Another thought: liberty and counter-terrorism

It has been argued in the past that in order to defeat terrorism a nation has to gather information about the intents of its enemies, both domestic and foreign. In the wake of the atrocious 9-11 attacks on the United States, the horrific attacks in Madrid on March-11 2004, and the terrorist attacks on London's tube on July 7, 2005, it seems that governments are bent towards the use of more invasive measures to generate information. However, while their intent is undeniably good, it seems that they (and us) have forgotten to stop and think: isn't it just what the terrorists want? To undermine and perhaps even shutter the foundations of Western Civilizations, namely: human rights and liberties.
Here in the United States there is a growing debate regarding the measures used to investigate terrorists and those suspected of being terrorists. President Obama has repeatedly said in his campaign that he will either accuse or release the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, but will not keep them in custody without end. The issue is not that simple, though. For example what do you do with someone who you know is a terrorist, but you cannot disclose your sources. Should you risk the life of your source, hence risk the chance of getting new information about terrorist organizations? Or is it better to let this obvious danger be loose.
In the United Kingdom this debate has intensified over the endless measures taken by the British government to collect data over the subjects of the union. One must remember that in the UK, as well as in the USA, there are no "itentity cards". This comes from a history of long tradition, where every citizen (or subject) of the state shall not limit his or her liberties due to the use of identity cards. However, the UK is now approaching a state that monitors every subject including all his or her phone calls, cellular location, emails and messages. For the average Briton this is as radical a move as it would be for an Islamist terrorist to repent his deeds and become Catholic Christian. Unsurprisingly, this was too much not just for the ordinary person on the street, but also for one of the most prestigious counter-terrorism agents in the world, Dame Stella Rimington, the former Director General of the British MI5. The Dame has said in an interview for a Spanish journal that the measures taken and proposed by the government are too much, or in her words: "It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state". Naturally, the Home Office in Great Britain has come up with a response saying that she is "Wrong to suggest that had all the things we planned been passed we'd have been a police state, and wrong to suggest we have somehow stumbled towards a police state."
Again, there is no solution to the problem I state. However, one must always check and see whether the measures taken on behalf of society in order to counter terrorism are not somehow undermining the most important foundations of that same society. I think that some signs of fear over this dangerous trend towards a modern police-state already start to show.

Weekly thought: is democracy the right policy?

I didn't update about our lives in the previous week, because I was simply too busy to do that. For the same reason, you can also assume that our lives are as boring as can be, and I will not bore you with the minutiae that surround them. The only interesting thing that happened this week were the recurrent Tornado sirens that were sounded all around our area. It appears that whenever there is a thunderstorm in the area these sirens go off, and they sound exactly like air raid sirens. Of course, the alarms were false, and as I understand they usually are. My students and I have concluded that they are another form of the story about the boy who cried "wolf". Instead of a weekly summary you're all invited to share my "weekly thought".

Thus, the only interesting thing about the previous two weeks were the Israeli elections. My views on the success of Israeli democracy have long been known, even before the outcome of this elections, which is again: total stagnation to the point that no one even knows who won. In general, I think that a democracy that generates 5 elections in 10 years (1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2009) is spinning out of control. Moreover, the rate at which elections are held is increasing, as in the previous two decade only 5 were held (1981, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996). Respectively, the size of the biggest party in the elections is gradually shrinking, from only once below 40 seats (34 in 1996, 44 in 1992, 40 in 1988, 44 in 1984, and 48 in 1981) to only once above 30 seats (28 in 2009, 29 in 2006, 38 in 2003, 2001 elections were for the prime-minister office alone, and 26 in 1999), leaving the Knesset to be ever more divided between factions. Furthermore, the winning side, namely the side that formed the government, has changed in all but one of the last 5 elections (right in 1996, left in 1999, right in 2001 (only PM), right in 2003, center-left in 2006, and right again in 2009) whereas the government was formed by the same side between 1977 and 1999 (with the exception of national unity government led jointly by Likud and Maarach in 1984). In conclusion, the political system in Israel is all but stable, which makes it impossible to generate any kind of movement in any direction, and I don't just relate to Peace vs. War. Think, for example, about the number of national projects done in the first 2-3 decades of the country, and how many national projects have been started and finished since. It's easy: none were started in the last decade or two. I think that the last national project (although controversial one) was the Lavie. In conclusion, I think that the Israeli democratic system has failed, caused us nothing but painful and pricey stagnation, cost us much factionalism and self-hatred, and should be changed. The question is "change to what?" or "do you have another idea?".

Well, I don't. I think that democracy cannot work in any case, but I can neither prove it nor suggest a better way. I can only offer the words of one of my favorite authors, Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote in the book "Glory Road" the following paragraphs. Before them I'll just explain the circumstances: the main character joins an adventure in which he helps the "Empress of the 20 known universes" together with another character, Rufo, who is a comparative-culturolgist: he studies different cultures in the variety of universes. In one of their talks the hero repeats the words of another comparative-culturoligst (Nebbi) who think that the American democracy (which works a bit better than our own) is a "noble experiment", which is bound to fail. This is a quote from Rufo's reply:

"...Nebbi was right. Except that he sees only the surface. Democracy can't work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that's all there is - so Democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group.

But a democratic form of government is okay, as long as it doesn't work. Any social organization does well enough if it isn't rigid. The framework doesn't matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing - except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."

I would add that a similar notion of "looseness in government" should be used when thinking about the perfect organizational structure of a company. I guess I would not be alone in that thinking.