8B - The Michigan Daily - New Student Edition - Fall 2003 sn ar c .ink Za Y es x s "' ., .«- 5 .. ... h >>Y« hacd YOU SAM ve x 1 u4,9t APBO b fY3,n a . tx s 'C AAWab xt the nas ib t : I / // .i 4 v. Ceci 4 Wfla.. War and the politics of democratic consent BY IRFAN NOORUDDIN I remember clearly the day just over 12 years ago (Aug. 2, 1990) when Bombay's Mid-Day newspaper announced that Iraq had invaded Kuwait. I was a FYJC (11th grade) stu- dent at St. Xavier's College in India and my friends and I spent the remainder of the day in the canteen discussing the ramifications of the day's events (actu- ally we spent every day in the canteen but that's another story). Against the backdrop of Security Council resolu- tions and Operation Desert Storm we analyzed and critiqued the actions taken by both sides all year long, debating vociferously India's decision to allow U.N. airplanes to use Indian air bases and its participation in U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq (which UNICEF now estimates contributed to the deaths of over 5,000 Iraqi children under five years old a month or over half a million children under five since 1991). The war clouds gather again over Iraq (though the latest news from the United Nations is encouraging) and I am still on a college campus, albeit many miles from the Xavier's canteen. Things are quite different this time around: while life came to a standstill at St. Xavier's and debates about the morality of war could be overheard everywhere, student life at the University appears unaffected by the possibility of a second Gulf War. Thinking about these differing reactions led me to reflect on the relationship between education, democracy, and war, and this essay is the result. Political scientists often argue whether democracies behave differently in matters of international relations. One popular theory is that'since elected lead- ers are accountable to the voting public and since these publics are typically against war (because they are the ones who have to do the fighting) democratic leaders avoid conflict unless provoked. Further democratic states supposedly have free presses that take the political leadership to task by asking difficult questions, the answers to which the elec- torate considers carefully in giving con- sent to foreign policy decisions. But a CBS News/The New York Times poll last week found that while just 27 percent of 937 respondents nationwide thought the Bush administration had "clearly explained the US position with regard to possibly attacking Iraq," 68 percent approved of U.S. military action against Iraq (the poll had a 3 percent margin of error). Clearly our theories of democratic consent need serious revision. I argue this simple example reveals how shallow democracy can be, and that true democratic debate is too often replaced by flag-waving and jingoistic claims of U.S. exceptionalism and supremacy (I offer as local evidence the Daily's coverage of the Sept 11 anniver- sary; the national corporate media is no better). Yet democracies are meant to be governments "of the people, for the peo- ple, and by the people." What this means is that we, as citizens in a democracy, are obliged to hold our leaders responsible for their actions rather than blindly acqui- escing in whatever they tell us to believe. So, when Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, defends delaying discus- sion of the proposed war on Iraq till this month saying, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new prod- ucts in August," we should be outraged and disgusted rather than amused. When the White House insists it will attack Iraq with or without world support (in a recent interview with Newsweek, Nelson Mandela calls the U.S. "a threat to world peace"), we should demand to know why. Why Iraq? Why war? Why now? Unfortunately, as Frank Rich put it in a New York Times opinion piece last Sat- urday, "to question the president on Iraq is an invitation to have one's patriotism besmirched." To oppose war against Iraq is to attack America, to defend Saddam, and to ignore the realities of evil in a post Sept. 11 world. Is Saddam Hussein evil? Sure. Do the people of Iraq deserve to be free of Saddam's despotic rule and to govern themselves democratically? Of course they do. But to believe that Bush- Saddam II will bring peace and democra- cy to that accursed country is naive. Democratic consent cannot be demanded by our leaders but must instead be earned though open discussions in which all par- ticipants have access to all the facts. Without such free and open discussion, democracy is reduced to a procedural exercise blindly completed at the ballot box rather than a substantively conse- quential form of government, which is revolutionary in allowing common peo- ple to control their own destinies. Of all places, a public university should pre- serve this revolution by providing a safe intellectual space within which it is not just appropriate but rather a responsibili- ty to demand real answers and to reject government propaganda. That, after all, is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Nooruddin is a Ph.D. candidate in Politi- cal Science. 4 4 VIEWPOINT The never-ending nonsense of the NCAA sion I athletics often excel despite the best attempts of the governing body to thwart competition BY JOSEPH LITMAN and impede the lives of its dependent coaches and players. There is no other way to think of the NCAA, an organization that again put its flawed judgment and self-defeating proclivity on Sports journalists who occupy their time primarily covering a single sport routinely display last week when it banned the University men's basketball team from participating in cite reasons why their respective area of expertise in the sports arena is superior to all any postseason tournaments for which it may qualify in 2004. others. NFL advocates laud the unmatched parity of the league, baseball writers tout the s The reasons for the ban stem from an array of transgressions - mostly illegal payments totaling game's majesty, NBA observers note the association's unmatched star power - you get more than $600,000 to Chris Webber, Maurice Taylor, Robert Traylor and Louis Bullock by now- the picture. For a long time, college basketball proponents have pointed to the excitement deceased "friend" of the program, Ed Martin - committed in the '90s by players, coaches and an of March Madness while college football pundits have cited the tradition that enhances outside booster who have had nothing to do with the University since 1998. Acknowledging that the sport when making their separate cases. Those who cover college football and basket- the University made an earnest attempt to atone for its past sins, the NCAA imposed additional ball should now unite and start trumpeting this unique claim to preeminence: In no other punishments, placing the University on probation for three-and-a-half years, mandating that the sports do success and popularity ensue in spite of the governing body. University avoid all contact with the four players involved for 10 years, stripping the basketball pro- Excepting the Bud Selig cynics, the "No Fun League" comedians and the profession- gram of one scholarship for four years commencing next recruiting cycle and banning next season's al-style-of-basketball polemicists, few could make a case that Major League Baseball," team from postseason play. the NFL or the NBA work to limit the growth and prosperity of their games. In all three, The first three stipulations seem appropriate given the egregious crimes committed and the the rules established and decisions rendered mostly attempt to satisfy fans and showcase nature of the punishments - they will all hurt the school, primarily. The postseason ban, howev- the best of each sport. Even the NHL - which at times appears directionless and out of er, while harmful to the institution, mostly affects next year's coaching staff and players, none of touch with the demand for its product - hasn't limited the brutal fighting that likely , whom committed any wrongdoing according to the NCAA. In effect, innocent people are being attracts many fans to hockey. All of those various league executives and presiding bodies punished for the crimes committed by others. Who cares? How about Bernard Robinson, Jr., a understand that satisfying consumers and appearing as fan-friendly as possible is a cru- man whose inspired play last year was a major component in the team's success and a rising sen- cial component to the equation for success. The NCAA, however, missed that memo. rior who deserves better than a final year of eligibility spent playing for synthetic goals and con- For the sake of fairness and accuracy, one must note that the NCAA is perhaps solation prizes. In more universal terms, why should an infraction committed by a family fundamentally different from the cited analogs because the latter don't oversee ama- member before you were born commit you to a sentence in Pelican Bay? teurs, yet there are also parallels to be drawn because the NCAA, like its profession- The cry of injustice may seem hackneyed, yet it is apt. More importantly, the NCAA deserves al counterparts, is the organizing entity responsible for promoting the competition, to be taken to task for its decision last week because the organization continues to misallocate and that role has been willingly played to great financial gain. Thus, there are neces- blame, never learning from its previous errors. At too may schools - Miami, Alabama, Ken- sarily more rules required to govern amateurs, yet the ones in place often don't make tucky Michigan to name a few - people have been unfairly asked to atone for mistakes commit- sense and have worked to detract from the products the NCAA lucratively sells ted by their predecessors. The NCAA should punish the programs and the schools but spare .I