Snowden: A Tragic Hero

The figure of the lone vigilante awakens sympathy, but not all of the effects are positive.

It is known that the best intentions do not always produce the best results. In reference to Edward Snowden, the ex-analyst of the U.S. National Security Agency who has brought to light powerful revelations about that country’s espionage, even if his purpose is altruistic the consequences will not be more transparency, more democracy and more civilian control of U.S. activity, but the opposite.

Snowden answers to the very North American prototype of the lone vigilante. For decades this society has fed into the myth of the individual that stands out above the crowd to defend the good above the expansive and sinister power of the government and its accomplices, their made-up interests.

That myth is now fertile ground in a world that is generally disappointed with all that is institutional and established, with political parties, businesses, unions, means of communication, with any kind of public or traditional power center. Snowden can be the face behind the mask of Anonymous present in juvenile manifestations, from Istanbul to São Paulo, and is a candidate for idol of those who legitimately aspire to undermine an unjust or, at least, unsatisfactory order.

There are many reasons for sympathizing with Snowden: his audacity to defy the most powerful nation on the planet, his message about the prevalence of civilian rights over the security of institutions, his own personal sacrifice, especially commendable in a superficial and easygoing age. People of different ideological orientations or social classes can share the appreciation of Snowden, given that his figure is neutral, virgin and universal. His cause is undisputed — the truth — and his enemy is happily shared: the dark side of the state machine. With his aspect of “the good boy,” Snowden is the perfect hero in a world replete with villains.

It is necessary, nevertheless, to go a little further to redeem his actions. Even though it is hard to say in these times, there are some things that he slanders against the state that do not automatically benefit the individual. Because of the demonstrated impotence of many governments to respond to new demands, democracy could be in crisis, but not in doubt. The democratic systems continue preparing instruments to avoid power abuse, the same as those that Snowden had to resort to taking advantage of under the laws of the state in which he lived, not blowing it up. These instruments can become, sometimes, obsolete or insufficient, but it is the responsibility of the population to renovate and expand them, not torpedo them with individual actions. The idea of “anything is better than this” corresponds with desperate and, frequently, failed societies.

It can be said reasonably that if Snowden had not made these programs of espionage public, we would not know of them today and they would continue to be applied behind our backs. Thanks to his determination, certainly we know of them today; if we believe it necessary to fight them and in the latest instance, with much persistence and luck, perhaps we can abort them. This is Snowden’s feat and we must concede him recognition.

Every action, however, has its effects taken into account to reach a conclusion. Two of the consequences of the steps taken by Snowden have been that of ruining, perhaps definitively, Barack Obama’s prestige in Europe and that of returning the image of his country to similar levels to the years of the war in Iraq. This is a price that many indifferent to the fate of the U.S. president and the international role of the U.S. pay, perhaps happily. But it may be that not everyone thinks the same, especially those who understand the historic importance of the alliance between the U.S. and Europe or appreciate the virtues of a president who, for better or worse, is closer to the European style and sensibilities than the majority of those that we have known and will know in the Oval Office.

Together the swooning over Obama and the shelving of the United States has produced the rising of Vladimir Putin, Russia and China. Those two countries, both with authoritarian governments — the first democratically elected — and frequent violations of human rights, have seen their oppressive policies and constant propaganda against the great empire of the West indirectly endorsed.

At the same time, a climate of confidence and collaboration between Washington and Brussels has been broken, the flow of information that is essential for the security of the Europeans has been obstructed and, perhaps, free commerce negotiations that the weak European economies desperately need have been blocked.

It is true that Snowden is not responsible for all of this. Outside of the guilt that rightly corresponds with the laws of his country, his moral responsibility ends with the demonstration of data that his conscience could not allow him to hide anymore. The same cannot be said of those who have encouraged his revelations, especially of the governments that have given credit and impact to the infiltration while also denying asylum that, within this logic, the infiltrator would have earned. These governments themselves are responsible for having given up easily under the pressure of their public opinions and having covered up from their citizens the raw truth that an adult society deserves to hear: that the function of intelligence services is to obtain information, the more the better, yes, putting national interests above diplomatic friendships and courtesies, and yes, in secret, or does anyone pretend transparency in espionage?

Leaving aside some of the implicated, such as Russia, China, Ecuador or Venezuela, whose interests in this game are clear, the fury unleashed among the European friends of the U.S. ends up, like an editorial of The New York Times said, “feigned.” It is evident that they also spy on their friends. Who can doubt, for example, that the French secret services intend to find out what is going on in Spain or Germany that could be worthwhile for their country? Equally, it would be an unforgivable negligence if the Spanish services did not look for all means of access to information on the government of Morocco useful for their safety. Another thing is that the U.S. arranges more and better means for this job, but this does not change the judgment.

Regrettably, the first reactions after Snowden’s work do not allow us to think of a future with better transparency, more democracy or more control. Perhaps the programs that he has revealed will die, but the countries will try to perfect other systems and protect even more secrets. The number of people with access to confidential information will be limited, and they will make the inspection tools even more opaque. Dictatorial methods, which have been proven more efficient, will come out vindicated. Mutual suspicions will condition the exchange of data between governments and anti-terrorist cooperation may suffer.

None of this will impede Snowden’s path of being considered a hero by some, but his heroism is somewhat tragic. He does not appear glorified behind saving lives and avoiding catastrophes. His is a sad success, full of doubts and controversies, of suspicions and conjectures, like the life that, apparently, carried out espionage in its short trajectory.