BackOpinion | One way to uphold democracy is to point out abuse of power
Those who criticize the misuse of authority show a commitment to sovereignty resting with people
PremiumIn a turbulent week of raging protests against racism and police brutality in the United States after a Caucasian police officer in Minneapolis killed George Floyd, an African-American man who was suspected of trying to pass off a forged $20 bill to buy cigarettes, The New York Times published a commentary by Tom Cotton, senator from Arkansas, which called for troops to be deployed on American streets to restore order. Cotton is a US army veteran. He was awarded a bronze star and has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. His opinion piece asked US President Donald Trump to invoke an old law against insurrection to quell the protests. An insurrection did occur at the newspaper that carried the oped article, where, following protests within the newsroom and an outcry among subscribers, the editor of the opinions section resigned.
Cotton appears to have become a mascot of free speech, casting himself as a martyr of a “liberal media bias". His own politics apart, of greater concern is the fact that a duly-elected American politician even considered sending troops against what are overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrators, to protect whom from external aggression remains the primary job of the army.
Cotton would know the record of American military ventures abroad—he has been part of two such adventures. The US has toppled some governments it has not liked; intervened militarily in far-flung corners of the earth, taking actions which are only sometimes justified under international law; and its operational record includes such examples of infamy as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Letting loose soldiers who operate in hostile terrain for crowd control under domestic law is not an idea to be entertained. It assumes that the situation is grave enough for the army to intervene, and it views dissenting civilians as hostile enemies.
Republicans like to surround themselves with generals, in particular Trump, who did not serve in Vietnam, the war of his youth when the draft was in operation, and retired military personnel often become Republican lawmakers. But even if retired generals have served Republican presidents (some have served Democratic presidents too), they know the limits of an army’s role in a democracy, and they uphold the US constitution and the limits it places on a president’s power. Over the weekend, four retired generals who have served several administrations spoke out against President Trump. James Mattis, who was Trump’s secretary of defence and had been a marine corps general, was the harshest, calling Trump a threat to the constitution. John Kelly, who was Trump’s White House chief of staff, backed Mattis, saying Americans should look harder who they elect. Mike Mullen, who has been a joint chief of staff, said the events had made it “impossible (for him) to remain silent". And Colin Powell, who has served as national security adviser, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, and secretary of state, said he would vote for Trump’s rival, Joe Biden, in this year’s presidential election.
What they know, and what Cotton appears to ignore, is the threat of limitless power in the hands of one person, especially one who seems as scornful of norms, rules and proprieties (if not laws) as Trump. The US constitution is not voluminous, and some of its language is vague, leaving future generations to interpret the intent of its framers. It is not infallible, but it has served the country reasonably well, although there have been glaring flaws, including its failure on racial equality.
The generals have warned of an abyss ahead if the situation doesn’t change. To be sure, those who have served in the armed forces should avoid political partisanship. A soldier is meant to defend all compatriots and other civilians; in the United States, it is not for the soldier to choose between Republicans and Democrats, between African Americans and Caucasians, between the religious and atheists, and so on. But military personnel do have political views, and some do join politics later in life. Generals—Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, to name two—have gone on to occupy the White House, and former military personnel have been governors and senators.
As in many democracies, people choose to serve the army in the US; there is no required military service. But there is a deeper point—those who wear the uniform are not committed to the nation any more deeply than those who don’t don army fatigues. A former senior Indian army officer once berated a former colleague of mine, saying that journalists are not patriotic. My colleague replied, “Sir, some of us are paid to be patriotic, others don’t have to be paid to be patriotic." There was wisdom in that glib-sounding response. Wearing the uniform does not make someone more patriotic. Those who don’t wear the uniform are not traitors. Challenging the direction that one’s country is taking sometimes shows greater commitment than the acts of those who unquestioningly obey the country’s temporary leaders. That lesson is as relevant in the US as it everywhere else. Mattis, Mullen, Kelly and Powell appear to understand this. And it is a lesson that applies to every democracy, at all times.
Salil Tripathi is a writer based in New York. Read Salil’s previous Mint columns at www.livemint.com/saliltripathi
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
