Winston Churchill's famous quip that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried is frequently trotted out to hail democracy as the best form of government. I don't know what he thought but that's not what he actually said. It's obvious what the virtues of democracy are, the fact that the majority of a population gets to choose who governs them, that the government can be thrown out and replaced if desired, that rulers are accountable and so forth. It's equally obvious what its flaws are, that the majority has any idea what is best for the country as a whole, that people vote with their pockets, that politicians think only for the short term and shamelessly appeal to the lower nature of the voters, that the media controls much of what goes on and that, when it comes down to it, there is not much to choose from. Human nature, as we know, tends to corrupt everything it touches and nothing can ever be perfect but democracy does seem to have too many imperfections to regard it as in any way ideal. It's only when it is compared to authoritarian regimes that one can say it's better than they are in that it does at least honour, in principle if not always completely in practice, liberty and choice.
I don't vote because there is no one I could possibly vote for. I have occasionally voted in the past. I voted for the Social Democrats in the 1980s as they initially appeared to be a mould-breaking group but they were quickly absorbed into the mainstream. I think I voted for the Green party once many years ago when it wasn't just a far left organisation. However, on both occasions I felt slightly sullied by the action, as though I had betrayed my principles for expediency. When I looked for why this might have been so I came to the conclusion that each time I hadn't voted for something but against everything else. I had voted for what I regarded as the least bad but not for anything I actually believed in. That doesn't seem a very good basis for anything.
I suppose we get the governments we deserve. We are hedonistic, materialistic, acquisitive, God-rejecting people. We think we are good, or good enough, but we deny the very source of goodness. A truly intelligent society would not need democracy because the way to live would be clear. That doesn't mean it would be authoritarian as in a one party state, but it would be guided by spiritual principles and these are not up for debate. There is no choice in truth. I am not arguing for a theocracy in the old-fashioned sense but a society which realises that politics is subordinate to spirituality is really the only one that can ever work in the long term, and even this depends on the quality of the members of that society.
As the two sides (and there generally are only two that matter) in a democracy become further apart, more and more people start questioning the virtues of democracy. The recent victories of Donald Trump and the leave side in the Brexit referendum have left many on the other side questioning democracy because it hasn't gone their way, even though they usually pretend that this is not what they are doing, so potent is the myth of democracy. But, really, how can we assume that the majority ever knows what is right? It is only the sacred cow of human beings being equal (not found in any spiritual tradition) that makes people think this remotely possible. The only justification for this majority rule is that we get what we deserve and we learn by experiencing the consequences of our decisions. Except we are not really learning, are we?
What's the alternative, you might ask? There is no alternative as truth is not to be found in politics. It is to be found in spiritual realisation, and only when that is put front and centre will we discover how to govern ourselves properly in the material world. In the meantime we will struggle on, making many mistakes and muddling through. Or not. That remains to be seen.
This brief piece is not meant as an attack on democracy because Churchill was probably right at this stage in our evolution when selfhood is being developed in the mass, a situation that has not existed in the world before. The fact is, though, any system is only as good as the people who implement it. The virtue of democracy is supposed to be that it stops too much power being concentrated in the hands of too few people for too long. But what if certain unseen powers manipulate the system so that whoever appears to rule makes no difference to the outcome? It is clear that something like this is what is going on now. Perhaps many democracies are that in name only.
Democracy means rule by the people and it presupposes a more or less egalitarian society which reduces hierarchy to a minimum. But this conceives of life as existing primarily along the horizontal axis and anyone at all aware of spiritual reality knows that this is only one part of what life is, and far from the most important part at that. Any system of organising society that fails to take into account the vertical dimension of being will eventually fail as its inconsistencies become more and more apparent. Plato thought that democracies ended in tyranny as people become drunk with liberty and abused its privileges. Is that what we have to look forward to or will a higher wisdom prevail?
These are just a few rather random thoughts tossed up in the air. They are prompted by Churchill's thought that democracy is the least bad of political systems. But that means that it cannot be good for if it were we wouldn't have to qualify our praise for it in negative terms. No political system is right for all times and all places. They have their moment. Democracy has had a good run in the Western world but it is clearly showing signs of exhaustion, and the fact that in many countries the two sides are further apart than ever doesn't bode particularly well.
There is another point to be made against democracy and it is a cultural one. Can anyone doubt that democracy degrades culture? Just look at the 20th century if you do doubt this. The relentless debasement of all art forms to cater to the masses has led to the present vulgarity and coarseness of the world, the worst there has ever been according to the Masters. Democracy alone cannot be blamed for this for culture will inevitably either descend downwards or else reduce itself to self-obsessed navel-gazing in the absence of religion. But the masses are interested only in immediate entertainment, diversion and stimulation and in a democracy they have the money and power to command these from producers only too willing to pander to their desires for their own benefit. It's a downward spiral.
The political has failed. The next stage can only be spiritual.
4 comments:
William, the most important-seeming insight I made, was that all 'systems' of government are bad, insofar as they are systems. Systems are not, and never can be, the answer to the vital questions of life.
However, democracy has a particular evil built-in, which is that *nobody*, no specific person, is *responsible* for decisions based on vote counting. Thus morality is deleted - which is itself intriniscally immoral.
For me, this makes all such decisions illegitimate.
When it comes to organising a group of people, I don't think humans have progressed beyond the medieval systems such as military hierarchy. These were very flawed, but their flaws were obvious and the errors could be pinpointed.
But voting systems such as democracy and committees were a triumph of Screwtape and the demons (who are, it seems, very keen bureaucrats); and started us down the path to totalitarianism (which is anti-spiritual as well as anti-Christian).
You're making think that the demo element of democracy might have a different origin to the sort commonly supposed. I'm joking of course but sometimes these coincidences (sun/son, for instance) do convey a certain truth. The demons may not have invented democracy but they certainly know how to exploit it.
Having spent much of my life working in a newsroom, one thing I could not help noticing time and again was the inability of people on the Left (which includes most every print and broadcast journalist) to understand the nature of a principle. The concept of a truth not susceptible to revision by polling was alien to their mindset. I took this as the inevitable result of equating democratic elections with the determination of objective truth. The corollary is that if you can convince enough people to espouse a particular opinion then you can make that opinion an unassailable fact. Advertising and public intimidation become the tools of a democratic dictatorship in which the manipulators of opinion become the rulers and shapers of culture. But who are these manipulators and what is the agenda? What principles guide the destroyers of principles?
Yes, I think you're right.Democracy represents the triumph of quantity over quality.
Post a Comment