Ready for democracy?
What has liberty to do with democracy? Are people free only when they live in a democratic state? If our desire for our fellowman in other lands is freedom, is democracy their only hope?
The Declaration of Independence neither requires nor justifies democracy. Accepting that the rigths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable in no way necessitates democracy as the only - let alone preferred - form of government.
Self-government as defined and defended in the Declaration is simply the inherent authority of the governed to overthrow any form of government which fails to secure these rights, and "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such priniciples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Governments "deriv(e) their just powers from the consent of the governed," but what does this say about which form of government is preferred? So long as man's unalienable rights are secured, any form of government would satisfy the criteria expounded by Jefferson and his undersigning fellow revolutionaries.
Democracy, in other words, is not necessary to liberty, to the freedom which is an integral part of the pursuit of excellence, or "happiness". From Aristotle we learn of myriad forms of government, spanning the spectrum from simple democracy to tyranny, some of which protect the rights of man and others which do not.
Must the people determine and institute which form of government best serves them? If a dictator seizes power and provides for the security and liberty of his subjects, must he be overthrown simply because he is unelected?
Or, must the people govern, either directly or through their elected representatives? Must a benevolent monarch be dethroned merely because he alone rules? What is lacking, in such a system, that can be supplied only by democracy?
One might argue that democracy is the surest guarantee of the people's rights. Rulers being inclined to rule in their own interest, a nation of rulers (vis a vis, a democratic state) will be best able to preserve their own rights by (a la capitalism) each seeking his own interest. But there's a flaw in this concept, I think - one which others spotted long before me.
A ruler who cannot govern himself cannot be trusted to govern others, and so an extra vigilance is required of those who rule, lest justice be perverted. Where government is of kings or courts, dictators or lords, the need for this vigilant self-discipline is obvious, since all power resides in their hands. But where government is of the people, by majority vote, it's all too tempting to say, "I'm voting for what I want; you can do the same - and should do so in order to secure your self-interest." And, when the minority are plundered by the majority, we might justify this injustice with, "Well you should've voted against it," or "Sorry, you were simply outvoted."
No matter the form of government, its success in promoting the wellbeing of its subjects is determined by the virtue of its rulers. Is democracy any different? The success of a democracy is determined by but a single factor: the virtue of its citizens.
Harry Jaffa has observed that one of the difficulties in planting democracy in the Middle East is that the people haven't gone through an "enlightenment". In other words, they have not reasoned out, with Scripture and natural law, an understanding of the rights of man Jaffa considers prerequisite to an establishment of (or even a desire for) democratic self-government designed to secure those rights.
Rather than allow and encourage people in Mideastern culture to pursue those foundational principles, our foreign policy prefers to shortcut the process and go straight into helping them set up democracies. We encourage them to depose their existing governments. We seduce them with Levi's, Ipods and Brittany Spears. We feed them Ayn Rand's hyper-individualism to weaken and destroy the cultural grip of conformity. We subvert their existing systems of government by Westernizing their youth.
Does the student benefit when his teacher tells him the answer to a complex problem? The student now knows the answer, sure. But if he never learns how that answer is reached, has he learned anything of benefit?
Is democracy of any benefit to people who see no more worth in themselves and others than to be the subjects of overlords? Or if, when asked who they want to rule over them, they find human life and liberty of such little value that they elect a band of murderers and slavers?
With Harry Jaffa, I suggest that no people which has yet to discover the fundamental rights of man is ready for self-rule.
The Declaration of Independence neither requires nor justifies democracy. Accepting that the rigths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable in no way necessitates democracy as the only - let alone preferred - form of government.
Self-government as defined and defended in the Declaration is simply the inherent authority of the governed to overthrow any form of government which fails to secure these rights, and "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such priniciples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Governments "deriv(e) their just powers from the consent of the governed," but what does this say about which form of government is preferred? So long as man's unalienable rights are secured, any form of government would satisfy the criteria expounded by Jefferson and his undersigning fellow revolutionaries.
Democracy, in other words, is not necessary to liberty, to the freedom which is an integral part of the pursuit of excellence, or "happiness". From Aristotle we learn of myriad forms of government, spanning the spectrum from simple democracy to tyranny, some of which protect the rights of man and others which do not.
Must the people determine and institute which form of government best serves them? If a dictator seizes power and provides for the security and liberty of his subjects, must he be overthrown simply because he is unelected?
Or, must the people govern, either directly or through their elected representatives? Must a benevolent monarch be dethroned merely because he alone rules? What is lacking, in such a system, that can be supplied only by democracy?
One might argue that democracy is the surest guarantee of the people's rights. Rulers being inclined to rule in their own interest, a nation of rulers (vis a vis, a democratic state) will be best able to preserve their own rights by (a la capitalism) each seeking his own interest. But there's a flaw in this concept, I think - one which others spotted long before me.
A ruler who cannot govern himself cannot be trusted to govern others, and so an extra vigilance is required of those who rule, lest justice be perverted. Where government is of kings or courts, dictators or lords, the need for this vigilant self-discipline is obvious, since all power resides in their hands. But where government is of the people, by majority vote, it's all too tempting to say, "I'm voting for what I want; you can do the same - and should do so in order to secure your self-interest." And, when the minority are plundered by the majority, we might justify this injustice with, "Well you should've voted against it," or "Sorry, you were simply outvoted."
No matter the form of government, its success in promoting the wellbeing of its subjects is determined by the virtue of its rulers. Is democracy any different? The success of a democracy is determined by but a single factor: the virtue of its citizens.
Harry Jaffa has observed that one of the difficulties in planting democracy in the Middle East is that the people haven't gone through an "enlightenment". In other words, they have not reasoned out, with Scripture and natural law, an understanding of the rights of man Jaffa considers prerequisite to an establishment of (or even a desire for) democratic self-government designed to secure those rights.
Rather than allow and encourage people in Mideastern culture to pursue those foundational principles, our foreign policy prefers to shortcut the process and go straight into helping them set up democracies. We encourage them to depose their existing governments. We seduce them with Levi's, Ipods and Brittany Spears. We feed them Ayn Rand's hyper-individualism to weaken and destroy the cultural grip of conformity. We subvert their existing systems of government by Westernizing their youth.
Does the student benefit when his teacher tells him the answer to a complex problem? The student now knows the answer, sure. But if he never learns how that answer is reached, has he learned anything of benefit?
Is democracy of any benefit to people who see no more worth in themselves and others than to be the subjects of overlords? Or if, when asked who they want to rule over them, they find human life and liberty of such little value that they elect a band of murderers and slavers?
With Harry Jaffa, I suggest that no people which has yet to discover the fundamental rights of man is ready for self-rule.
posted by Lear's Fool | 11:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home