“Dangers?”, you ask. “Surely, democracy is the most free political system… do you want a dictatorship or something? Are you anti-freedom?”
It’s not that simple, though. As Winston Churchill said,
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
But what’s the problem with democracy? Well, first, a definition is in order. What we have in most western countries isn’t true democracy, it’s a republic. We elect rulers, and they make policies. True democracy would mean that people would actually vote on issues. Of course, that might mean almost daily elections, which would certainly be too cumbersome.
Still, whether we’re talking about a democratic republic or about true democracy, one thing is common: most people associate it with freedom. Vox populi, vox Dei. The majority rules, and what the majority wants is best.
Maybe you’re already spotting the problem. What if the majority wants something evil? What if they want to oppress a minority? Should they be allowed to?
According to Sam Harris in The End of Faith, while most Muslim countries are dictatorships, the people there actually want them to be worse. They want to treat their women even worse than they do, to be even stricter (meaning, stoning and such) with anyone they see as “insulting Allah”, they really want to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. Not all Muslim countries are theocracies, but, if it came to a vote, they would be.
In other words, if those countries aren’t even more hellish (especially, but not only, for women) than they already are, it’s because of brutal, but comparatively secular, dictators. If the people were given the right to vote, they’d vote all their freedoms away.
What about the United States, 100 or 150 years ago? If it came to a vote, the white majority would probably not vote for emancipation. Much the opposite.
Or even now. If there was a referendum in the United States, the teaching of evolution would be out. Replaced with “intelligent design”. Because many more Americans, unfortunately, believe in creationism than in evolution. If there was a vote, Americans would vote science away, put the Ten Commandments everywhere, and possibly even try to outlaw atheism. All of this, in the 21th century.
And what stops it from happening? Something called a constitution.
A constitution - at least, a good one - has several goals, but one of the most important is this: to ensure that individual rights can’t be ignored because the majority wants them to be. What if the majority wants to kill you? Or just take your money, or your house? Are they “right” just because they’re the majority? Or are your individual rights - indeed, anyone’s individual rights - inalienable?
I believe they are.
A thing isn’t good or legitimate just because the majority wants it. Democracy and freedom aren’t synonyms.
Unfortunately, no constitution is perfect, and they are sometimes ignored, anyway. For instance, the banning of gay marriage is an obvious example of a majority opinion trampling over individual rights. Or abortion. Or assisted suicide. Even though an action doesn’t harm anyone, the majority is ignorant and bigoted, and wants to forbid it… and the minority’s rights - indeed, the individual’s rights - aren’t respected. There are many other such examples.
It is clear to me that something must be above the “will of the people”, or there is no true freedom, because “the people” can then take it away on a whim.
As Larry Flynt put it,
The majority rule only works if you’re also considering individual rights. Because you can’t have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I live in one of the Muslimest countries in the world, Kuwait. Religious vehemance here is not as extreme as in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, but nonetheless the country is staunchly Islamic.
Mostly by the will of the new Emir, Kuwaiti women voted and stood for elections for the first time this year. What’s been holding them back for this long?
The majority vote.
Good points, Pedro. How odd that the majority in a democracy can make rules prohibiting majority rule via a constitution.
UK
That’s a really good point.
I gues, no form of government could ever be perfect.
While we agree with Churchill, democracy must be viewed as the tyranny of the majority. A good bridge to real democracy is citizens’ initiated referenda (like Proposition 23). Nonetheless, in a modern electronic democracy the MEDIA RULES - along with the technocrates that run the voting computers.
Total reform, taking these points into consideration, can still save us from our own worst natures.
Let’s create one planet out of unity with diversity - BEFORE the food and water run out.
[quote comment="3711"]Good points, Pedro. How odd that the majority in a democracy can make rules prohibiting majority rule via a constitution.[/quote]
The thing is, constitutions weren’t created by a majority either.
Take the US Constitution, for instance. The Founding Fathers were much more educated than the average American (or ex-colonist) at the time. If, instead of writing them, all the points were voted on by everyone, the result would probably have been a lot worse, since people would try to put their personal bigotries into it… and a lot of people are bigoted. That constitution was a work of genius… and not everyone is one.
It may seem that I’m advocating elitism or something like that. But that’s not really my point. My point is that there must be something above the “will of the people”, something that prevents every single person but one from deciding that they’ll “sacrifice” that one to their interests. That “something” is individual rights, and rational principles. Sometimes, they’re the only thing protecting a minority - and, as Ayn Rand said, the smallest minority is the individual - from mob rule.
As an interesting historical note, the federalists were so afraid that the people of the colonies would not accept the strong federal government as protected by the US Constitution, that they refused to allow the Constitution to be read prior to voting on it. The only state where this order was not obeyed was Rhode Island where the US Constitution was NOT voted in by the people. Furthermore in order to get sufficient votes in some states these same federalists resorted to kidnapping and other crimes.
At the time the people were enjoying their freedom and were not going to easily give over to another strong state and the federalists knew it so they spun much of the rhetoric we hear today about the US Constitution protecting freedom when in fact they were using it to protect the state. Still, had it been abided by, rather than destroyed by the likes of Lincoln, FDR, and those who came after, it would have provided some small bit of protection of the individual because of the efforts of the anti-federalists Bill of Rights. Sadly today in the US the Constitution is a trivial historical fact not worth the paper on which it was written, paper which itself is illegal…
TX: I didn’t know that. I won’t doubt you, but I’ll investigate it.
Anyway, I think that the Constitution was still a good thing, and you guys in the States would certainly be much better off if it was respected by governments. How often is the 1st Amendment ignored? (and, yes, I know it wasn’t part of the original Constitution)
As to the rest… I know you believe in anarchy, you’ve said so yourself several times. Me, I think most of humanity is too irresponsible for that. I’d prefer a libertarian government that protected my individual rights, but in everything else left me alone.
Actually, here in Portugal the government does so little that I’d guess I’m better off… though they’re certainly far from “libertarian”. They’re mostly social-democratic, but too lazy to be a problem, most of the time.
If humanity is too irresponsible, then why would we want to consolidate power, creating an infinitely more powerful weapon for humanity to use against others? Will those in power not be humans?
After the US war of terror began. the FBI stated that anyone speaking against US foreign policy was assumed to be doing so at the behest of a foreign power, therefore subject to treason laws. I am not aware of them enforcing this, and I strongly suspect that they had to back away from this stance since political speech has been upheld by the courts to be protected. Still this goes to show how weak the first ammendment is in the US. As a practical consideration I am fairly careful about what I say in the states so as to avoid becoming yet another victim of the government.
I understand the appeal of a constitution, but it is an ideal which requires fundamental changes in human nature, more so than liberty does, and so it at best a utopian dream. Power corrupts, and consolidating power into government increases the corruption and the thrill of using that power. There is no way to avoid this. That said, if there were a way to ensure individual rights I’d be all for it, but government has failed miserably not merely in principle but in practice, including a constitutional republic as seen in the US.
I don’t to come off as completely negative here, for certainly protection from mob rule can be a positive step, as mob rule is always a negative thing.
Maybe you should look at the Libertarian Party. http://www.lp.org.Democracy was considered an to America until about 1947.Democracy will lead you down a bad road. I believe capitialism would be way to go with a strong constition and laws against violiating others rights by force or fraud.
Except that the LP cannot even keep their own house in order without succumbing to corruption and power games. Of course I am speaking of the Harry Browne debacle where money was shifted to friends and the party was used for Browne’s personal gain. Brown and Willis were both clearly guilty of fraud, and as far as I know to this day remain wholly unapologetic for it.
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2002/2/2/14302/91040