HOW DEMOCRACY IS PRESERVED

WASHINGTON - Civil libertarians claim that John Ashcroft and Co. have
endangered our civil liberties since 9/11, as we enter the inevitable
assessments around the first anniversary of the attacks. The American Civil
Liberties Union already has pointed to the government's "insatiable
appetite" for secrecy, lack of transparency, rejection of equality under
the law, and "disdain and outright removal of checks and balances."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont believes the US has been "shredding the
Constitution." Others simply maintain that in our efforts to protect
ourselves from terrorists we are "doing their job for them," undermining
democracy.

They have it all upside down: Democracy is threatened when burning public
needs are not addressed. Indeed, evidence shows that as Congress rushed
through numerous measures to protect us from terrorism, support for civil
liberties in this country has grown stronger, not weaker.

Americans have some direct experience in this matter. In the days when our
cities were awash with violent crime, people supported police chiefs like
Daryl Gates of Los Angeles, who advocated "street justice" and "shoot
first, ask questions later."

At the time, the country favored excessively punitive measures, such as,
"Three strikes and you're in jail forever," and preferred to spend money on
incarcerating drug abusers rather than on rehabilitation. Since then, as
crime subsided, Los Angeles police chiefs have been much more sensitive to
individual rights, and the nation moved toward spending less on prisons and
more on drug rehabilitation.

Social scientists who study the conditions under which democracy is lost
have little to work with.

Democracy - once firmly established - has almost never been lost because of
internal developments (as distinct from because of occupation by an
invading force).

The one notable exception is the Weimar Republic. What happened there is
subject to a much contested literature. However, most agree that following
the defeat of Germany in World War I, the people's pride was deeply shaken,
and they felt further threatened by massive unemployment and
hyperinflation. The Weimar government, weakened by squabbles among numerous
parties, corruption, and scandals, was unable to muster an effective
response. As a result, "too many Germans did not regard it as a legitimate
regime," writes E.J. Feuchtwanger in his book "From Weimar to Hitler."

In short, inaction in the face of threats, not excessive action, killed the
Weimar Republic.

A quick change of scenery and decades: Some relevant data come from an
event that now seems relatively small, but at the time shook the nation -
the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Shortly thereafter, a hefty majority (59
percent) of Americans favored giving up some liberties, an ABC
News/Washington Post poll shows. A month later, the numbers began to
subside, to 52 percent.

In the period immediately after Sept. 11, people were most willing to
support a strong government that would set aside many basic individual
rights. However, in the subsequent months, as the government did enhance
public safety and no new attacks occurred, the public gradually restored
its commitment to the rights-centered, democratic regime.

Two-thirds of Americans were willing to sacrifice some civil liberties to
fight terrorism immediately after the 9/11 attacks, according to ABC
News/Washington Post. More recently, only 4 in 10 Americans support
government steps to prevent terrorism if civil liberties are violated,
reported a CNN/USA Today poll.

A growing concern for civil liberties can also be seen in the percentage of
Americans who have held that the government went too far in restricting
civil liberties to fight terrorism, according to a Newsweek poll. Over time
this percentage has remained small, but increased from 8 percent to 12
percent as America experienced no new attacks and numerous new safety
measures were introduced.

When Americans were asked about 10 specific safety measures, the picture
was completely consistent: While support for safety even at the cost of
liberty remained high, it did fall in the six months following the attacks,
as fear subsided. For example, 93 percent of Americans supported expanded
under-cover activities to penetrate groups under suspicion in September
2001; in March 2002 it fell to 88 percent.

Those favoring closer monitoring of banking and credit cards fell from 8 in
10 in September 2001 to 7 in 10 in March 2002. And support for expanded
camera surveillance fell from 63 percent to 58 percent during the same
period, according to the Harris poll.

All in all, as far as one can rely on attitudinal data that vary according
to how the question is phrased, the data support the thesis that the higher
the fear, the greater the willingness to curtail liberty to protect safety.
As the government's response seemed effective, fear subsided and support
for democracy began to increase again.

The fact that support for strong antiterrorist measures remains high
reflects the fact that most of the data were collected within six months of
the attack and under frequent warnings about imminent attacks and new
threats. The thesis would lead one to expect that if the panic subsides
some more, the proportion of those supporting a curtailment of rights will
further decline.

This may seem obvious, but it surely is not so obvious to those who hold
that democracy is lost by introducing new safety measures that entail some
curtailment of rights. These safety measures are core elements of what
protects the public and reassures it.