Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00448)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich <eletzerich@y...> 
wrote:
> My humble opinion is the people can't elect, the mass
> is not able to discern what could be a good or a bad
> politician. And they are voting and choosing our
> politicians.

I think it was Chesterton who said democracy is the tyranny of 
whoever happens to be walking around at a particular point in time.

> When you say that most of the people does not have a
> clue of what democracy means, could you describe what
> democracy means?

In theory democracy means you can vote for the scumbag of your 
choice, but that does not seem to me to be much justification for its 
existence. A more practical justification would seem to be in 
evidence in the case of LBJ. For reasons that are still not clear, 
Robert MacNamara, who in the opinion of some writers is an example of 
failing your way to the top (otherwise called "screw up, move up") 
decided he would fail as Secretary of Defense by starting an 
unnecessary war in Vietnam. When MacNamara was at Ford he was 
credited with the Edsel disaster and at the World Bank was credited 
with other failed policies.

Anyway, the war seems to have been unpopular with some people, with 
the result that in his last year of office, LBJ, who was a sort of 
front man for MacNamara, survived an average of one assassination 
attempt a day. Interpreting this as a request to step down, he 
announced that he would not seek reelection and was replaced by 
someone much worse.

Johnson ignored the public will by refusing to end the war, but he 
did resign peacefully as he agreed to do when he was inaugurated. 
That seems to be the value of democracy to me. The incumbent tells 
the electorate in effect that he will ignore their opinions and steal 
everything he can steal while in office, but that when found 
unacceptable by the electorate he will leave peacefully, Most people 
are not intelligent enough to know WHY they find him unacceptable, so 
there has to be no appeal from the public's decision. He has to 
leave even if the decision is plain wrong. Johnson's successor was 
found unacceptable as well, and left quietly halfway through his 
second term of office.

This willingness to leave without gunfire distinguishes a democratic 
state from England in the 17th century when Charles I was beheaded 
and that waa the only way they could get rid of him. The beheading 
ended a civil war, which was followed by a good deal of political 
witch hunting. Rather than wage war one presumes Tony Blair would 
simply retire into private life if called upon to do so. This makes 
it possible to rule with considerably less repression than is 
necessary, for example, in a state such as the one once run for the 
private benefit of the Saddam Hussein royal family. It leads as a 
side effect to an economic and cultural flowering which tends not to 
occur in more repressive states. England is doing much better, for 
example, than Northern Ireland, where an unwanted British government 
rules by naked force. One has only to think of southern France in 
the twelfth century to see how less repression can promote cultural 
advance. The reign of Elizabeth I in England does show that a well 
ordered and successful state can exist under the rule of a benevolent 
tyrant, but this tends to be the exception. She did a lot of nasty 
things which might have been avoided in a democracy and which were 
barely compensated for by the literary achievements of Ben Johnson 
and William Shakespeare (called Bard Bill around here.) It is 
notable that during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell many of 
England's great thinkers flourished, only to be repressed when the 
country again became a monarchy with the restoration of Charles II in 
1667.

Another point is that the class system in a democratic state tends to 
be less rigid than in an aristocratic one. During the middle ages 
the Catholic church made it possible for men born low to acquire an 
education and rise politically by pretending they could care less 
about being a priest. Cardinal Richelieu used this system to become 
the de facto viceroy of France. However if he had not had a back 
door through which to rise, he would have either been hunted down and 
killed, or else he would have overturned the whole house of cards. 
The church thereby became a safety valve for the feudal system, but 
if you want separation of church and state you need another one. It 
is desirable for cultural reasons that religious superstition not 
control the wheels of government. The fact that there have been more 
than 300 years of continuous scientific progress makes the modern era 
unprecedented in history. In the past the obscurantists have 
regrouped and stifled progress within about 150 years. This happened 
in both Egypt and in Greece, which had a brief Golden Age beginning 
with Thales. Socrates was put to death for questioning the 
prevailing superstitions. The decline of the church is necessary for 
progress to happen. I notice with some trepidation that the 
Religious Right is regrouping and counter attacking in this country. 
In modern times states which are ruled by priests (including priests 
of secular religions such as communism) tend not to be net exporters 
of intellectual property.

Anyway, you can see where I am coming from. The benefits are non 
obvious and are not taught in civics classes and most people have no 
idea what they are. That there are benefits is seen from the fact 
that most of the countries in the world are now either democratic or 
dealing with democratic movements. When our ancestors first started 
this campaign (which struck me as arrogant and naive for some time) 
England, France, and the US were just about the only truly democratic 
states in the world of much importance.