Two seemingly different issues, but they both share the same core problem — democracy.

For some time, until I read the talk by Douglas Murray, I had the silly concept that democracy is not the best government, but it defines what the best government is. What seems to me self-evindent is indeed a perverted nature of democracy which is the dictatorship of the majority. If the majority is the only measurement of what is right or wrong, then there would be no fixed values and we drift into what J Ratzinger alias Benedictus XVI calls the dictatorship of relativism. It does not honour to agree with the Pope, but how could I ever have accepted it as right, that the oppression of women and minorities is not wrong if it is within the boundary of rule of law and universal suffrage? It never can be, and it will not, even if it is the vote of the majority.

So far, I have to thank both a neoconservative and a arch-Catholic for opening my eye. It is a shame, it is a real shame.

The problem with neoconservatism is its aggressiveness (Is it aggressive, what is neoconservatism? I guess I have to read Douglas Murray’s Neoconservatism: Why We Need It. Encounter Books, New Edition, 2006.) I can easily accept the fact that the Western world is on the right side, but I certainly do not agree with the methods the neocons want to apply.

I talked to a friend at the ASI Next Generation (see Chatham House rule) who was the opinion that U.N. is an unfair institution since it gives all nations the same vote. They regarded it as rediculous that the UK and Burma, two countries under opposite forms of rule, are given the same treatment in the U.N. where it is apparent that it shouldn’t. I agree that it is shameful to regard Burma and UK as morally or legally in the same status. But what would be the alternative option? No country sees itself as inferior, and even if it does, it will not openly admit. If countries are graded after the quality of their democracy, human rights and rule of law, then a) there will certainly never be an agreement, b) if there is a partial agreement, then countries given inferior status would leave the U.N. until the institution falls apart and loses its function as a platform for the nations.

There is no other option than dialog, because the only alternative option would be war. And what neocons fail to see is that it will be a perpetual state of war. Once war is considered an option — and that is what neocons do — there is no way to stop its tentacles of evil. It might be an easy task to convince every clear-minded man and woman that some countries in the Middle East, North Korea and other tyrannies are evil and that it is legitimate to attack and “liberate” them (which often does not work, see Iraq).

Then what about China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia? Where to draw the line? And how can you guarantee that you are flawless? The US has done quite well to undermine its “moral authority” (how can countries have “moral authorities”?) by breaking the Geneva Convention, establishing secret prisons and limiting the freedom of its citizens. Does that not give — in a period of diplomatic distress — other countries a motive for attack?

Yes, I believe that the Western world is morally superior. I believe that some values will always be right, and other always be wrong, regardless the majority vote. And I also believe that it is better to suffer than to cause harm. I think, we should rather tolerate the “rogue states” and the “unfair” treatment on the diplomatic parquet than declaring war on everyone who is different/evil. Because a) war undermines any moral superiority, b) the world will not decline into moral and civil morass without violent interventions, c) nothing is perfect, especially wars. War will not disroot all the evil we dispise, it will cause more evil.

Maybe I should read Murray’s book, although I am pretty sure I am not going to like it.