The history of Greece and Rome teaches us that not just monarchy but even majority rule can hinder human freedom. It was democratic Greece which ruled against Socrates. It is not necessary that a system in which, instead of one person, the majority takes decisions will be less intolerant and less cruel. If the elected representatives have supreme and unquestioned authority, they can use the same system of ‘democracy’, which brought them to power, to keep it aside.
They can bring in oligarchy and autocracy.
That is why the history of the growth of human freedom has been intolerant of not just the autocracy of the king but also of the autocracy of the majority. Ideas and institutions evolved throughout history to fight against all kinds of autocracy – Courts, Universities, Academies, the concepts of Natural Justice, Morality and Ethics, all products of wisdom and enlightenment.
Which dictator has not said that he took over power as per the wishes of the people and to fulfill their needs? In fact Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Stalin may all have won majorities during much of their reigns. But an autocrat does not become a democrat just because he has the support of the majority. What makes democracy is the special place that minorities have in them. It is very dangerous to think that when elected representatives take over the absolute powers previously vested with kings or colonial powers, the system automatically becomes a free and democratic one. If people can be reduced to their representatives, then their representatives can also be reduced to an autocrat.
Head counting and electing representatives does exist in democracy. But democracy is much more than that. It is a realization of the values that civilization has been shaping for centuries.
5 responses so far ↓
Vinay Bhushan.B // October 23, 2008 at 8:46 am
Winston Churchil once commented”Democracy is aworst form of government.But others are still worse.”ofcourse,you are right.Power in the hands of thugs and fools is equally dangerous even if they constitute the majority.
anandtranslated // October 23, 2008 at 9:04 am
Hey Vinay
thanks for the comment.
I guess the point is to understand that democracy is much more than elections.
A quote which comes to mind which I read recently is “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
swkyed // October 24, 2008 at 1:47 am
Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Sam // October 27, 2008 at 12:27 pm
It was a nice article on democracy. It brings the most important point about democracy, that the success of any democratic rule is determined by how well it can take care of the minority.
Infact in a country like our India where the polling percentage is less than 60 percent how can once say that the government formed is the choice of majority ?
But still democracy even though its having many faults, deserves credit because in a country like India where diversities exists in almost every aspects, it is still holding under one rule and the person controlling it is not any military officer.
anandtranslated // October 27, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Kat, thnx 4 tat.
Sam – well, I guess, they choose to not participate, whether knowingly or unknowingly. As far as there is no coercion on them, I don’t think decrease in the voting percentage delegitimizes.