The misuse of “democracy,” cont.

Replying to my letter criticizing his use of the word “democracy,” Clifford May agreed that a government with authority, with a monopoly on the legitimate uses of violence, is a prerequisite for nation building. He also questioned me on what he considered my harsh tone. Here is my response:

Dear Mr. May,

Thanks for your reply. I am sorry for the indignant tone. But I see so many politicians and opinion-makers talking about how we can remake the world by creating “democracy” in places where it’s never existed, when in fact they seem to be ignoring the most basic realities of politics. The constant, uncritical use of the word “democracy” (as in “We’re going to build democracy in Iraq,” “We’re democratizing the Mideast,” etc. etc.) literally drives me to distraction.

Apart from the question of the prerequisites of “democracy,” all that democracy properly means is that the people rule. Democracy doesn’t mean stable government, it doesn’t mean sustainable government, it doesn’t even necessarily mean free government or a government that protects everyone’s rights, since a pure rule by the majority could oppress minorities. The first French Republic was a democracy, and it carried out massacres against dissidents. Pennsylvania was a democracy in the 1790s and attempted to oppress property owners. When I was in school in the 1960s, we never spoke of America as a “democracy” per se. We described America as a federal republic, as a mixed, constitutional system that included democratic elements in the mix and rested on popular consent but was not a rule by the people per se, because of the countervailing tendencies of representative deliberation and separation of powers and constitutional constraints and all the rest. That basic (and widely shared) understanding of America as a mixed system was so much closer to the truth than the mindless and confusing democratist rhetoric that has replaced it in recent decades. “Democracy” does not describe our historical system, it does not describe our system now, and, as the Founders understood, IT IS NOT A DESIDERATUM FOR ANY COUNTRY.

It would be much better if the democratists would show some realism and modesty, if they stopped speaking of “democracy” all the time and instead, for example, spoke of trying to build a “self-governing country” in Iraq, or a “government that represents its people,” or “popular government,” or “constitutional government.” Not that such things will be any easier to accomplish than “democracy” per se, but the advantage of such terms is that they imply a measure of government accountability and popular consent as a basis of legitimacy without suggesting that the people simply rule, or (if democracy is defined as “liberal democracy”) without implying that all you have to do is give people rights, and presto, they have a government.

The most important objection to the constant uncritical use of the word “democracy” by our political class is that it takes away people’s ability to understand the real meaning and real requirements of government. When this misuse of words occurs in the context of our trying to play a global role of imposing “democracy” on Arab countries, it is dangerous and irresponsible in the extreme. In any case you yourself acknowedged that your article left out the key element of any government, that it have a monopoly on the use of force.

Finally, must Iraq have popular consent at all? If Iraq acquired some stable, pro-Western, Ataturk-style regime, wouldn’t that also be desirable from our point of view, since our main and driving concern is security?

Sincerely
Lawrence Auster

P.S. Also, since we’re imposing our form of government on them, does that also include racial quotas and group rights? The Supreme Court has now placed racial quotas and anti-white discrimination in the Constitution. We are past the point where we can responsibly recommend our form of government to others, even if they were willing and able to adopt it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 13, 2003 11:15 AM | Send