OBSESSED WITH THE D-WORD
by George Jonas
National Post
February 3, 2006

If the post-9/11 world is in a bigger mess than it might otherwis=
e
be, one important reason is our failure to appreciate what the word
"democracy" means.

We tend to treat "democracy" as if it were a synonym for the rule=

of law. We take it to mean a society of individual liberties and
fundamental human rights, as listed in the US Constitution or the UN
Charter. The D-word has become interchangeable in Western minds with
private enterprise, separation of church and state, an independent
judiciary, freedom of expression, association, and conscience =AD in shor=
t,
with the sum of the best ideals of Western-style societies.

Since we imbue "democracy" with all these meanings, we view it as=
a
magic bullet =AD well, perhaps "bullet" is an unfortunate choice. Let's m=
ake
it elixir. We look at democracy as a cure for all social maladies,
including poverty, corruption, inequality, tribal hostilities, pollution,=

perhaps even malaria or AIDS. Noting that "democracies" rarely go to war
against each other, we promote it as a component of international peace. =
We
feel justified in trying to export democracy, to impose it on undemocrati=
c
societies, sometimes at the point of bayonets.

Of course, exporting democracy at the point of bayonets or Cruise=

missiles might not be such a bright idea, not even if the word DID mean
what we think it does =AD but we don't have to worry about this, for the =
word
means nothing of the sort. Contrary to how most Western political leaders=
,
academics, or editorialists use it, "democracy" doesn't mean peace,
freedom, equality, prosperity, secularism, security, or justice. The D-wo=
rd
simply means a method of governmental succession. =


"Democracy" denotes a system in which governments succeed each
other by being elected, usually for a fixed term, by a majority (or
plurality) of qualified voters. That's all. Rule by majority mandate says=

nothing, in itself, about what kind of rule it's going to be. That will
depend on a society's other traditions and institutions of power division=
,
conflict resolution, and public discourse =AD such as, say, a free press =
or a
writ of HABEAS CORPUS. In their absence, majority rule may amount to
outright tyranny. The ancient city-state of Syracuse, for instance, was
ruled by an elected official =AD called a tyrant.

As a method of succession, a mandate by a majority of qualified
voters may be preferable to royal descent, divine revelation, popular or
palace revolution, not to mention that South American favorite, a militar=
y
coup. A majority mandate doesn't, however, remotely assure peace, order,
liberty, equality, prosperity, or justice. Such good and desirable things=

often go hand in hand with systems of electoral democracy, without being
predicated on it, for they stem from other social and civilizational
customs and habits. Peace and justice are more likely to result in
universal suffrage than be caused by it. That's why, though England
remained an absolute monarchy for centuries after the Magna Carta, poor
Henry VIII was obliged to rule more "democratically" than the elected
tyrants of ancient Greece.

This is also why Candidate George W. Bush was so wise when he
declared "no nation-building" during his first campaign for the White
House. Had President Bush heeded Candidate Bush's sage advice, he would
have disengaged his forces from Iraq after the capture of Saddam as rapid=
ly
as possible. Had he done so, chances are a.) Coalition forces would have
suffered about 1500 fewer fatalities, and b.) Mr. Bush's approval rating
would still be between 80-90%.

Where would Saddam's former fiefdoms be? In a state of bitter civ=
il
war =AD just as it is now. The artificial edifice called "Iraq" would hav=
e
collapsed when the US pulled out the supporting pillar of Saddam's regime=
,
but if President Bush had only stepped aside, it wouldn't have collapsed =
on
his head.

Desirable as democracy may be, all that can be imposed on a socie=
ty
from the outside is its letter =AD and democracy's letter may not spell a=
ny
of the words we take to be democracy's spirit. In South America today it
may spell C-h-e G-u-e-v-a-r--a. Strong, wealthy, victorious democracies
may pressure weak, undeveloped, defeated autocracies to adopt majority ru=
le
as a method of governmental succession, but not without its key ingredien=
t,
namely CHOICE. And when free to choose, majorities will choose what makes=

cultural sense to them at that point of their histories.

You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss, but it's democracy=

that gave us Hitler in 1933 and Hamas in 2006.
=
=

Printer-friendly version   Email this item to a friend