Billie Stanton, in a Denver Post opinion piece, writes that Guatemala might re-elect a murderous dictator who last held power in the 80's. Efrain Rios Montt's previous tenure was, according to Stanton, "a field day for war crimes, murders and torture." There's some disturbing stuff in the article.
It brings to the forefront the great ethical question of democracy. Where do the rights of individuals become subject to the will of a voting majority? Suppose, for instance, Montt is elected by voters who are not only aware of Montt's brutal past, but who are endorsing it with their votes. Does that give his actions some moral authority? I think most reasonable people would answer, clearly not. But that leaves the question, what rights are sacrosanct, and what rights can be eliminated by majority vote? In the U.S. and other western democracies it has been decided that property rights are up for grabs to voting majorities, as well as gun rights and some other things. The dividing line between is not clear at all.
Comments are welcome, as always.
Posted by Walter at November 7, 2003 06:02 PMIs Rios Montt the evangelical Christian who was president for a while? And was he really a murderous dictator?? I really can't remember for sure, but I'm having some doubts.
LS
Yep, that's him. In the Denver Post article, they note that he denies involvement in the atrocities.
Posted by: Walter at November 7, 2003 07:30 PM