From Subject to Citizen
From Subject to Citizen
Michael Walzer: From Subject to Citizen
The Libyan crisis provides a classic test of the liberal doctrine of nonintervention, now entrenched in international law, and famously defended by John Stuart Mill roughly one hundred and fifty years ago. What is at issue here isn?t ?humanitarian intervention.? The current crisis isn?t of such a kind as to make that a plausible response. No doubt, the Qaddafi government is killing Libyan citizens, but nothing like mass murder is going on. One Libyan tribe isn?t setting out to exterminate another tribe. There are refugees at the borders, east and west, and more refugees waiting in the port cities, but this isn?t the result of ethnic cleansing. These people can be helped, and should be, by efforts well short of a military invasion. The point of calling in an army would be to overthrow the dictator and help move Libya toward a democratic transformation. And that is just the kind of intervention that Mill opposed and that international law rules out.
Mill had a ?tough love? theory of democratization. Democratic politics depended on the citizenly virtues of the people, and these virtues were sure to be underdeveloped after a long period of despotic rule. So how do subjects become citizens? They have to do it themselves, Mill argued; they have to turn themselves into citizens by actively resisting the despot. ?It is during an arduous struggle to become free by their own efforts that [the virtues of citizenship] have the best chance of springing up.? This is the democratic version of the Marxist maxim that ?the liberation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself.? No one else can do it for the people or for the workers. They must be allowed to liberate themselves?even at the risk of failure. For Mill, failure would be a sign that the people weren?t ready for democracy. ?The only test?of a people?s having become fit for popular institutions is that they, or a sufficient portion of them to prevail in the contest, are willing to brave labor and danger for their liberation.? If they win they are ?fit,? and if they don?t they are not.
It is indeed a hard argument, but not a foolish one. Surely the rest of the world should give the Libyan rebels a chance to win on their own?a chance to mobilize support, organize a revolutionary movement and a fighting force, and build government institutions in the parts of the country they control. We (Westerners, Americans, democrats) can offer moral, political, and ideological support; we can provide material aid of different kinds; we can launch diplomatic campaigns against the tyrannical government; we can shut down any trade that strengthens its hand. But the fight inside the country should remain just that?a fight among insiders.
What if it looks as if Qaddafi is going to win? Would we be willing to go all the way with Mill and say that if the rebels lose, it?s because the country isn?t ready, isn?t ?fit,? for democratic government? I don?t think I am tough enough for that. But if there is to be, somewhere down the road, a military intervention, let it not be an American intervention. Ideally, I suppose, it should be an Italian intervention. According to post-colonial theory, the Italians are responsible for everything bad that has happened in Libya since they left. But if they tried to fix things, it wouldn?t be a post-post-colonial effort; it would look very much like the old colonialism. In any case, they could act effectively only as part of a NATO force, and NATO is second-worst to the United States as a potential intervener. United Nations auspices would provide a little cover, but it would almost certainly be vetoed in the Security Council. So why not call in the Egyptian and Tunisian armies? A high-tech force isn?t necessary here; with logistical help, these two armies could do the job. And who knows? Promoting democracy in Libya might push them to do the same thing, a bit more eagerly than they are doing now, in their own countries.
When intervention is necessary, neighbors are the best substitute for insiders. But when does ?necessity? kick in?when the rebels have been utterly defeated, or when they are on the brink of defeat, or when too many of them are being killed? I would like to say, we will know necessity when we see it?except that so many people see it too soon, and so many never see it. We should begin that argument right now.
