Found this pic via VC with the caption "An unidentified Kenyan woman demonstrates in Nairobi, Kenya Friday Feb. 10, 2006."
The knee-jerk reaction of course, is that of irony: "HAHA! Look at those raving lunatics! A woman in a burkha is holding (probably against her will) a sign protesting against freedom (which she probably can't even read). See? Such oppression! This proves that "we" are good and "they" are EVIL!!! Thus, we are justified in liberating them from their barbaric cultural and religious beliefs."
Of course, I add some unwarranted color, but Is the underlying assessment valid? To me at least, it overstates the case. It DOES highlight, as a baseline, that there remains a very wide chasm between the western construct of "individual liberty über alles" and non-western constructs which allow (or require) derogation of individual rights in favor of one or more non-trivial concepts, such as closeness to God, societal piety, or simply preservation of "culture."
I guess the difference is largely one of degree, as even in Judeo-Christian societies, various groups have historically imposed strict limitations on individual freedoms. Until relatively recently, women in this country have not been allowed to vote, or even to own property. The obvious response to this is that our democratic process allowed us to evolve beyond this inequality, whereas a permanent state of ignorance and religious totalitarianism stifles such change elsewhere. Political accountability is critical.
However, what do we say to countries which adhere to a democratic system but where the people have chosen to impose (undue) burdens on their individual liberties or discriminate against religious minority groups? In the U.S., of course, the concept of "fundamental rights" via our Constitution protects certain liberties which our society views as sacrosanct, and particularly the rights of discrete and insular minorities. However, even here, this doctrine took two hundred years to develop (and indeed is still evolving--sorry Clarence). Is such a case, is it our duty to impose upon them a "better" form of democracy (2.0)?
Comments