Democracy (?) 


The word gets floated around a lot these days but do Americans--or anyone, really--understand what it really is? 

If you look at the covers of all of the major news magazines from over the past couple of years you might notice one word volleyed around seemingly more than any other: "democracy". In fact, it's on the cover of this week's Economist magazine as it refers to the events currently going on in Lebanon.

Now, democracy as an interesting concept. Its etymology is from the Greek word--transliterated into Roman letters, of course--dhmoj, which means "the commons" and kratoj, which translates into "rule," "sway" or "authority" (the most commonly-used latinized form of this word is written as democratie). We translate it as "rule by the people," and that would indeed be an accurate meaning.

What, then, is my point in writing this rant? It is to point out, if you will indulge me, the subtlety between a true democracy and what the United States and most other "democratic" nations practice as the ideology underlying their governmental institutions and regimes.

The truest democracy that comes to my mind lies in the ideas of Marx and Engles. Yes, true communism, although it is based primarily on economic principals, would end up being the purest democratic regime: the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition of democracy reads as follows:

Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them.

This definition also introduces into our discussion another concept, that of the republic. It slightly upsets me that this concept is introduced at all in the primary OED definition of democracy because of, you guessed it, the subtlties: a republic is necessarily a democracy whilst a democracy is not necessarily a republic. In other words, a true and un-hyphenated democracy would be a regime in which every matter of state, law and policy would be decided upon by a vote of every single person under (and over) which it rules. It would be a regime that enables a land ruled by men, instead of a land governed by the rule of law.

Naturally, for me at least, Neal Boortz has a penchant for putting these types of ideas into words that are accurate and memorable: "A democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's going to be for dinner that night." He has further said that "a lynch-mob is a democracy". These are examples of regimes, systems, institutions or whatever you wish to call them where whatever the majority of people want at that very moment is what the policy or decision is going to be. The sheep will be eaten and the person in the ire of the mob will be hung. It's as simple as that. No previous precedent or law governs the behavior of these entities and it doesn't have to: the rule is governed by the whims of men, not the wisdom of law.

I have been reading Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" and "Common Sense". In it, he goes to great lengths to discuss how no king or body of men can be deemed so omnipotent and ever-lasting to be a nation's ruling force forever and for all posterity (even into death which is what the post-"revolutionary" British Parliament claimed in the late 17th century). By that I mean to convey Paine's point that each generation of men and women must be allowed to choose their own leaders and their own laws. Paine's arguments are purely democratic in nature but they illustrate the point that laws can, and should, be able to change as the "wisdom of law" that I mentioned above sometimes loses its relevance and where there is a will by the people.

The best combination of these ideas is seen in an offshoot of pure democracy, a regime called a democratic republic.

In a democratic republic, like that which we have--or had to a greater extent in years past--in the United States, our land is governed by the rule of law--our Constitution being first and foremost on the list--and cannot easily be changed by the majority opinion of the moment, otherwise known as the mob. Our republic has in its founding documents certain provisions that, first of all, protect the rights of minorities. The Electoral College is one of these institutions created by our republican Founding Fathers which was invented so that the massive population of New York could outvote and outweigh that of smaller states such as Massachusetts and Virginia. The filibuster rules and rules for adding constitutional amendments in the US Congress are also examples of safeguards for minorities--parliamentary in this case--to not simply be outvoted in that body. (I might add that sometimes these filibuster rules can be abused when the business of the country is not permitted to take place, but, for the most part, I appreciate them and their intent.)

As it's 2.00 AM right now and I feel as though I'm arguing around in circles, I am going to leave the discussion at this point, hoping that it was at least somewhat cogent and sensible. The United States is not a democracy, but it is a democratic republic, not governed by the rule of men but rather by the rule of law. That's what sets us apart from most every other "free country" in the world and that, as a certain ex-con would put, "is a good thing."

Good night. 

Posted: Sun - March 6, 2005 at 02:16 AM          

©