OPINION & EDITORIAL
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Paul Sternhagen:
- Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (March 24, 2003)
Related Stories:
- The Iraq conflict and the role of the citizen in representative democracy (March 24, 2003)
- Vote "No" on war referendum (March 29, 2006)
- Brief history of Iraq conflict proves U.S. must pull out (April 13, 2007)
- Troops deserve to come home (April 13, 2007)
- Troops forgotten in protest (April 19, 2007)
by Paul Sternhagen
Monday, March 24, 2003
A female caller to a National Public Radio panel discussion arguing the merits of the now inevitable conflict with Iraq stated that she was “entirely comfortable with the Bush Administration’s policy towards Iraq.” She understood that “little Americans” such as herself do not have the in-depth intelligence to which only senior members of the government are privy, and she “completely supported a war that would ensure our safety.”
Such a stance is disturbing in that it not only bases support for military action on the erroneous proposition that the objective of increased national security will be in any way advanced, but furthermore is emblematic of just how far we as a nation have wandered from the ideals on which our country was founded.
My objections to the current administration’s foreign policy aside, I have been forced by recent events to rethink what exactly the role of the dissenting voice is in American politics. President Bush seems content to simply glorify the fact that in our country, the fact that those with opposing views are able to voice their dissent stands as a wonderful testament to our freedoms, juxtaposing this with the situation in Iraq, where those who speak out against the Baath party fall into the hands of Sadaam’s son Qusay’s Fedayeen unit, notorious for human torture and public executions.
Unfortunately, the voice of opposition to the war in Iraq has fallen on the deaf ears of this administration, which has continued to marginalize the growing domestic and international calls for more evidence, more time, a stronger consensus; anything above and beyond the tenuous relationship that has thus far been drawn between the Iraqi regime and imminent international danger. By giving those who speak out against the current conflict such short shrift, the Bush Administration has brought into question the value of our ability to exercise one of our most fundamental rights — the right to dissent.
The objections voiced by those who oppose this war should not simply be tolerated by our government with folded arms and abject disdain, and they should not be considered the fringe views of those who wish to avoid war at any cost; rather, they should be taken for what they are, the legitimate concerns of a public which has questions that remain unanswered. The dissenting voice should function as a starting point for a dialogue between a government that feels war is the answer and a populace that remains unconvinced.
To deny this process is to ignore a fundamental tenet of representative democracy. In such a system of governance, it is the responsibility of citizens to elect leaders they feel will best represent their interests. In turn, those same citizens are responsible for monitoring the conduct of their leaders, providing an essential oversight role that ensures that government remains responsive to the desires of the citizens.
It is the duty of those among us who disagree with the administration’s stance vis-a-vis Iraq to present our questions in a balanced and mindful manner, and it is the responsibility of government to provide us with thoughtful, substantive answers. Absent some such exchange, by which government demonstrates that it is bound by the will of its citizens, the premise that ultimate authority rests in the hands of the people becomes nothing more than an abstraction.
Paul Sternhagen is a senior majoring in economics and political science. He can be reached at pdsternhagen@wisc.edu.
