The conviction of democracy

Two days ago on April 7th, 2009, an event passed which did not seem to register on the Canadian or USA news media. That day in history carries a lot of momentous events. Its just one of those days.

According to myth the internet was created on the seventh. The World Health Organization organized on that day. It is a crowded sort of day. Significantly, this day carries what will be the single most important day to be recognized. Not today, not tomorrow, but the recognition grows as time moves on.

In Peru, a three judge panel ruled that former President Alberto Fujimori, 70, was guilty as charged on human rights abuses. According to the courts of Peru, Fujimori guided the work of the Grupo Colina death squad. The result encouraged the judges to administer a 25 year sentence. Due to the age of Fujimori, this becomes a life sentence.

Fujimori becomes the first democratically elected national political leader to be so convicted of human rights abuses. The implications carry into our own political environment. The nations participating in this legal exercise, Chile and Peru are not traditionally thought of as champions of democracy.

To measure this implication in our own nation, it would be as if Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King was convicted of human rights abuses that the Canadians of Japanese ancestry suffered during the Second World War. He would also be convicted for turning away boats of German Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. The reason for that sentence would be because he was the leader of the Government of Canada s executive Cabinet and therefore responsible for these human rights outrages.

In the case of the USA, former President George W. Bush could be charged and convicted with human rights abuses regarding Guantanamo prisoners and the War against Iraq. These charges originating and trials conducted within the boundaries of the United States itself.

So while the latter political leaders escape justice, Fujimori did not. And this is historically significant when it comes to the perception of criminality. For once governments such as Peru and Chile have led the way into establishing the legal limits of demogratic leadership. During the history of legal action on human rights it is usually totalitarian governments that suffered such legal sanction while that of the democratic leader escaped safe in the knowledge that a plurality of his own citizens gave mandate to his or her abuse.

In that way, I believe that this date an event equivalent to Magna Carta occurred. Even democratically elected leaders can be held legally responsible for their actions against their own citizens. Its significant.

Perplexing is that the national medias in North America missed the point of the legal event between Peru and Chile. Adding to the point of the issue was that the foreign relations between Peru and Chile were very much strained due to a long standing border dispute. Indeed, at that time a full border war could have exploded. Yet the Chileans over looked the heated temperature between their nations. The Chileans requested that Peru present the legitimate evidence supporting the accusations against Fujimori. Peru did so.

Upon this the Chilean judges conducted an examination subsequently ruling that Fujimori must be extradited to face trial. As a consequence of this legal co-operation Fujimori faced justice and incarceration for crimes during his political tenure. The conviction and sentence of Fujimori must rip through the comfortable environment that all democratic elected politicians feel. A moment in time, and history happened.