Why does "open" mean including pro-war arguments?
I was asked this by a supporter of openDemocracy when he learnt I was commissioning arguments from those who back Bushs strategy.
Isnt being pro-war as legitimate a proposition as being pro-slavery? he continued, especially in the present climate with all the weight of the media backing the rightness of war against Iraq.
He was calling from America.
It struck me immediately that outside the US the atmosphere is different. In the rest of the world, far from there being media unanimity, there is still an exotic element to those who argue for intervention.
It is great that Peter David, Foreign Editor of the Economist, offers a vigorous rebuttal of Saul Landaus view that Iraq is no threat itself a criticism of our North Americas editor. It is essential that the argument over the war widens and deepens as much as possible to include points of view from Iran and China, as much as France and Russia.
It is important in itself, because this is the best way to make up your mind on such an issue, with its huge potential consequences. It is also a test of openness in democracy.
All too often those who consider themselves voices of fairness and justice talk only to themselves.
We seek genuine engagement: sharp, pointed, subtle or witty - whatever its nature it must probe and test the strength of our own opinions as well as those of others.
