Democracy

In common usage today democracy is equated with freedom. For example when politicians talk of the ‘free nations’ of the word, they are almost always talking about the democratic nations of the world. We are told that we need to bring 'freedom' to the Middle East, while what is meant is that we need to bring democracy: witness the elated media coverage of purple fingered Iraqi voters, hailed as a triumph of liberty. In America we are told that voting is a hallowed privilege and a solemn duty, and that democracy is the mark of free, civilized societies. This conceptual pairing of democracy and freedom is incorrect, misleading, and harmful. Democracy is not only not a sufficient condition for freedom, it is not even a necessary condition.

Let me define my terms so that it is clear what I mean:

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from coercion (i.e. physical force). The political principle that ensures freedom is individual rights. A free society is one in which every person's rights are protected from infringement by others.

Democracy is a term used loosely today to denote any political system based on the principle of majority rule, whether it is pure (ancient Greece), representative (U.S.), parliamentary (England), etc. The meaning of majority rule is that whatever the majority of a population decides should be law, is law; and even beyond that, it not only is law, but should be law. This subtle distinction is important, so let me rephrase it: majority rule per se is not just a system of making law, it is a moral sanction on the majority's choices, i.e. the majority not only rules de facto, but by right.

It is this foundational principle of democracy, majority rule, that is antithetical to the principle of rights, and thus also to freedom. If a majority can do whatever it wants, which it can if it rules by right, then that includes violation of rights. If the majority decides that a certain minority segment should be repressed, then repression becomes the law. In other words, the fact that a majority makes a law in no way insures that the law will respect rights. The majority certainly can respect rights, but the key issue is that it can just as easily not. This is not only true in theory, but also in practice. There are now and have been many repressive governments that were all democratically elected: the Palestinian Authority, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Venezuela, Columbia, Russia, Nazi Germany (that's right, Hitler was elected Chancellor, and the Nazi party was a political party that was voted into power), and even the United States during years slavery was legal.

Perhaps the best example of the tyranny that a democracy can represent is given in the death of Socrates. Socrates was one of the fathers of philosophy who lived in democratic ancient Greece. At one point he was put on trial for arguing against the Greek gods and "corrupting the youth". The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. Socrates was given every opportunity to flee to save his life, but he refused. He decided that, despite the injustice of his sentence, he had to respect the will of the majority. He drank, of his own free will, a cup of poison. Two tragic aspects of this story: first the fact that the society even could sentence him to death for something so silly, and second that he would willingly comply with his own murder in the name of majority rule.

What then is the role of democracy? Is it always evil? Of course not. My point is not that democracy is bad. My point is that democracy alone does not ensure freedom. Democracy can be an effective mode of government only if it is completely restrained in such a way that individual rights are completely protected. This was the purpose of the constitution of the United States. In this setting, democracy is the best form of government. The primary principle however must be freedom. The proper formula is: freedom first, then choose a method of government. Theoretically if freedom were insured by restricting government (e.g. through an iron-clad constitution and checks/balances), there would be nothing wrong with a government that was not democratically elected. The president, for example, could be an office passed on from generation to generation, in the same manner as royalty (though without the absolute power). This mode of government of course would be stupid, because family connections are not good measures of competence to rule. That is one reason democracy is the best method for choosing leaders: we can vote for the most competent rulers. The point is however that although the aforementioned method of government would be stupid it would be compatible with freedom, so long as the government is restricted to respect individual rights. The choice of the particular mode of selecting rulers then becomes secondary. How you select a leader becomes a question of effectiveness and efficiency rather than a moral question. As long as rights are protected, almost any mode of government will work (although the case can be made that democracy is the best choice).

It is time that we recognize the tribal, collectivist notion of majority rule as anti-freedom, and dethrone it as a cardinal American principle, replacing it with the true principle of freedom: absolute individual rights. We should stop exporting democracy, as if it is the magic cure all of 3rd world ills, and instead insist on the respect of individual rights. When rights are secure, democracy will naturally flourish, but the reverse is not necessarily true.