Grassroots Protests and Political Dodging

Bradley Manning, the man responsible for revealing thousands of confidential documents, was declared not guilty of his most serious charge: He did not aid the enemy. However, unmasking the hypocrisy, malpractice and absurdities of U.S. foreign policy, particularly related to the war in Iraq, earned him another 20 charges, including that of espionage and hacking a computer system. The final verdict is at odds with what the majority of Americans think of the whole issue. For them, Manning is a hero who sacrificed himself for the well-being of the country and society, as it never bodes well when the government not only must exploit laws and procedures, but also keeps it a secret.

Edward Snowden’s case is even more complicated. His findings were not supposed to prove that the U.S. waged another futile war, violated international conventions or spent tax money in the wrong way. Snowden set out to expose the global surveillance program aimed mainly, or if we were to believe Obama, exclusively, at foreigners, surpassing the general premises of anti-terrorism. PRISM, XKeyscore and other National Security Agency secret programs are nothing but tools of American foreign policy. They might just as well be used to collect information that would be useful in trade negotiations for example,.

In times of crisis, when people are tired of the policies of fear, which after 10 years have been mostly unsuccessful, the economic interests of the country are much more vital than the abstract promise of national security. This might be the reason why most citizens think the use of the NSA programs is justified. Or maybe they are just happy that it is not their rights and freedoms that are violated this time.

The controversies and direction of the debate on Snowden in the U.S. indicate that he would have to face an even harsher verdict. “I’m very surprised by the verdict. I believe the information he [Manning] disclosed was extremely harmful to our country. It is not in the same category as Snowden’s betrayals, but it’s very serious nonetheless. I respect the judgment, even though I find it hard to believe,” says Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

What kind of war is the U.S. waging against its European allies, if even senators believe that revealing programs like PRISM should be treated as aiding the enemy?

Is it really about trade negotiations? As always, when foreign policy comes into play, we can only guess. Snowden merely enabled us to learn a bit more about its tools; the objectives remain as unclear as they were before. On the other hand, we found out that collecting data on foreigners is nothing shameful to the U.S., but everyone who exposes that fact automatically joins the ranks of the enemy. Yet there is no paradox here.

Europe has not been particularly comfortable in this new role, or so it tries to argue — so far, very mildly — with demands for explanations and strong objections being voiced at diplomatic meetings. However, as far as real action is concerned, nobody has stamped their foot yet. Although the EU began negotiations on the new agreement on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, our personal data still freely circulates through the American “Safe Harbor” servers.

Sharper criticism, as well as specific demands, must be formulated by European citizens. The Polish opposition has issued a strong statement to the authorities, in which they called for a political response and recognition that Snowden deserves to be protected from persecution in his home country. Over 120 civil society organizations have submitted a letter to Obama, in which they demand that Snowden be absolved of all charges and given the protection that people working in the interest of the state deserve.

Clearly, we can see noble grassroots actions, which so far have fallen on the deaf ears of political evasion. Two visions of democracy seem to emerge and clash with one another: ideal and pragmatic. There are people who still believe that citizens have the right to limited trust in the government and can check up on the authorities whenever they feel like it. Even if it turns out that the government abuses its power and limits our freedom without a reason, they can easily amend it. Snowden, Manning and others who put their lives on the line in order to heal the country are great examples of this position.

Ideal and pragmatic visions of democracy are different at the level of definition. From the perspective of the government, a country that is fully transparent and open to civil criticism is impaired.

It does not matter where and how they govern. They always discover that it is better to have a wide margin for political mistakes, even if it means infringing on some basic rights in the process. It is clear that discussing each important decision with the public is not in their best interest. Sometimes, the authorities actually believe that the country is better off that way — working more efficiently, faster, without unnecessary conflicts. From the angle of politicians, the line between constitutional indispensability and the actual usefulness of a particular tool quickly becomes blurred. Many seemingly democratic regimes have traveled this road before, from collecting data on people suspected of criminal activities to mass surveillance systems.

Supporters of the pragmatic and ideal versions of democracy can agree about certain issues. They allow the government to have secrets. The difference between the two visions is not in objectives or methods, but their assessment. What happens when the government, under the veil of protecting society, exceeds its rights? When the authorities hide actions that the public would not condone? The best way to find out where society stands on the matter is to allow someone out of the cabinet to analyze and assess the government’s actions. There are systems where this works, but unfortunately in others, it might be a futile exercise that does not change anything. If the latter is the case, we need to fall back on people like Snowden and Manning. That is a very good reason to protect such modern heroes instead of persecuting them.