Democracy and Liberty Don't Necessarily Go Together
by B.K.
MARCUS
The crowd in
Tiananmen Square was losing hope. Their mass protest had drawn throngs of
students at first, but as the summer of 1989 approached, their numbers were
dwindling, their leaders were resigning, and the square itself, according to
one historian of China’s democracy movement, "had degenerated into a
shantytown, strewn with litter and permeated by the stench of garbage and
overflowing portable toilets."
The
democracy movement seemed to be dying, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
This was
before most of us in the West had ever heard of Tiananmen Square. What turned
the protest around? Why did hundreds of thousands of supporters pack the square
in the final days of May? What made the government, which had been ignoring the
protest and refusing to offer any reforms, suddenly sit up and take notice—and
send in tanks?
A lady with
a torch.
To American
eyes, she looked like a Chinese version of the Statue of Liberty, her torch of
freedom held aloft over Tiananmen’s huddled masses. The art students who had
quickly assembled the foam statue over a bamboo scaffolding had
deliberately avoided creating something that seemed "too openly
pro-American"—even basing the style on the Cold War art of the Soviet
socialist realists—but even with her Chinese features and a two-handed grip on
the torch, the comparison with Lady Liberty was unavoidable.
But while
the statue in New York Harbor represents Libertas, the Roman goddess of
freedom, the protestors in Tiananmen Square were worshipping a different deity.
They called their statue the Goddess of Democracy.
The tanks
rolled in and crushed the goddess beneath their treads, but her symbolic power
remains, and her likeness now appears in the form of commemorative statues
throughout the world.
The
authoritarian state may have won the battle, but the war for freedom lasts
longer than our history textbooks would have us believe. In England and
America, we had more than a century of struggles between liberty and power
before anything like a victory could be declared for our cause. It took more
than a piece of paper—more than the Declaration of Independence or the Treaty
of Paris. And for years the words and symbols of liberty and independence
inspired generations of freedom fighters, not just the ones we call the
Founding Fathers.
But did the
symbols ever unite us? Americans may look at the unifying force of the Goddess
of Democracy and long for a time when our own symbols had the power to inspire
our passion and our courage, but colonial America was never united on the cause
of independence. About a fifth of the white population was loyal to the British
Crown, with twice as many keeping their heads down and avoiding any openly held
position on the question of independence. That puts the American
Revolutionaries in the minority. And even among those who actively supported
America’s secession from the empire, there was a deep philosophical divide
about the goals of such a fight.
We call the
American Revolution the War of Independence, but whose independence are we
referring to? For the rank and file of the resistance, independence would mean
freedom from coercive government—independence for themselves, individually. For
the elite, it meant putting themselves in charge in place of their former
imperial masters: an American government independent of the British
Empire.
A similar
equivocation was at work in China’s democracy movement. Another name for
Tiananmen's Goddess of Democracy, one that wasn't used as widely, was the
Goddess of Liberty. But democracy and liberty are hardly the same thing. The
words are too often used interchangeably in the modern West, too, but we know
that a democratic majority can impose horrendous violations on the outvoted
minority. It was, after all, the democratic process that first brought Hitler
to power in Germany.
Some try to
avoid the problem with a qualifier: they advocate "liberal
democracy," by which they mean a system with the constitutional protection
of certain rights. But what virtues are captured by the term liberal democracy that aren’t more clearly given
in the single word "liberty"?
Did the
Chinese want what we have here in the United States? Our political process
produced the USA PATRIOT Act. The recent PRISM scandal may have uncovered
illiberal, illegal, and perhaps even anti-democratic activities on the part of
the NSA, but it was the legal political process of the world’s leading liberal
democracy that created the NSA, gave them a huge clandestine budget, and put
them beyond the reach of public oversight.
Even if democracy
worked according to the ideals we were taught in middle-school civics—even if
the qualifying modifier in "liberal democracy" were accurate
(according to the older, now less-well-understood meaning of the word
"liberal")—I find it hard to believe that the passions and courage on
display 24 summers ago in Tiananmen Square were about the mechanics of voting.
Those people wanted freedom.
And yet I
also recall American news coverage after the government tanks rolled in. In
their post mortem of the movement, analysts explained that the Chinese students
had no real experience of democracy and didn’t understand what they were
fighting for. Many within the movement, for example, conflated democracy with
consensus, paralyzing all decision-making until they could achieve unanimity on
everything.
I don’t
think the movement would have succeeded with a different name for the uniting
symbol constructed in the square. Tank treads would have pulverized a Goddess
of Liberty as effectively as they turned the Goddess of Democracy to rubble.
But I do wonder about the effects that that unifying symbol has on the hearts
of the Chinese masses, still yearning to be free.
Under the
nominal Communists, the Chinese people are now discovering the blessings of
markets and widespread wealth. Do they understand the relevance of the Goddess
of Liberty? When they finally throw off the yoke of the totalitarian state,
will they vote themselves into submission? I almost hope they maintain their
confusion about democracy and consensus. A paralyzed government might allow
liberty to flourish a while longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment