Democracy

Intellectuals from both sides of the political spectrum claim democracy as necessary for a country’s stability. Democracy has come to be considered an end in of itself when discussing political development. Europe has for a longtime proudly claimed the democratic model as the most enlightened and fair form of government. A simple and uncritical approach like this is the reason countries like Iran are such a conundrum to the thinking elite after their democratic revolutions. The problem is that democracy doesn’t ensure liberty and a citizen’s liberty is what needs protection. The majority voted the Ayatollah in. Who could argue with that? Who could cry foul if it was what the people wanted? But the more important question and if not important, at least moral implication involved the rights of the Sunni minority in that country. Could the Shiite simply vote away the rights of their rivals? Yes they could and did, because every tyrannical fascist law they created had popular support and the guise of democracy legitimized it. This is the inevitable end of pragmatic politics, the determining of morality with a vote, a tyranny of the of the majority’s whims over the rights of the minority.

The triumph of democracy over all other forms of political organization is really the triumph of pragmatism over principles. Pragmatism values truth as that which makes the largest amounts of people happy, allowing values and morality certain flexibility to meet changing attitudes. A problem with this whimsical approach to determining values and morals is that there’s no consistency in the decisions reached. Eventually all people have their rights violated when values and ethics are decided with democratic methods, because all individuals are a minority in some aspect of their life. When Baptist conservatives voted away the homosexual’s ability to legally marry, the left defended gay rights on the grounds people should be able to choose whichever lifestyle they want without the threat of penalty, the right ignored these inalienable rights and vehemently claimed the virtues of democracy. But when the same population voted to ban smoking on private property, the right then turned to the constitution and said the law conflicted with citizens’ rights to manage their private property without interference. Then it was the lefts turn to charge the right with being undemocratic.

A pragmatic approach to governance creates philosophic inconsistency, which erodes the population’s intellectual coherence, ultimately dividing it, as rights are rewarded based on popular appeal instead of intellectual legitimacy. Lone individuals don’t have the ability or time to consistently predict the popular assumptions of the voting public over a long period of time, nor should they have to, as constitutions and charters are meant to guarantees everyone’s right to pursue their own liberty and happiness. But an entirely democratic state legitimizes values on the basis of popular support, which makes people concerned with protecting their own rights dependent on the propaganda machine. The fact that a gay man has to hold a public campaign for the right to form a recognized lifelong union is ridiculous and dehumanizing, and is clearly a flaw in our referendum model.

Democratic choices are inherently totalitarian. They are either/or choices. The majority’s value is legislated at the direct expense of the minority’s value choice. In the sense that the non-smoking public’s right to a bar free from smoke violates the smoker’s right to gather with other smokers and drink. And what recourse does the smoker or as in the previous example, does the homosexual have? None, other than public campaign so as Rosseau admitted the freedom based democratic model the citizen is “forced to be free”.

Values, social choices and moral decisions are not suited for being decided in a democratic forum. Values are diverse and guided by principle and decided upon through the marketplace. Markets have the uncanny ability to accommodate diversity. For example Vegetarians refuse to eat meat, making their values distinctly different than their carnivorous neighbor. The market allows vegetarians to build the type of supermarket they want and at the same time the market also allows for delis. The market allows both groups to live happily aside each other because neither has the power to invoke his values over his competitors, as each recognizes the principle of individual choice. If we voted today whether it was moral to consume meat, the vote would divide the population, assuming the vote would be close it would create a war between the two groups and divide the society.

Consider how primitive and ridiculous it would sound if Martin Luther King claimed the civil rights of African Americans were justified by popular consent! He appealed to the intellectual premises on which the United States was founded. King believed in and demanded to be recognized by the constitutional principle which guaranteed equality to all races and faiths, extending to certain inalienable rights to all individual beings; the right to be free and self determining without the threat of coercion. Slavery was abolished, because of Lincoln’s regard for the principles of liberty and equality. It was not due to Lincoln’s benevolence or some populist referendum. A referendum would have legitimized the racism and further entrenched it intellectually, as is what happened in post WWI Germany. It is principles that protect the rights of the minority and if principles are to be done away with in favor of pragmatism then so will the rights of the groups that need protecting. Which group is persecuted may change over time but the pattern of persecution will not.

The alternative to a pragmatic democracy is a republic. A republic based on the concept of principle. Through the creation of a charter, certain guiding principles can be chosen in which the country must always adhere to regardless of the political climate or societal situation. A constitution limits the government’s power through diffusion with a system of checks and balances, guaranteeing citizens freedom from a powerful arbitrary ruling elite, weather they are well-meaning socialists, an unstable plundering vassal, a power hungry president, or a biased voting majority. Constitutions can guarantee the right to private property, recognizing an individual’s right to their land, regardless of political leanings, current government attitudes or popular opinion. Constitutions have the ability to exert themselves even without popular consent as they articulate arguments in their most fundamental and intellectual form even when that isn’t clear amongst the ever-changing perceptual data.

A constitution refuses to bow to the tyranny of referendum recognizing that popular opinion approved of the molestation of adolescent boys in Ancient Greece, that democracy legitimized Hitler’s slaughter of the Jewish population in Germany, that democracy interned thousands of Canadians of Japanese decent to appease populist outcries. The creation of a constitution is recognition that popular opinion is fallible and constantly changing, but that there are certain fundamental intellectual laws above altering, regardless of referendum. The society may elect different governments and leaders because no matter who is elected they are powerless to impede on the rights that the constitution guarantees. A constitution fosters a government of laws instead of a government of men. A government of laws declares that non-smokers have no ability to coerce business owners into changing their bars into non-smoking establishments. A government of laws recognizes the homosexual’s right to his choose his partner without the threat of penalty, regardless of what another community’s values are. Constitutions protect the rights of minorities through principle. Constitutions prohibit government involvement in legislating values, thereby ensuring everyone’s own ability to choose. Using referendum to decide value forces an either/or choice, when there are multiple approaches to all values system. An either/or choice entrenches a totalitarian moral system, which is never the answer when the goal is to ensure freedom for everyone.