The Algerian Dilemma

In 1962, Algeria broke free from French colonization and began a long, tortured period of adjustment to self-rule. In 1991, after years of failed governance, economic disaster, and persistent violence, the nation reached a critical impasse. Breaking the yoke of military-controlled government, a multi-party election would determine the future of Algerian independence.

The elections were to be held in two phases but the process never went beyond the first. It was then that the civil society of Algeria confronted the classic dilemma of democracy: Do you allow elections when the results will almost certainly outlaw democracy itself?

The dilemma was not new to Algeria. The German people faced the same dilemma in the 1930s when the Nazi Party of Adolph Hitler rose to power. What was different here was only that the players have become intimately familiar on the contemporary world stage. The fascist, anti-democratic party that would clearly have taken power if the elections had proceeded was a party of radical Islamic fundamentalists.

By now, the reader has logically concluded that the writer is forming an analogy to the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, the parallels are clear and direct. If free and fair elections are ever conducted in both nations, against a backdrop of failed governance, economic disaster and persistent violence, the conditions are ripe for an Islamic fundamentalist takeover that will inevitably move to abolish democracy. From their point of view, what is the point of elections when they are the party of God? To what purpose is a constitution when the Koran is the true source of all laws?

However clear the lines of comparison may be, it is not the ultimate purpose of this writer to draw them. Rather, as a secular American devoted to the principles of democracy, it is the future of my own nation that concerns me.

The 2004 election has been cast as the crucible that brought moral values to the top of political discourse. At first glance, it seems a reasonable analysis. Discarding for the moment the mounting evidence of election fraud, the decisive votes were driven by social issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, gun rights, and school prayer. These voters cared so deeply for the social issues they were indifferent to policies of war, anti-terrorism and an economy on the verge of implosion.

While it may be true that the Democrats miscalculated in trying once again to make health care the primary issue and that their refusal to engage in the debate on social issues was counter productive, it does not follow that these miscalculations were decisive. The red state voters were driven by their religious faith and that faith was interpreted and channeled directly to the ballot by an army of evangelical ministers. This was groupthink in its purest form and the evangelicals delivered it as if a vote for Bush (and forty years of righteous war) was a testament to the Christian faith.

America is at a crossroads. Why is there no outcry at the loss of lives, at the destruction of Fallujah and the massacre of its people? Where is the outrage at the clear and obvious conspiracy to defraud an election? The answer is clear when you understand the evangelical mind. It is God’s work. We have placed the reigns of power into the hands of one of our own. To question his leadership is to doubt the wisdom, the glory and the power of our Lord God Almighty in Heaven.

We are facing the Algerian dilemma. The people in power have no intention of yielding it to the will of the people. To paraphrase war criminal Henry Kissinger: Why should we allow the ill-advised will of the majority to stand in the way of our national interests? They will use any means to keep what they have won and they believe it is right and honorable to do so. They may speak of democracy but the allegiance of their fundamental base is to the church. They speak openly and boldly of breaking down the wall which divides government and religion. This is the critical divide, the decisive issue, and the line beyond which we cannot retreat.

The question of separation of church and state has shifted from whether or not it has been violated to whether or not the principle is valid. The evangelicals, emboldened by their success, are speaking aloud what they have always confided behind closed doors: that there is no constitutional basis for the separation of church and state and, therefore, the principle itself is unfounded and discriminatory.

How far away are we from a constitutional amendment declaring Christianity the official religion of the nation as Algeria declared Islam?

What the evangelicals neglect to note is that their preferential tax status rests on the separation principle. The first amendment to the Constitution states: Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion. If, in fact, churches are to become political organizations (as they clearly have), then preferential tax status is a clear violation and an act of discrimination against all secular Americans.

Political organizations operate under strict guidelines and do not enjoy the tax-exempt status that churches do. If the only difference between a political party and a church were a pulpit and an invocation, no one would care. We demand to see how devoted the evangelicals are when the money is on the table.

Any church that engages in the political process or the affairs of state should immediately have its tax status revoked. If they are going to run in the political race, let them start from the same line that everyone else does.

The revocation of preferential tax status would not end the threat of theocratic takeover; it would only even the playing field. We would still be confronting the Algerian dilemma. The Algerian solution was civil war, a reign of terror, suspension of constitutional liberties, and the entrenched rule of military overlords.

It would be a mistake to believe it could not happen here. Not so long ago we could easily say that a great many things could never happen: suspension of habeas corpus, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, destruction of the World Trade Center, and the outright stealing of a national election.

The Algerian experience involves a complex history and social climate that is not readily transferred to the American experience, but it was a mistake for the Algerians to call off elections. Democracy cannot be turned off and on like tap water or an electrical grid. It must be indifferent to outcomes. At the same time, democracy is a fragile and easily abused or circumvented process. We must not only be diligent in defending her from betrayal, we must also reform the process so that the seat of her power is ever closer to the people.

The war is not lost when the fundamentalists take power. The war is lost when we abandon democracy herself.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HIS COMMENTARIES ARE WIDELY POSTED. SEE WWW.JACKRANDOM.COM.