When a state has adopted a democratic government, he seldom, if ever goes back on it. A whole process has been launched by liberty in law, which is « more powerful than (any) weapon known to man », as the saying goes. This opposition between liberty and strength refers to political means of ordering a society. By using weapons in military dictatorships, the leaders expect to gather the people with fear ; by instituting liberty in law, the rulers want to gather the people round trust. Fear and violence never can gather the people, but on the contrary used to divide, as everyone is suspicious. The other option, liberty in law, gives new prospects.
Using weapons or any kind of violence is always temporary. That is merely a means for imposing an idea, or ruins another. Jonathan Barnbrook, a British graphic designer, named a picture confronting Osama Bin Laden to George W. Bush « you can’t bomb an idea ». He goes further afield, meaning that weapons is not a means at all, and even powerless in front of strong values. Indeed, the war against Iraq, under the banner of democracy, has been a political mistake. So was the Patriot act for American liberties. In other words, compelling people is not a way to convince; even in name of security, it is no need to shrink liberties.
In 1999, Amartya Sen intervened in a global conference on Democracy in New Delhi, noticing how liberty in law has spread across the planet during the XX th century, what, to him, proved that democracy is a universal value, and more efficient than strength. Weapons are the last argument if the discussion does not help; if one took place. A.Sen underlines the part of the discussion in a society, as a pillar of democracy: people can know each other, and build up common values. From a different angle, violence can be simply a way to escape from discussion, or elections; thus political liberties are shrunk. For instance, one can conjure up the putsch in Guinea, three month ago, right after the