
guaranteed civil rights. Opinion polls showed he had the
backing of a huge majority, for his hard line toward the
asylum seekers on board the MV Tampa. Australia recognises
and implements all the human and civil rights, which are
supposed to protect minorities against the tyranny of the
majority. But, as the Tampa case shows, they are no
guarantee at all. The Howard government is not a distortion
of democracy, it illustrates how democracy works. The people
rule, and in this case 'the people' are a xenophobic people.
The political system expresses their collective will,
exactly as intended. But is it right?
--
Paul Treanor
|