Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
Let me call to your attention a useful article by Raymond Ibrahim, How to Create a Real Democracy in Egypt:
"Elections" are not the same thing as a "democracy;" the words are not synonymous. To avoid having a repressive government freely elected, it is first necessary, as outlined in The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky, to first introduce and firmly establish institutions of democracy – such as a free press; free speech; freedom for religion and freedom from religion; equal justice under law, including of property rights; laws based on individuals' rights; an independent judiciary; separation of mosque and state, and so forth. Elections can then be held at the end -- after these building blocks for a free civil society – and real choices for the people -- are able to function without religious or political interference. Rather than support any one mode of governance now, the U.S. could work with whoever will put in place and continue to build these institutions of a free society associated with democracy.
Such an approach would even have the added bonus of fending off the charge — emanating everywhere from academia to the Arab street — that America is hypocritical for befriending and supporting dictators even as it constantly praises democracy.
As with all forms of governance, democracy is only a means to an end; whether that end is good (freedom) or bad (tyranny) should be the ultimate measure of its worth.
Now, I've linked to this, but it doesn't mean I fully agree with it. I note that Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan has been pilloried for expressing the sentiment of Ibrahim's last sentence. One of his most infamous pronouncements during his term as the mayor of Istanbul was that democracy was like a streetcar: "You ride it until you arrive at your destination." You can't rationally denounce Erdoğan for saying this and at the same time sagely nod and agree with Ibrahim.
Democracy is not only a means to an end: It's an end in itself. Why? Because it's incoherent to speak of "liberty" without democracy; if the people don't choose their government, where's the liberty? I would prefer to formulate the point (which I suspect Ibrahim is actually trying to make) this way: Democracy is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for liberty.
Nonetheless, Ibrahim and Sharansky are getting at something hugely important. It is above all a linguistic point. I've spoken lately to many Americans who are clearly using the word "democracy" to mean something more than "elections." If you push them to explain their thoughts, it becomes obvious that in their minds, the word compasses the institutions of a free society enumerated by Sharansky. This vagueness about what we mean leads to an appalling amount of confusion in our foreign policy language.
The fuzziness on this point leads to the kind of conversation I had recently with an American pundit who asked me indignantly, "How can you have democracy in Egypt without including the Muslim Brotherhood?" The shortest possible answer to that question is that democracy, as I assume she ultimately envisions it, doesn't just mean being able to vote a government in, it means being able to vote them back out again. The longer answer is suggested by Sharansky.
Now, we cannot seriously say, "Build all of these institutions first, then have elections." We will be waiting a very long time for elections in Egypt if we wait for that. But we can certainly say--and it is coherent, principled, rational, American, and entirely defensible to say it--that until these institutions in Egypt are much stronger, the Muslim Brotherhood (or any group obviously committed to eradicating, rather than strengthening, the institutions of a free society) must not be allowed to use elections to ensure they are never built. Since the entire ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is about creating the exact opposite of a society with "a free press; free speech; freedom for religion and freedom from religion; equal justice under law, including of property rights; laws based on individuals' rights; an independent judiciary; separation of mosque and state, and so forth," there is no hypocrisy whatsoever in saying this.
On this note: Please, world, stop saying that Hamas was "democratically elected." In fact, they took 76 of 132 seats in the chamber. They then staged a coup, executing their rivals, who were also "democratically elected"--that is, until they were "extrajudicially murdered." They lined up Fatah supporters and shot them in the streets; they threw them from the roofs of buildings, and they paraded their corpses through the streets before horrified women and children. They gunned down patients in hospitals, for God's sake. And they haven't had an election since. If that's your idea of "democratically-elected," I can see why the idea of democracy disturbs you, but it's really not what most people mean.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
I dearly wish that people in the West would familiarize themselves with The Thirty Tyrants from Athens and Plato's reflections on them.
Feb '11
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
Precisely. Elections are a *mechanism* for the preservation of individual rights and free institutions; not an Ultimate Good in themselves.
In the German election of March 1933, the Nazi Party got 44% of the vote, and obtained power through a coalition. Suppose it had gotten 51%. Would it have been "hypocritical" if, after observing the depredations of the Nazis in power, the French and British had invaded Germany to restore democracy?
Nov '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
The argument I've had with folks since Egypt "started" is this: "Who are we to tell Egypt what to do?" What I don't understand is how these people can decry the indecencies (small word, yes) that we humans perpetrate on one another, but then argue we should stand by and watch it happen. Worse is the attitude of Christians. My church is what I would call an "activist church." We have specific targeted nations and we go to those churches and dig wells and build clinics and homes and teach people to raise chickens, etc. etc. It's not just a program for us, it's a central theme of who we are. But the minute you talk about fostering real democracy and freedom in Egypt or anywhere else, they shut off. "I don't like politics." But the humanitarian work goes hand in hand with the diplomatic work, I think. They run in parallel. Haiti is not going to get better just because we dug a well there. It won't get better until the economy grows, the people are educated, and they have the power and knowledge to elect and un-elect their government.
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
Who are we? We're people who have managed to change our government without violence on a regular schedule for a very long time. We actually know quite a bit about elections and democracy and have a ton of experience with both. Why is it wrong to say what we know about building wells and clinics, at which we're demonstrably very skilled, but not what we know about holding elections, at which we're also demonstrably very skilled?
Jan '11
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
Tell them that we're the world's oldest constitutional republic, one with more than two centuries' experience with peaceful democratic elections. Perhaps we know a thing or two about such matters.
May '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
I can hardly agree with Raymond Ibrahim when he argues that a democracy implies "a free press; free speech; freedom for religion and freedom from religion; equal justice under law, including of property rights; laws based on individuals' rights; an independent judiciary; separation of mosque and state, and so forth." Consider these categorical statements from James Madison:
-"A pure democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" and that
-"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"
To the Founders (and certainly many others) democracy was what its etymology implied it was - rule by the majority.
If a political candidate is elected to office today via an election that has been judged by impartial international observers to be transparent and legitimate, the electoral process will be labeled "democratic", regardless of whether the winning candidate is a property rights-supporting liberal or a property rights-denying socialist.
Sep '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
To the Founders (and certainly many others) democracy was what its etymology implied it was - rule by the majority.
That's ridiculous. The Founders were classicists and knew (have you ever actually read the Federalist Papers?) the dangers of mob rule in a majority vote system. And anyone who's even briefly read Plato's Apology understands that as well.
Does no one read books anymore?
May '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
I feel the need to ask in kind. Its clearly the case that the Founders (at least some, if you wish) considered democracy to be a political system in which majority will was regnant, irrespective of the notion of individual rights (demos - masses, cracy - rule by). Now, the concept of democracy is being infinitely elasticized, like "humanism", where it has come to mean anything.
What if the electorate rejects free speech, a free press, property rights, freedom of religious belief, and vote accordingly? Would the electoral result not be a democratic one? What makes a political system democratic is the fact that its laws are subordinate to majority will, not the fact that individual rights are recognized. Take Singapore. It essentially has one party-rule, yet perhaps its the least corrupt place on Earth and it puts America to shame in the economic freedom department. They have liberty and very little democracy, hence the claim that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty is, I think, a dubious one. According to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, the two freest places on the planet for which assessments were made are significantly undemocratic.
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 8:39amSep '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
Duplicate post.
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 9:26amSep '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
I feel the need to ask in kind.
This is becoming lunacy on stilts. Here's Ron Paul:
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 9:28amFeb '11
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
I could probably write a book, but I'm going to limit myself to the idea of 'freedom from religion.' That is utter nonsense. For that to be true, you could never be exposed to religion. This has happened in the USA. Prayers are verboten before local football games, or any other games. Prayers before city council meetings are now routinely challenged by the ACLU. Why? Somebody might be offended.
If you are offended by people asking God's will and guidance, go seek psychiatric help.
You have the right to NOT join a religion. You have the right to NOT be taxed for a state religion. (Thoreau did jail time because he refused to pay taxes to support Massachusetts' state religion at the time.)
You don NOT have the right to stop others from expressing their religious beliefs in public. Valedictorians can cite God and Jesus in their addresses. Public officials CAN express their belief in God and Jesus.
If you are 'offended by Christ' you need help. You do not have 'freedom FROM religion'. You need to learn 'tolerance' for religion.
May '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
"Freedom from religion" refers to the absence of religiously inspired coercion, a liberty that's particularly important given the lamentable potential for such coercion. So if your holy book suborns the murder of gays, infidels, or other minorities, freedom from religion means all are exempt from the ultimate stupidity of such threats.
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
Democracy to the Founders meant pure majoritarianism. They consciously set out system up in contradistinction as a representative republic with mediating structures. That said, our system is what most Americans understand as "democracy." so there's a bit of a terminological gulf between the Founders and us, even if we're on more or less the same page.
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 1:37pmRe: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
"Now, we cannot seriously say, "Build all of these institutions first, then have elections." We will be waiting a very long time for elections in Egypt if we wait for that. But we can certainly say--and it is coherent, principled, rational, American, and entirely defensible to say it--that until these institutions in Egypt are much stronger, the Muslim Brotherhood (or any group obviously committed to eradicating, rather than strengthening, the institutions of a free society) must not be allowed to use elections to ensure they are never built."
That, Claire, is just beautifully put.
May '10
Re: Elections, Democracy and Liberty: Defining the Terms
The purpose of democracy is to include the free will of individuals in community actions. Limiting the available choices of citizens necessarily makes the system less democratic. How can one exclude groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and / or the ideologies they espouse without implying that "politicians know best"?
As I've said before, there's a reason we don't allow felons to vote in our society. When one's actions grossly inhibit the freedom of others, one loses the right to participate in the guidance of the community.
Until a culture demonstrates a general respect for freedom, it should not be democratically represented in government... because the freedom of some voters will be stamped out by others. Loss of liberty is no easier to stomach when it's lost by legal process.
Being like a teenager under just and loving parents might not be complete freedom, but it's a hell of a lot better than having one's choices constantly overruled by foolish and uncaring peers.
We should not call for democracy in every society, with no regard to culture and other conditions. Democracy is not a baseline of freedom.