Like Button

Monday, March 19, 2007

Democracy for All

We're still in Iraq today because we're trying to stabilize the situation so democracy can take hold. However, there are questions about whether Iraq (or most other Middle East countries) can handle democracy. What does it take for democracy to work?

There are a couple of fundamental necessities for the successful operation of a democratic country. The essence of democracy is "one person, one vote", but there is, in that simple concept, a deeper implication. "One person, one vote" assumes that everyone will abide by that. It assumes that no one will override the outcome by force. It assumes that the people doing the voting are people who are willing to acquiesce to the will of the majority. In other words, for democracy to work, there has to be a willingness not to be selfish. This problem is only exacerbated when it comes to the real government we enjoy and are hoping for in Iraq -- a republic. In this form of democracy, the "one person, one vote" only goes so far as to elect representatives. The people then must be willing to bow to the results of that vote and to the choices of those limited representatives. Alan Coren said, "Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear." While that is a bit more cynical than I am trying to get across, you get the idea. For a country to operate as a republic, the people of that country must have an underlying morality that allows, even encourages them to surrender their desires to those of others. It requires a high level of trust and a low level of self and aggression.

America, when it was established, was a place ripe for such a government. And it has served us very, very well. When we came to be a nation, we were very Christian, and these requirements are very Christian. "Let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Phil. 2:3-4). "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves" (Rom. 13:1-2). "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31). And this has been recognized for some time regarding the moral necessity in democracy. Karl Marx suggested that when people in a democracy discovered that they could vote themselves money, they would bankrupt their country. Bill Murchison wrote, "No morality, no democracy. It's as simple as that.

So the question for Iraq is do they have the moral values required to sustain a democratic government? It's hard for me to say from here. If we based our answer on what the media is telling us, the answer would be a resounding "No!" From all appearances they live in a purely dog-eat-dog, "looking out for number one" world. That kind of societal morality cannot support democracy. So it looks bleak for Iraq.

But the real question to me isn't there; it's here. We've watched a radical decline in our own morality in America. Part of the Puritan Work Ethic, for instance, was "What can I provide to help my neighbors?" Now it's "What can I do to make me more money?" Patriotism, high moral values, a sense of the divine, these things are all on the decline and all very necessary for democracy to function. Indeed, I'm not really sure if, were we to be trying to establish democracy in America today, we'd have the fundamental moral basis to sustain it. Once established, there is momentum, but how long do we have before the momentum is lost and the moral decline overrides it? Already loud voices are trying to shut up those who disagree. We've condoned as a nation the murder of millions of unborn babies because of the whim of mothers. (Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth".) Minorities, illegal aliens, and the like all have protection, but Christians are considered open targets for insult and castigation. It won't be long (relatively speaking) before the moral system that established this country is outlawed by this country. Then where will we be?

I think it is a valid question whether or not Iraq can handle democracy. Do they have the moral core required for such a government? I am equally concerned about my own country. I'm not so sure that we are sustaining a sufficiently moral core to sustain our own democracy. Where will that lead us?

8 comments:

Samantha said...

"I'm not so sure that we are sustaining a sufficiently moral core to sustain our own democracy."

Very much agreed

Stan said...

Well, of course you'd agree. You're a poor defenseless Christian who believes you are a sinner saved by grace. You're stuck agreeing with Jonathan Edwards. So you believe you're depraved to the core and have only the mercy and grace of God on which to depend.

I mean, you're right, but we poor Christians who believe Man is sinful by nature are bound to agree, eh? =)

Samantha said...

You are one of the few who does agree with me.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

The essence of democracy is "one person, one vote",

Oh, sigh. No, one person one vote is not the essence of 'democracy' (altho we live in a republic). The US is not 'one person one vote'; except that the Supreme Court (in direct contradiction to the constitution itself) has ruled it must be at lower than the national level.

But it was not so in the beginning, and it will be our destruction.

Sigh

Stan said...

Von,

Maybe you read it too fast? I did say, "This problem is only exacerbated when it comes to the real government we enjoy and are hoping for in Iraq -- a republic." We are not (strictly) a democracy.

However, according to Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Democracy" is defined as "A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them." That's a longer way of saying what I said. (And mine was a "shorthand" definition.)

How would you define "democracy" (noting that we are a "republic")?

T. F. Stern said...

I had to go look up George Washington’s farewell speech to find the passage I wanted to share:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

To this I add my Amen.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Stan, I was commenting against 'one man one vote'. This is a modern perversion.
For example, here in the US, we have elected representatives, and senators. The senators are elected per state. So a voter in Texas has a much smaller 'vote' for senator than someone from, say, Wyoming.
Your definition (supremem power...) is 'direct democracy'; and doesn't currently exist... closest in Switerland I believe.

When I have more time I will post more.

Stan said...

T.F., Thanks for that. Very good quote.

Von, I actually agree that what I was defining was "direct democracy" or "pure democracy". We live in a republic ... as both you and I have agreed. To my knowledge, the only country to ever live in a true democracy was ancient Greece. It's not really a viable system. I'm with you there.