The Case for One Vision

I think the overall message from John Pilger’s film, the War on Democracy, can be summed up in the graph below:

In words: the basic thrust, particularly in South America, the voice of the people is less important than the voice of America. It is great when both can be heard, but if only one sings out, the US makes damned sure it is Uncle Sam’s.

While no-one can claim Pilger is unbiased, and there are some claims that come across as unproven (the poor in Chile – sure, there are poor people, but interviewing two of them does not prove that there are more or less of them than in previous regimes), he definitely brings an interesting point of view to the state of the world.

And one of his interviews in particular, with an extremely patriotic ex-CIA chief, is very enlightening. The incensed interviewee states that Democracy abroad is only supported when in the interests of the USA, and actively undermined in countries where the will of the people is contrary to US interests. His rallying cry for unity is, of course, that such policies are aimed at ensuring the security for “you” (Pilger), little realising the irony in that such policies have a completely unsettling effect as, if you are not in the US itself, your democracy could be deemed contrary to US interests and thus the “enemy”.

This is Pilger’s film and his take on things prevails. But what comes through all that and through the interview with the CIA in particular is the fact that democracy and freedom, while great rallying cries, may be what America (and the West) stands for at home, but is not abroad. Abroad, democracy, the will of the people, matters little compared to what is in the National Interest. Those supporting the National Interest (like Chile’s General Pinochet) are painted as liberators and excused of atrocities because they act in the “interest of their nation”, which of course is the National Interest. Democracy and freedom that is not in the National Interest is therefore not in the nation’s interest, and is thus suppressed. Some of the French view the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in much the same light.

One of the points Pilger raises is that one has to realise that, through its actions, the USA acts an empire, with colonies abroad serving the homeland. The policies and pressures by Imperial nations on other governments may be done with the best of intentions, and it may be that the democracy in nations such as Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Guatemala and many others may lead to a “bad” administration, but the point again is that that is the whole point of democracy – it is the will of the people, for good or for ill.

For me, what attracts my anger is the underlying hypocrisy of the thing. Perhaps people like George Bush really do think they are acting for the best; that media commentators who compare Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with Hitler really see him as a bad man. But then why hide behind placards like “fighting communism” and “fighting terrorism” rather than claiming to actually “fight for democracy”, not as a by-product as fighting “evil”, but for its own sake? In the end, I would like to ask them one question and see how they would respond:

If Democracy is not in the National Interest, which would you support and why?

My two cents: Anyone who says they would support National Interest first, in my view, cannot claim to support democracy. People may choose the wrong thing, and may even choose Hitler, but the right to choose is the essence of democracy.

Verdict: The War on Democracy film itself is only so-so, but it does stop and make you think. Sometimes though, you kind of wish it wouldn’t. 6 hands up out of 10.