Are we all responsible? by Matias Bulnes, NYC

Over the last few years we have witnessed a number of measures carried out by George W. Bush’s administration in the name of US national security. To say the least, some of these measures lay on the verge of the overtly immoral and arguably illegal. It defies reason that some people react with surprise to accusations against Bush’s government of using or endorsing illegitimate means to pursue its political ends. I might conceive (although not without difficulty) that such accusations could end up being dismissed upon serious debate. But it just escapes my imagination that the denial of both prisoner’s rights and habeas corpus to those hitherto suspects of terrorism held in Guantanamo could be considered routinely moral and legal. That’s like trying to hide the sun with one finger.

But I do not intend to raise accusations already made. The point I want to make here surpasses Bush’s administration and even surpasses the US and the present time. I’m concerned with the role of citizens as passive witnesses of actions they find heinous done in their name and under their authorization. I’m concerned with our political responsibility as passive witnesses of atrocities being done in our name by our government.


Many of us are of the opinion that some of Bush’s measures to fight the Islamic threat are immoral. In fact, I daresay that most of us believe that the immorality of the situation in Guantanamo or of the recently uncovered Extraordinary Rendition policy is simply incontestable. But fewer would voice their opinion publicly and even fewer do anything to actively hinder these allegedly hideous actions. We rather turn to the comfort of our homes and personal lives than having to face the uncritical mob of Bush’s supporters.

Convenient though it is, this passiveness does not free us of political responsibility. After all, we all participate in this tacit contract we call the US society which defines the roles each of us plays in the political structure, including the democratically elected authorities—in particular, the federal government. In virtue of this tacit contract, the government’s authority to do everything it does comes from each one of us for as long as it does it in our name, that is, for as long as the government is uncorrupted and democratic. Since I want to believe that Bush’s government is uncorrupted, I shall believe that it does what it does in my name and under my tacit authorization. And if I’m partially the source of its political authority and power, I must accept a share of the political responsibility in its actions.

And so must all citizens; even those who didn’t vote for Bush. For it is essential to a democratic system that the state must be neutral with regard to the various subgroups within the society, be them religious, political, etc. All citizens should (and expect to) count the same in the government’s motivation to pursue the well-being of the nation, regardless of their political affiliation and so regardless of whether they voted for it. Hence, it is implicit in a democratic system that supporters and opponents of the government are to the same extent the partial reason of the government’s actions and so they all are in an important sense responsible for them.

I think that we have recognized this fact in the recent history. After World War II, Germany as a whole, not only Hitler’s supporters, undertook political sanctions for the Holocaust. And in fact it would have seemed unjust if those passive witnesses of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime went unpunished. For oftentimes their apathy was not rooted in ignorance of Hitler’s extreme views but in the comfort of knowing themselves to be the ultimate beneficiaries of Hitler’s political and military actions. The political structure they willingly participated in makes them be better described as accomplices than innocent witnesses.

This is not, of course, to say that all members of a society have the exact same degree of responsibility in the actions of their government. In fact, there can be little doubt that some members of the Bush administration have a double share of responsibility: like all US citizens, for participating in the social contract; and unlike most US citizens, for having devised such hideous ways of pursuing the well-being of the US. In general, supporters of Bush’s questionable policies differ from apathetic citizens in that they facilitate the political climate to conduct such policies. Hence, they seem to be more responsible, though not the only ones responsible.

Now one thing is to bear responsibility on a certain immoral action; another quite different is to deserve to die for it. In no way do I want to suggest that the responsibility borne by an average American gives Islamic terrorists the right to kill her, as in fact they did on 9/11. For one thing, though I’m inclined to think that non-combatants should never be targeted by military forces there is a whole literature on this issue and I’m not prepared to defend any position. For another, I don’t want to begin to loose the tenure I’m yet to get before I even go out to the job market—as similar suggestions prompted Ward Churchill’s loss of his tenure.

But whatever our moral desert, the important question is how to get rid of the responsibility that yields it. And it should seem indeed very tragic if breaking the social contract were our only chance. For as far as I can see, individuals can break the contract in one of two ways: renouncing their citizenship and moving to another country; or acting in ways that explicitly violate their political duties. Both seem unreasonable and what’s worse, both seem to no avail.

Is it then in our fate to carry this moral burden? No, if the previous analysis is correct. Recall that the source of our basic responsibility is our being in some important sense the partial reason for these actions, in virtue of the tacit social contract we participate in. Hence becoming at the same time a reason against these courses of action within the limits of the social contract should counteract the basic responsibility. If, for example, an individual were to participate in legitimate public demonstrations against those actions, if she were to articulate and express cogent reasons against them, or if only she publicly expressed her dissent, all the same she would be giving the government reasons, political and/or moral, not to pursue those courses of action. Should an individual do this with enough eagerness, at the end of the day it would seem unjust to blame her for the outcomes, even if her efforts did not suffice to stop the immoral actions.

In sum, I believe there is hope for us moral citizens who deem Bush’s actions illegitimate. Not only do we have a chance to purge our guilt but it is our moral duty to do so. I have written this article as an attempt to fulfill mine.