Several months ago, political commentator Rolfe Commissiong began the narrative that Palestine is where “Western liberal democracy went to die”. Contrast that with Margaret Thatcher’s private speech made circa 2000 when she visited Bermuda (paraphrased): “The greatest threat to continuous peace and prosperity comes from rogue nations that do not share our values such as the rule of law”.

Lady Thatcher went on to say, “These were values we have taken for granted and now must fight [as in war] to maintain; otherwise, civilisation, as we have come to know it, will cease to exist.”

In the past 15 months news scenes and social media have shown the world in real time inhumane atrocities committed against mostly unarmed people trapped in an effective prison enclave, with 34 per cent of the victims being women, children and infants. Worse, the collective West remained silent while the world’s largest court and greatest assembly of nations condemned the actions as possible genocide and a flagrant breach of international law — it was this same law that Lady Thatcher claimed to uphold. Paradoxically, it was the rogue nation that she deplored which is trying now, 24 years later, to uphold the international court ruling.

The United States, despite its own human rights agencies and those of Israel reporting these violations, remains unconvinced — at least in its international posture — that the International Court of Justice’s verdict is wrong.

If the World Court, created by the US and Europe after the Second World War, is insufficient to represent international law, it begs the question: what body or court of law is there to be respected?

What Gaza has done is expose to the world the gross hypocrisy of international law as a one-way street. What this says in actuality is that rules-based order is what is applied to the rest of the world, while the US and its allies are exempt.

Western liberal democracy as a hegemon may die, but democracy must never die. Paradoxically, neither should socialism die. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive because a healthy human society needs both for survival.

Democracy, at least the Athenian version, is very much an idea that is a work-in-progress at best. The US is ideologically divided in its approach to the subject, with Republicans more wedded to the idea of a “constitutional republic” rather than a democracy such as that of Sweden.

The Republicans want a strong leader voted in by the people, who thereafter rules. In their mind, after electing that leader, they are given almost unlimited power, which allows for effective management of the government that has some shared responsibility. The subtitle for this scenario is “a king by any other name is still a king”. Democracy as seen by the Republican mind is too slow, and prone to stagnation and filibusters.

Democrats are ideologically driven more towards a populist form of governance but have been sideswiped by grappling with being labelled as the Left. Hence, in any social programming such as senior care education, they have become apologists rather than protagonists in the fight against left-wing stigmatisation. However, most of the Global South population’s idealism, notwithstanding their governments, is to see a democracy powered by the people.

Bermuda, too, has given accent to authoritarian-type rule, preferring a strong party organisation that is perceived as having the ability to “get things done”. The problem, both locally and in the US, is that with this proclivity there is no handle on how far authoritarian leaders are allowed to go. They can go from being a benign dictator to a fascist where the principal beneficiaries are the top 1 per cent. It has happened over and over in world history where societies drift into being under the control of a tiny oligarchy until the gap is unbearable and leads to revolution.

Education is a key component, particularly in a world dominated by media. It is nearly impossible to protect rights when the population does not know what the rights are and how their freedom is attached.

The flag was originally meant to stand for something such as democracy or rights under which to fight for those liberties. Today, we hear the term “patriot” being pushed in the US in association with the flag and, similarly in Bermuda, the word “loyalty” to the party. In both cases, it is not patriotism to the ideals that are attached to freedoms but rather the leader. It’s simply amazing how society can be galvanised into believing their fight is for liberty while being misled into supporting tyranny against themselves.

In conclusion, I must disagree with Rolfe, but only in the extent of saying that what is dying in Gaza is a bastardisation of democracy used by the West as a hegemonistic weapon.

The lie has been exposed, and all that is needed to be said are the words of hope from the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr: “One day, this nation will live out the true meaning of its creed. We on Earth should never give up the vision of freedom, justice and equality, which is indelibly linked to the spirit of democracy. Let freedom ring from every mountain and every valley. Let freedom ring.”