 |
||
|
|
||
A New Form of Democracy?
In ancient Greece,
philosophers speculated on what type of government would be best. One
such idea was the oligarchy, which embraced rule by a small
group of people who were distinguished by their virtue, intelligence,
and leadership abilities. It was believed that they would be loyal to
justice and the good of the people through their own sense of personal
honor, which would guide their decisions and prevent corruption. Honor
was the central focus.
Another kind of government that they discussed, among
others, was democracy, which was generally disparaged by
such notables as Plato. It was thought that democracy was synonymous
to mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. The founders of the United
States were very cognizant of this warning, and devised a republic instead
consisting of checks and balances and a constitutional bill of rights
to avoid those results. As time went on, this government drifted toward
the model of democracy, however, extending the franchise and allowing
popular vote for high officials.
We tend to think of Western democracy as being the
best form of government, or at least the best among many poor choices.
Let the people decide for themselves according to majority opinion, within
the protective guidelines of a constitution. The people in aggregate,
it is thought, are smarter than politicians. Of course, this smartness
comes under scrutiny when the people vote into office the very politicians
that they do not trust, but that is another matter. The important point
here is the general reliance upon aggregate wisdom, the faith in majority
opinion.
Under this system, of course, mistakes are made and
partisanship handicaps necessary progress and much needed reform. These
are considered acceptable risks. After all, what alternative is better?
Monarchy? Dictatorship? Oligarchy?
Democracy, however, is only as good as the people who
partake in it. Not every culture or group of people can make it work properly.
A respect for law and the rules of play are paramount in this. An educated
populace who respect what is true is of vital importance. Handing democracy
to a culture that is not ready for it is setting those people up for failure.
Even educated societies with a history of democracy sometimes vote people
into office for the wrong reasons, and suffer for it later.
What the ancients never seemed to question why democracy
had to be something akin to mob rule. They assumed that the rule of a
selected few, as a noble oligarchy, would be based on a system of honor,
but that code of honor is ignored for the general population. It is assumed
that other forces would be in play, such as competing self-interest, ignorance
and partisanship. In effect, people are looked down upon as selfish children
incapable of acting honorably. A system that does such a thing invariably
creates what it disdains. It sets the rules and expectations and asks
for nothing more.
If honor is something we respect and would like to
propagate in our culture, society and governmental system, we should not
circumvent it by assuming the worst from people, thus setting the system
up to fail.
If we look upon democracy as something necessarily
akin to mob rule, then the type of political strategy we witness today
is justifiable. It becomes acceptable to lie and use fear and anger instead
of reasonable discourse and constructive debate. The people, it is assumed,
are meant to be manipulated by the few for their vote and monetary support.
Truth becomes meaningless. Patriotism is redefined according to the speaker's
goals. Ideology replaces cooperation and common sense. The loudest complaints,
no matter how nonsensical, take the floor. Rule of law is threatened by
violence. Citizens are shouted down at town meetings. Paranoia becomes
a vehicle for political influence.
We see all of this today, in the 21st century, and
it is the grossest insult to us all.
But what of honor? What of all the virtues that our
founders were so hopeful to propagate? Should we expect only the worst
from people? Or instead, by expecting the very best, encourage the nobility
that human nature is capable of?
It is a given that the success of democracy depends
on the people engaged in it. There is no magic about this, no guarantee
for success. Democracy depends upon truth and must reject political manipulation
if it is going to survive. It does not allow an oligarchy of hidden elite
to coerce our values and place the world in jeopardy to satisfy their
greed.
If
we do not trust our government, then we need to ask ourselves why and
then work hard to make it trustworthy. Rejecting it outright leads nowhere
at this point. Why throw out the good with the bad? We need to remember
that this government, this democracy, is ours. We have to make
it work, rather than be duped by those who would manipulate us for their
own gain.
It
does not matter how technologically advanced we are, or how powerful our
military is, or the influence of our economic on the rest of the world.
Without virtue, without honor, we are nothing. Worse than nothing. We
have taken the blessings handed down to us from the past and trampled
them underfoot. This is cause for shame, not pride.
It
is not too late. It is possible for us to start anew, first with ourselves,
and then with the world around us. We can, with merely a choice followed
by commitment, call forth what is precious in life, and turn our backs
on falsehood and illusion. We can use our minds for good no matter how
temptation says otherwise.
It
is not enough that our founders formed a democratic republic. It is up
to us to continue in their footsteps and make it work.
