Democratic uncertainty

Jean-François Revel in his book The Totalitarian Temptation (1977) wrote in regards to democracy (and love) that there is no accepted definition but instead clear symptoms.  In other words, the proof that a country is a true democracy is whether it is a free press, safe environment for opposition, protection of minorities and exchange of leaders, to name a few. Of course, there are intermediate states between ultimate democracy and absolute dictatorship but an analysis of all the political conditions quickly demonstrates which citizens actually have rights.

Pseudo democracies have always existed.  The Soviet Union, Mexico and India had regular elections while Hitler was an elected leader, albeit only once. Such countries generally have constitutions and legal codes that formally but not in practice allow protest and opposition.  Modern examples of fake democracies include Turkey and Russia. In these countries, the same leader has ruled for more than a decade, as president or prime minister, with any effective opposition leader being arrested or, as Putin has done, assassinated. The press is effectively government run.  Of course, the established leaders are quite popular. In fact, one sure sign of a non-democracy is when the ruling party received more than 80% of the vote.

Worldwide, today's democratic politics are quite volatile. Many countries conduct elections in an environment of non-tolerance or even hate between the competing parties.  While the tone of the discussions in these countries can be disconcerting, especially in terms of racism, the mere existence of a public debate on key issues and its presence on all forms of media without fear of a legal or extralegal penalty provides hope for the future. The United States and Europe will emerge stronger as the candidates and the public discuss and determine their place in the world and the role of immigrants in their societies. In Israel, the call for increased control of the press by the ruling party is worrying but the court system and major parties still promote freedom of speech. India and Mexico, formerly fiefdoms of their ruling parties, frequently replace ineffective governments to the benefit of their countries. Brazil even impeached its president, an unlikely event a few decades ago.

According to Heisenberg's theory of uncertainty, an observer can have total knowledge of location or direction or partial knowledge of both but not complete knowledge of both. In other words, the closer you look at the trees, the harder it is judge the forest and vise versa. As a foreign observer watching the political processes occurring worldwide, I appreciate democracy and relish the viewing of them even if the actual content of the public debate is disturbing or insulting. In such societies, controversial issues are resolved for the public good, not for the benefit of a specific party or leader. As Revel said, in practice, with all of its imperfections, democracy is much better for people than totalitarianism.

Tyranny of the Majority

American school children are taught many dry facts about the making of the U.S. Constitution.  Some of them appear rather historical, i.e. no longer relevant.  Only with time can we see that those apparently outdated issues somehow have never disappeared.  One example is the fear of the tyranny of the majority, meaning the need to limit what the majority party in a democracy can impose on the minority.

The American historical context was the dispute over approval of the new constitution, which gave significantly more power to the federal government than under the previous system, which required allowed one state to veto any action.  Since all the taxes that had driven the American colony to become independent had in fact been voted for by the English parliament, the American leadership understood that legitimate processes do not always make for legitimate decisions.  Alexander Hamilton wrote the famous Federalist Papers to persuade the delegates to approve the new system. In the end, the convention had to add the first ten amendments, which are all limiting provision, to gain the required approval. Thus, the American revolutionaries had a great fear of the actions of the majority.

As I see it, they were correct. Let’s put aside the fact that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini, the 20^th century’s leaders of the hit parade of murderers, were formally elected.  You can argue that the economic conditions and their gangster tactics tainted their election. More relevantly, too many of the today’s major world leaders have manipulated their political systems and majority voters to destroy true democracy, i.e. any limitation on action or protection of minority views. As an example, the Russian people have elected Putin many times (for both president and Prime Minister). He has destroyed the opposition parties, free press and any serious challenge to his power, even killing the opposing candidate.  His tactics must be convincing Stalin that democracy is not so bad after all. Almost in a similar manner, Erdogan has taken over Turkey, supported by the conservative population, imposing his view on more secular Turks.  Ataturk must be turning over in his grave seeing how things are turning over above his grave, not that his tactics were so much different. Israel, my country, still has a functioning democracy, but the press and opposition have been severely weakened by government policies.  Overall, it is very hard to find a healthy democracy today.

The basic causes, then and now, are twofold. It is natural for a person choosing to become a national leader to have an agenda, which by definition will have its opponents to one degree or another.  This inherent conflict creates obstacles, which any leader would like to reduce or eliminate in order to facilitate implementation of the policy. This power struggle, between majority and minority, is omnipresent and inevitable. On a more sinister note, power is the most addictive of drugs.  Few leaders willingly give up their position. It is extremely tempting for heads of state to guarantee your continuation of power by abusing the power of the majority and weakening institutions of criticism.  The best and most well intentioned have fallen in this trap.

Still, to see or, even worse, to live in a sick democracy is a sad sight. Once again, the American solution, albeit almost two hundred years later, seems the best one. No American president can serve for more than two terms, period. The best protection is one that de Tocqueville described in his book Democracy in America in 1840: educated citizens must not allow their leaders to deprive citizens of their rights, even if they disagree with the expression of these rights. Let’s hope for more tolerant people and a better world.