Today, we in the West are completely sold on the idea of democracy, despite the fact that this was not always so.
One is reminded of Winston Churchill’s apparent endorsement: “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. 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.”
This quote is often used to defend democracy against all comers. But is this what Churchill meant? While giving it relative merit, his was not a ringing endorsement.
Surely he was aware that the ancient philosophers, in attempting to determine the best political regime, had rejected democracy out of hand.
Having witnessed Athens’ disastrous attempt, they concluded that democracy was not only messy, but it systematically undermined the rule of law and created a hopelessly partisan social environment.
Once a simple majority vote became the rule, there was no stopping people from voting for their own self-interests, regardless of merit.
Indeed, democracy has the effect of leveling everything. “Rights,” real or imagined, are bestowed on individuals regardless of achievement. By virtue of merely being alive, all humans are deemed equal – as in the same.
Thus, the life advocated by, say, Socrates, one based on high aspiration involving discipline, spiritual struggle, and sacrifice, is now given equal valence to that of someone lying on the couch and surfing the net all day. Herein is lost the higher things born of character, spirit, and the pursuit of truth.
For their part, the ancients identified three basic types of regimes: monarchy (one-man rule), oligarchy, sometimes called aristocracy (minority rule). and democracy (majority rule). They saw strengths and weaknesses in each.
Broadly, the advantage of a monarchy is that it simplifies the decision-making process and gives it greater consistency. Its disadvantage, among other things, is the danger of tyranny.
The advantage of oligarchy is its educational and cultural achievements, but its disadvantage is the subordination of the public interest to that of a minority group.
The advantage of democracy is its representativeness, but its disadvantages are anarchy and factionalism (think mob rule).
Having identified the dangers of any one system, fearing what they called “one-sidedness,” they advocated a mixed regime that would include all three elements. It is this model that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to emulate.
As such, the Founders sought to limit the rule of the demos and allow for the proper role of the aristocratic element, whose responsibility would be the defense and furtherance of ethical and political virtues. (N.B., our republican form of governance – not to be confused with Republican or Democratic parties – reflects all three elements.)
Today this republican impetus has grown increasingly lax, having given way to the tendencies of pure democracy. To be accurate, the Framers purposely established not a democracy but a republic which, despite common assumption, has a higher internal diversity.
In addition to egalitarian interests, in other words, it also incorporates undemocratic institutions (for example, the aristocratic and monarchical), thus making room for nondemocratic sensibilities.
Pure democracy, or egalitarianism, however, does not tolerate aristocratic and monarchical tendencies, not just in the political structures of the state, but in all areas of public life.
With no small amount of irony, liberal democracy has become the single most homogenizing force in the modern world, having created the illusion that it alone stands for social differentiation or “diversity.”
Traditional liberalism, on the other hand, centered on the individual but eventually was subsumed by the democratic impulse. Instead of guaranteeing freedom for the individual, the tenets of liberalism today tend to be defined by its various constituent groups. And because these tenets have been voted in, they are thought to be inviolable.
Moreover, the state has become increasingly involved in the process of supporting group aspirations (voting coalitions), and thus has lost much of its republican character. It has morphed into a coalition of various social, economic, cultural, and other policy programs enacted and imposed through democratic procedures.
Anyone who deviates from its tenets, its articles of faith, is seen as preventing progress and the future redemption of the world. This is because the aristocratic elements of a healthy republic have been stifled.
Now you’re probably wondering why anyone would recommend anything having to do with aristocracy. The word itself seems, at best, anachronistic, conjuring up images of the ignorance and backwardness of the Dark Ages.
But let’s stop and think for a moment. Did Jesus take a vote when deciding on spiritual matters? Did he poll the disciples in determining his actions? Does God, in general, look to us for our opinions and accede to our particular likes and dislikes?
Isn’t it more accurate to say that the kingdom of God is nothing like a democracy? It is instead hierarchical and, yes, aristocratic, even monarchical. Its values, norms, and truths are not ballot-tested, nor are they negotiable. Rather, we human beings must obey God’s commandments and aspire to meet God’s lofty demands.
In the same vein, the family is not especially democratic either. I don’t recall my parents taking a straw vote to determine what was expected of us. “Because I said so” was often the unfortunate response we received when questioning their rules and expectations.
The fact is, life is full of hierarchies. The question, therefore, is not whether they exist, but whether they’re true or false, of God or not of God. I may want my views to be equal to God’s but wishing does not make them so.
The trouble with Western liberal-democracy is that it has become one-sided, precisely what the ancients warned against. It perceives itself as true, objective, and forward thinking, progressive, if you will, and brooks absolutely no dissent. It’s black or white. You’re either for or against it.
If you hold to the older notion of a republic, or a mixed regime, you’re probably standing in the way of progress. That’s why the church, the family, and older traditions are increasingly rejected. They’re too aristocratic and regressive. They’re undemocratic and, thus, authoritarian, standing firmly for certain nonnegotiable values and truths.
Besides, we’ve already voted them out!
The enduring truths of God are born in and through time. They’re not subject to change, no matter how we vote, the current utopian vision of liberal-democracy notwithstanding.