Wikileaks Saga

The talk of the town for the past few days has been of Wikileaks, and how their release of a whole tonnage of US Govt cables has resulted in so much attention.

I wasn't so much interested in the content of the leak, as I was in the response people had towards the leaks. Predictably, there was the usual criticism by the parties that were affected or embarrassed by the leaks. Then there were those that supported Wikileaks, praising them for their efforts, and defending their actions by insisting that the Govt should be transparent in what they do. Most of the rest of us were just intrigued by the whole saga, being a bystander who absorbed whatever was being reported in the media, without actually coming out in support of it, or against it.

But here is where my own ideology comes into play: This is a perfect example of why I believe that democracy is not always the best option to pursue. I may be wrong, but I believe that it was Aristotle who said that the masses are like sheep, too stupid to know what's really good for them. Democracy assumes that everyone is perfectly capable of making good and socially responsible decisions, instead of selfish and irresponsible decisions. It supposes that everyone is able to think through situations, and come up with a sensible conclusion.

Of course we know that's not going to happen! Look at American Idol, for example. So often we look on with incredulity at how less talented performers advance whilst the more talented ones are the shock eliminations. When it simply becomes about the popular vote, and a case of "who is better at brainwashing", then the decision that results is seldom one that is sensible, right nor socially responsible.

Wikileaks might have been a good concept, albeit Utopianistic. Yet when it was acted upon, it became a double-edged tool. It brought to attention corruption that was hitherto covered up, highligted the need for humanitarian aid in some parts of the world, but also exposed a lot of people to harm's way. Naturally, the organisation takes a lot of credit for the good things done, but shirks responsibility towards any liabilities they cause. In the case of the Iraq War Diaries, they cleverly shifted the blame to Amnesty International, deflecting any blame at themselves towards them. When they were asked to censor names of personnel at at risk of losing their lives, they pushed the responsibility of doing so to a few organisations, and yet when these organisations didn't do so, they insist that they were therefore not responsible anymore for their own actions.

Yet such behavior is the ultimate result of democracy in action. People feel free to rid themselves of all social responsibility in the name of "freedom of expression". By condemning any form of censorship, they think they are therefore free to behave in any manner they please, as long as there is a group of people coming out in support of it. Any attempt at restricting its actions or behavior is inevitably met with some form of public disapproval, and since ALL public opinion counts, there is inevitably no sense of a "right behavior" anymore.

The implications of such a social system is frightening to behold. A world where right and wrong is relegated to relativity allows me to get away with anything, as long as I can convince enough people. Such a system will always be approved by men, since whatever restricts us the least is always the most attractive. Yet when we ourselves are on the receiving end of harm done to us, we will find out too late that we have become the victims of the system we helped create.

And that is exactly where the U.S. Govt finds itself right now.

Serves them right?

Maybe.

Its a relative opinion, after all.