Heroes of liberty and freedom: Lincoln and Roosevelt

Those who took the initiative to set up the American Alumni Association had foresight.  There is a large number of graduates of US universities in Bangladesh, and the number that want to go to USA for further studies is ever increasing.
The Founders aimed at building bridge between Bangladesh and American intellectual culture - I believe it is more than just academic. Culture informs thoughts and values that guide action and choice - in a sense the whole range of agency functions.
Co-chair was an imaginative innovation. Co-chair of Bangladesh and US keeps balance and at the same time sends a strong message of collective purpose.
The US Ambassador is a perpetual co-chair. Our first Bangladesh co-chair was Janab Humayun Rashid Choudhury, a career diplomat trained at Fletcher School, and was Speaker of Parliament at the time of choice.   
I became the first President - Founding President - by virtue of club tie. Ambassador David Merrill and I had grown up at some point of time on the grasses of Harvard Campus. We did not eat grass, however! We were at the Kennedy School at the same time. Club ties matter.
Among the wishes at founding was that the Association would to hold debate and discussions and invite guest speakers to speak on subjects of interest. We have not done much in that respect. I may try to do a bit now.
LIACS BLOOM IN CRUELEST APRIL: T.S. Eliot wrote:
April is the cruelest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing  
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
[The Waste Land]
There are ironic turns in the phrases but also irresistible hope: regeneration in a barren land and dull roots enlivened by spring rain.
The American Alumni Association (AAA) chose April 25 to commemorate founding of the Association and welcome the new co-chair Ambassador Bernicat.    Coincidentally, April in US history records events which are cruel and tragic but also of values and hope sprouting in a country and world decimated by war.    
President Abraham Lincoln was shot dead on April 15, 1865, shortly after his election for the second term. Frederick Roosevelt died on  April 12, 1945, well into his fourth term. President Lincoln abolished slavery. President Roosevelt made decisive contributions to defeat of Hitler and restructuring the global political-economic system after the Second World War.
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAVES THE UNION AND EMANCIPATES THE SLAVES: The Abolitionists were strong in the Northern States, and demanded that the Union enact law abolishing slavery across the Federation. The Southern States were against abolition. For them, slaves were property - instruments of production - whose labour was essential for prosperity, cotton production in particular.
Abraham Lincoln believed firmly - some say 'mystically' - that for realising the founding ideology of the Union - equality of all men - end of slavery was necessary. But he was not an Abolitionist. He stood on free-state platform, demanding that the new territories annexed or admitted to the Union should not have slavery.
The Southern States reckoned that addition of new free-states would outnumber the slave-states; the Union could then pass federal law abolishing slavery. For the Southern slave-states, nomination of Lincoln clinched the matter: they set up Confederacy collectively to resist coercion from Union and, in the end, secede. Leave the Union, keep your slaves!
Confederacy gave President Lincoln the ground to start the war; legitimacy for the civil war, in a strict legal sense, came much later - and retroactively after the Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment in 1965.
Meanwhile, Taney Court had ruled that a slave is property which the owner cannot be deprived of. The Southern States also demanded, on ground of consistency with the Court decision, enactment of law that would allow them to carry their salves anywhere in the Union. To their credit, the Congressmen did not oblige.
It is usual in USA to discuss Democratic or Republican inclination of judges. It does not mean partisan association but ideological orientation. There are swing judges also, who do not argue from ideological vantage point, but perhaps from pragmatic point of view. Often the swing judges decide the fate of case - and constitution. None faces contempt for calling judges Democratic, Republican, or swing.  
The course of the war was not linear. However, with time, luck favoured the Union. The Federal forces were strengthened by volunteers from the Northern States and the 'contrabands' - a name given to the slaves who escaped into, and fought for, 'emancipation'. The Confederate army suffered depletion. The civil war caused 617,000 deaths, of which 359,000 were Union soldiers.
After some initial victory, President Lincoln issued Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (1863). When victory appeared decisive, on the New Year's Day was issued Final Emancipation Proclamation (1863). These were decrees by plebiscitary executive which brought about radical change in the constitutional status.
The Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1965 which outlawed slavery all over US. It brought about radical change in the constitutional status of slaves: equal as human beings.
Further time was required for recognition of social equality - and Martin Luther King, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson [played vital roles in this struggle]. Gunar Myrdal had analysed social integration of the Afro-Americans as the American Dilemma.
Obama presidency takes the resolution of the dilemma farthest. There are still miles to go.
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT SAVES THE WORLD FROM FASCISM AND RESTRUCTURES POST-WAR GLOBAL POLITICAL-ECONOMIC SYSTEM: Franklin D Roosevelt was elected President four times through the Great Depression and Second World War (1933-1945). Having suffered polio, he could not walk or stand upright except for a few minutes. His statesmanlike courage and determination more than offset the physical weakness.  
Roosevelt's first batch of New Deal initiatives failed to take off the ground. The Court ruled unanimously that delegation of parliament's power to the president was unconstitutional.
To contain court-counter revolution, Roosevelt proposed a law to appoint additional justices if the justices over 70 years old did not voluntarily retire. The court-packing scheme ran into political opposition, even from his own party members - they had been consulted.
By 1941, Roosevelt appointed eight out of nine judges, including elevation of an Associate Justice to Chief Justice. The interpretation of the second round of New Deal laws was positive, placing social interest above property and liberties. However, two justices did not share the same view and remained 'permanent adversaries'.
As banks collapsed, he took an unprecedented bold step. He declared a bank holiday; injected enough cash into the banking system; when banks re-opened, there was enough money to lend. The economy resumed production. Some insolvent banks were allowed to collapse. A distinction was made between illiquidity and insolvency.  
Roosevelt did not endear himself to the party machinery and the political strata. That man in the White House has dictatorial propensity!  Promoting Bolshevism!
The World War put his mettle to test. The several Neutrality Acts passed by Congress imposed an injunction that the commander-in-chief must keep USA out of the 'European War'. The countries in Europe fell to Hitler like in a game of nine-pins. Vichy government in France was subjugated. De Gaulle, however, led resistance in France. UK was an exception, fighting against Hitler.
Neutrality was helping Hitler - a menace to western civilisation and democracy. It was time to help - if not join - the states fighting Hitler. Roosevelt authorised a few First World War battleships to be docked at European ports. Production of war materials was started, making USA the 'Arsenal of Democracy'. Lend-Lease Act was passed in 1941, terminating neutrality. USA joined the war and became the decisive force.
NATO was set up by the Allied Powers - but excluded USSR which was an important Allied partner. Soviet power and ideology was a threat to democracy and capitalist economy - more entrenched than that posed by Hitler. That initiated Cold War.
The old world political-economic system had broken down. The world monetary and financial systems were restructured around the Breton Woods Institutions. Keynes provided the intellectual underpinning; US contributed the fire-power - dollar as the international currency - and the institutional design. (The mismatch between US dominance and the current configuration of global economic power has created new problems.)
An international trade organisation was on card but did not materialise. GATT was a half-way house compromise. WTO gets closer to the initial idea, but retains some of the distorting compromises written into GATT.
Roosevelt's conduct was determined by his commitment to democracy defined by freedom. Four counts of freedom were crucial: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. These are embedded in US Constitution.
Freedom from want entails social welfare - 'happy life' for everyone.  Freedom from fear has broader entailments including security of person as well as from attack on nation-states. The Marshall Plan provided financial help which resuscitated the European economy.  
US emerged as the architect - hegemon - of the post-war world system radically restructured. And the first super-power was born. USSR remained a contender, splitting the world and initiating global cold war regime. It finally collapsed and splintered USSR.
FUKUYAMA'S DREAM - AND DISAPPOINTMENT: The collapse of the Soviet system inspired Francis Fukuyama to celebrate "The End of History and the Last Man". There would be no further dialectical movement or flip-flop; for Marx's socialism, Fukuyama substituted democracy as the end-point.
Fukuyama admits disappointment in his recent works for breakdown of states in many parts of the world and inspirational militant attacks on states as well as civilian population.
INCHOATE JURISPRUDENCE ADDRESSING TERRORISM: The terrorist attacks that started with Twin Tower and the subsequent wars which engaged USA have jolted jurists and political/ethical philosophers into search for legal methods appropriate to define and deal with these crimes.
The UN and other international or regional declarations describe terrorist attacks as crimes. These do not recognise motive explicitly. Motive makes crucial difference to acts of crime.
Homicide amounts to murder if committed with intention and prior preparation gets the severest punishment. Homicide does not amount to murder if done on the spur of the moment - without prior planning - and gets relatively lenient treatment.
Malignancy without specific motive Iago-fashion does not escape punishment. Malignancy is ingrained in character - it needs only a red patch to be aroused.
TERRORIST GOAL EFFECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY: Bruce Ackerman, professor of politics and law, recognises motive of terrorism: it aims at destruction of the existing sovereignty and take over 'effective sovereignty'. They do not promise a better world. There are purists who insist that, regardless of the cruelty and magnitude crime, the traditional liberties and rights must be extended to the terrorists. Ackerman respects their view but do not agree:
"No democratic government can maintain popular support without acting effectively to calm panic and prevent a second terrorist attack. If respect for civil liberties requires governmental paralysis, serious politicians will not hesitate before sacrificing rights to war against terrorism."  [The Emergency Constitution, Yale Law Journal, vol. 113:1029, 2004, p. 1031]
He concedes that the president be given powers to respond effectively to such attacks and crisis. He is concerned, however, that such powers may spill into normal administration, which will undermine the traditional rights and liberties.
He prescribes the antidote: each extension of the president's emergency power be approved by Congress by escalating super-majority. He reckons, however, that the extremist partisan positions of the parties may not make that feasible. (ibid; The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, Tanner Lecture, Princeton University, 2010.]
Sayid Mawdudi and Sayid Qutb propagate that the world is now ruled by the impious and corrupt people; the virtuous people devoted to religion must wrest power from them and establish state based on sharia as they understand it.
Sayid Mawdudi founded Jamat-e-Islam and is its ideologue. Sayid Qutb founded and led the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt. They flirt with democracy for the advantage that liberalism grants for propaganda and organisation eventually to destruct democracy and liberty.   
HYBRID JURISPRUDENCE IS NO SOLUTION:     USA has used both a criminal justice model and military tribunal model. Drawing on this history, some argue for a hybrid model which mixes the two. It is difficult to decide how to classify cases and assign some to criminal courts and others to military tribunal. Hybridisation does not yield neat jurisprudence or practical method for dispensation of justice. [J. B. Steinberg & M. E. Estrin, Harmonizing Policy and Principle, Journal of Security Law & Policy, vol. 7:16, 2014]
THE ROMAN MODEL OF APPOINTING DICTATOR FOR LIMITED PERIOD IS ANACHRONISM: Ancient Rome had its own method for dealing with crisis for which the normal legal-administrative system was not suitable.  The two consuls might jointly choose a third person for appointment as dictator for six months with vast (unaccountable) military powers.  The appointment was not extendable or renewable. The consuls were not eligible for appointment. [Ackerman, Emergency Constitution, 2004, pp. 1046-47]
The Roman model (or contemporary neo-Roman model) interrupts continuity - and therefore development of - lawful political-administrative system. There is no evidence that any country chooses this deliberately. Roman Empire had endemic crisis, which became more frequent as it expanded and recruited troops from the conquered territories. It sounds similar to the unelected interim or caretaker government during parliamentary election.
PROBLEMS OF UNIVERSALISATION AND ADVOCACY WITHOUT INSTITUTIONS: Another set of issues arise from universalisation of human rights by UN Declarations/Conventions and the advocacy groups.  Increasingly, as the domestic state structures break down, UN procures basic policing and security services for these countries. There is scarce evidence that UN or hegemonic interventions successfully reinstated effective sovereignty or order in the failed states. Michael Ignatieff addresses these issues. [l. Human Rights as Politics, ll. Human Rights as Idolatry, Tanner Lecture, 2000]
Ignatieff recognises two critical contributions to human rights made by the UN Declaration and the civil society advocacy groups.  First, inviolability of rights is necessary to defend the minorities in a state which systematically violates them. Second, human rights provide the normative benchmark against which the rights regime in particular nation-states may be evaluated.
The advocacy groups can do no more than raise 'fuss' - or shame the defaulting country - and perhaps encourage external intervention. The limitations of external interventions have been noted above. In the ultimate analysis, nation-state is the best protector of human rights.
"A long-term solution requires an institutional setting in which the state is no longer communalised, no longer seen as the monopoly of any particular confessional, ethnic, or racial group, in which the state is reinvented as the arbiter of a civic pact between [those] groups." [Ignatieff, p. 308]
Consideration of rights as trump - a theme that Dworkin pursues - is impractical and, Ignatieff maintains, idolatry of secular civil religion. There are competing rights and claims by different groups, which are resolved not in the abstract world of ends, but in the existential world of means. The process of resolution is essentially an intensely contested political process, entailing resolution of means to ends. [Ignatieff, p. 301]  
The language of rights is universal and normative, but enforcement of rights is particularistic and existentialist. The rights advocacy and enforcement must carefully consider that rights for some do not deny rights to others. [Ignatieff, pp. 291-92]. That is partisanship, not fairness and commits injustice to large population groups - contemporaneously, prospectively, and retroactively as well. Time is not absolution!
Ignatieff bases human rights on prudential or utilitarian grounds which are  verified by human history and ensures pluralism.
"While foundations for human rights belief may be contestable, the prudential grounds [for] human rights protection are much more secure. People may not agree why we have human rights, but they can agree that they need them. . . . [H]uman beings are at risk if they lack agency [which] needs protection in internationally agreed standards. . . . Human rights are an account of what is right, not an account of what is good.  . . . [S]hared belief in human rights ought to be compatible with diverging attitudes to what constitutes a good life." [Italics added; Ignatieff, p. 321.]
GLOBAL NETWORK OF ANARCHY & TERRORISM THREAT TO FREEDOM, NOT STATE: Civil liberties developed concomitantly with capitalism. Liberties are moral justification for constraining arbitrary exercise of power by government. The present context is different: the threat to liberties come today from civil war and globally networked anarchy. Exercise of effective sovereignty by state alone can contain and neutralise networked anarchy and protect rights.  (Ignatieff, p. 310.)
"Constitutionalism and the civic state are the institutional sine qua non of effective human rights protection. . . . Today . . . the chief threat to human rights comes not from tyranny alone, but from civil war and anarchy. Hence, we are discovering the necessity of state order as a guarantee of rights. . . . So human rights best be strengthened in today's world not by weakening already weak and overburdened states but by strengthening them wherever possible." [Ignatieff, pp. 308, 310]  
MORAL COMPASS OF LINCOLN & ROOSEVELT: The rights issues are deeply moral. The pursuit of moral goal may not be compounded or distracted by legal sophistry or political diverseness. That makes Abraham Lincoln and Frederic Roosevelt relevant today. They made moral choice. And the moral compass put - and directed them - on the right course and in the right direction.
That makes April the month to celebrate their contributions to human liberty and well-being.
At Lincoln's death, Walt Whitman wrote:
WHEN lilacs last in the door-yard bloom'd,
 And the great star early droop'd in the western sky in the night,
I mourn'd - and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.
Lilac blooming perennial . . .
[Walt Whitman]
Dr. Mashiur Rahman, a former civil servant, is Economic Adviser to Prime Minister of Bangladesh. He is founder president of American Alumni Association & currently its co-chair along with US Ambassador Marcia Bernicat. A shorter version was delivered at the Association meeting on April 25, 2015.