Iraq invasion, democracy and the UN

Democracy as system of governance is founded upon a number of key ideas. Two of these ideas are that people are the sovereign authority of the state and the government is the political institution, which exercises this sovereign power. Since people are sovereign, they choose deputies to exercise their supreme power. The whole idea of democracy is that elected deputies are accountable to the people and therefore, they must rule according to the principle which Abraham Lincoln described as 'by the people, for the people and of the people'.

Iraq was invaded defying overwhelming anti-war public opinions in the concerned countries. In Britain, 80 per cent people were against the war. Public opinions in Spain and Australia, which supported the war, were overwhelmingly against their governments' decision. When Turkey's parliament refused to allow a war front from their land, the US administration was very disappointed. US now seems to be only country in the world where public opinion concerning foreign policy generally favours the administration. These points are very important in analysing the effects of Iraq invasion, because it tests the principles practised in countries which are generally known as most democratic.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Democracy does not mean just changing the political component of government. Democracy is considered the most desirable form of governance because of the reasons mentioned above.

Yet, in the developing and former Eastern block countries, democracy generally means changing government through elections. After the Iraq invasion, the concerned minds also question whether the principles of democracy are really practised in the West. This is one of the most ominous implications of Iraq invasion. For, democracy is increasingly running the risk of becoming a political technology from a political ideology.

The UN was established after WWII with the main purpose of preserving and promoting peace among member nations. The fundamental principle, which forms the foundation of this magnificent international institution, is that it recognises the sovereign status of each member state. However, the UN Charter sanctions declaring war under two circumstances -- if threatened by another nation or is authorised by the UN Security Council.

Iraq was invaded without fulfilling any of these UN requirements. Since this act was perpetuated by the world's most powerful nation with the active support from another powerful nation, this war legitimises the 'might is right policy'. The world is full of territorial and other disputes. If the mightier conflicting countries choose to settle these disputes by the use of force, this global village will be very chaotic.

It appears that neither the current system of democracy nor the UN is fulfilling its objective. If the national government is not pro-people, then it becomes either exploitative or imperialist, depending upon its position in the global hegemonic politics. In the UN, each nation's role is precisely determined by her economic and military power. If national governments are not pro-people, then the UN cannot pursue pro-people policies, because the mightier members will create their own international agenda, dominate the UN debate and impose their own will. And there is very little that can be done about it, because the power base of these nations does not depend upon their activities in the UN; it depends upon their own people whose opinion they care little in international issues.

Thus, the question that comes for serious thinking is how to make the current system of democracy more pro-people so that both national and international political institutions can serve their purpose. The theory of the current system of democracy was developed to rule an independent nation. Therefore, this theory is not quite appropriate for administering the global village that we have today.

Khandakar Elahi a former Associate Professor of Bangladesh Agricultural University, lives in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.