https://arab.news/b6jmc
Language matters and political discourse defines societal priorities at any given time in a country’s history. And election time provides the perfect opportunity to sharpen ideological differences between parties and candidates. In this year’s US election, it is a challenge to separate the ideological wheat from the toxic and incoherent chaff, which is unavoidable in modern politics, especially with certain candidates.
Nevertheless, more than just a semantic difference has emerged within the Democratic Party between those who see the 2024 election as a battle to protect democracy from the Republican candidate, who seems to have very little regard for the democratic constitutional principles and processes or generally for abiding by the law, and those within the party who emphasize the protection of freedoms, which they feel are under attack.
There is a strong generational element in this debate. The older generation sees protecting America’s democracy as the No. 1 priority in this coming election. This was very much present in President Joe Biden’s valedictory speech to the Democratic National Convention in the summer, when Kamala Harris was crowned as the party’s presidential nominee. Biden asserted, and not without justification, that his 2020 victory saved democracy.
Harris, on the other hand, who represents the new generation, is repeatedly centering her campaign on protecting freedoms. Harris took to the stage of the party’s convention to the sound of Beyonce’s “Freedom,” which has become her campaign’s unofficial anthem, while a narrator promised to protect “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” But is it just a matter of semantics or something way more profound?
The older generation sees protecting America’s democracy as the No. 1 priority in this coming election
Yossi Mekelberg
There is something of a chicken and egg question about the relationship between freedom and democracy and which comes first. A completely legitimate argument is that the democratic system defines a society’s freedoms and its limitations. The alternative argument is that freedoms come first and the democratic system should be formed so that it can be resilient in vigorously defending these freedoms. In other words, the issue concerns the relationship between the values and the mechanisms to protect them.
What has brought this discussion to the fore in the US is a strong sense among the more progressive-liberal and left-leaning that both the democratic system and the freedoms that come with it are not safe in the hands of a Republican administration led by Donald Trump. This is especially so following his stubborn refusal to recognize the result of the 2020 election, fueling the ensuing Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. And even before that his stuffing of the Supreme Court with extremely conservative judges.
Traditionally, defending freedoms has been regarded as the realm of the Republicans, but theirs is a very narrow interpretation of the matter, one that has more to do with advocating for a smaller and less interventionist government in all spheres of social, political and economic life than safeguarding freedoms. However, this has proved to be a very selective noninterventionist approach and the overturning of Roe vs. Wade in 2022 focused minds on a specific issue, one that affects hundreds of thousands of women every single year who could lose control of their reproductive rights.
This discussion has also expanded to take in other issues that may limit or increase people’s freedoms, such as access to affordable healthcare or freedom from gun violence. Moreover, it was actually Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt who back in 1941 centered the discussion on protecting four freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear — that guided subsequent generations in their sociopolitical outlook.
It is important that there should be a constructive debate that seeks to ensure that American democracy is closely linked to the values Americans most cherish as their rights and freedoms, and vice versa. Many rights and freedoms in society are not absolute, as is the case with freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the First Amendment, or the right, sometimes defined as a freedom, to bear arms, which has become one of the most controversial issues and is equally enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
The US’ democratic system is nearly 250 years old and not always fit for the changing circumstances of the 21st century
Yossi Mekelberg
The state, through the people’s representatives, recognizes that freedoms could clash with one another, as is the case with freedom of speech, which can infringe on privacy or constitute libel. Or the freedom to roam freely, which could result in trespassing on other people’s private property. And even the most ardent supporters of gun ownership would recognize some limitations on their right to carry arms.
Here enters the state and the democratic state as the arbiter, through its judicial system and on certain issues through its bureaucracy in accordance with the law, to ensure these freedoms are upheld, as long as they do not infringe on other freedoms. There is a fundamental weakness, for example, in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which aimed to establish international consensus around the issue of rights and freedoms, but created no such mechanism to defend and enforce them.
Among the challenges that the US has faced for decades — one that contributes to the splits in the society — is that its democratic system and its Bill of Rights are nearly 250 years old and not always fit for the changing circumstances and values of the 21st century. Overturning Roe vs. Wade caused a massive backlash because it directly affects more than half of the population, yet was decided by a small group of nominated judges, three of whom, crucially for this upcoming election, were appointed during Trump’s presidency to advance a conservative agenda that is seen by many as clashing with the spirit of universal American values.
This also exposed the weakness of the US system of governance that tosses the ball to the individual states to decide whether or not certain freedoms are allowed. On crucial issues, such as the death penalty, one’s freedom depends on what part of the country one happens to be in.
In the midst of all the noise of personal insults flying freely during the run-up to this year’s presidential election, it is a most welcome development that there is also a discussion — and hopefully not one that will be pushed to the margins — of what defines the relationship between the citizen and the state as guarantor of its rights and freedoms, which should be the essence of any election as a celebration of democracy.
- Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg