After the disclosure yesterday that Iraq has been torturing detainees, I want to highlight briefly two core points about what torture is and what consequences it has.
The first point — and perhaps the most misunderstood — is that torture is a disputational rather than epistemic process. By that I mean torture exists in the realm of persuasion rather than knowledge, and as such is defined in opposition to rhetoric rather than inquiry. Indeed, torture is probably best conceived of as a form of somatic rhetoric — ie, as a method of persuasion that manipulates the body rather than the mind.
Those who would insist along with Cheney that the opposite is true — that torture is instead a form of inquiry — have put the cart before the horse. For instance, a prisoner who holds classified information will only divulge it once he has been persuaded to do so. But what if, say, a prisoner adheres to a given ideology so fervently that no words will ever persuade him to speak? How then does the interrogator "extract" the necessary information? By reverting to a non-verbal means of persuasion. And torture is, unfortunately, the simplest, quickest, and easiest means of non-verbal persuasion. So if a recalcitrant prisoner must be made to speak, the surest way to do so is to inflict enough pain upon him that he prioritizes the security of his body over the convictions of his mind. In other words, the role of torture is to persuade the prisoner that he is no longer bound to whatever ideology it is that dictates he not divulge his information.
Which brings me to my second point. Democracy is defined, loosely, as a political system wherein each individual is free to express their political ideology. Note that that ideology can be any ideology, even one that might seem at odds with the principles of equality or justice on which democracy stands. Further, note that the rationale for this system is that each individual inherently has a will and that the expression of that will is a fundamental right of human existence.
What then of torture and democracy? Are the two at all compatible? Simply put, no. Democracy and torture can only exist in direct contradiction. After all, democracy demands the expression of individual will, while torture demands its negation; democracy assumes no specific ideology, while torture targets all ideology; democracy asserts the right to persuade, while torture asserts only the right to be persuaded. The two are about as antithetical as night and day or black and white.
To return to Iraq, the the disclosure of a torture chamber within the Interior Ministry is, in my view, the worst news yet. The gravest danger to nascent democracy is not that it will be conquered from without but that it will be eroded from within. This is the clearest sign to date of just how advanced that erosion already is.
--Chris Meserole is the author of Democratic Vista.