I quite agree with Sir Winston's comments. I would clarify that democracy is technically
a tool of government used by constitutional republics, commonwealths, and monarchies in determining leadership and the course of government.
Churchill is right in implying that democracy is wrought with problems of its own. It is not perfect nor is it all-wise and yet, here in the United States, one could be led think it so. We, in the United States, hear almost daily that Russia's attempt to influence the last presidential election is a threat to "our democracy" as if it is tantamount to a direct attack on United States. But is it? If it is, in what way is it a direct attack on our nation?
Or...
Could it be that democracy lends itself to manipulation and is prone to undermining the very governments that constitutionally define its use?
In order to explore these questions, it is necessary to take a quick course on the use of democracy by constitutional based governments like that of the United States of America in its earliest stages of existence. Democracy, as the primary means of governance, has a short life-span. Without definition, democracy, as rule by the people (meaning the majority), tends to become quickly unbalanced, anarchic, and devolves into handing power, the control of government over to an oligarchy or a dictator. This was evident in ancient Athens.
The founding fathers of the United States understood this very well in establishing a system of checks and balances by constitutionally creating three branches of national government. An additional balance to the government was the establishment of a federal republic in which the various states that made up the United States had the ability to choose their own leaders make their own constitution and laws, and send representatives and senators to serve in the Federal government.
The concept of the "majority rules," which some Americans naively believe leads to perfect and all-wise decision making, must have given the founding fathers some sleepless nights. They were well read and well informed. They understood that raw democracy as government would ultimately devolve into government by the few and for the few or handing the reigns of government to a tyrannical strongman.
DISTILLING DEMOCRACY
What the founding fathers believed would preserve the liberty they fought hard for was to exercise liberty by a nation whose citizens owned the decisions distilled from their collective voice and made on their behalf. Democracy became the means by which to distill the collective will expressed by the many into the will of one nation. The Constitution became the distillery through which that was accomplished.
Who should have a say in governing was also a concern for the founding fathers. Democracy works best if those who have a vote are well informed or are capable of being well informed. Initially, the United States Constitution did not mention who was eligible to vote. This was largely left up to the state's. In many of these states, however, voting was initially limited to male landowners. The obvious thought behind this decision was that people who owned their own property were likely to be educated, could read, or had enough principled sense to make an informed decision.
Originally, on the federal level of government, the citizen voter from each state could only vote for those serving in the House of Representatives. Senators were chosen by their state legislators, the President was elected by electors chosen by the states to form what is known today as the Electoral College, and justices to the Supreme Court were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Distilling democracy was accomplished through a process of electing local and state officials who, in turn, selected and elected federal officials.
To keep democracy from devolving into tyranny, the office of the President and those of Senator and Representative were given varied term limits. The only exception was the position of a Supreme Court justice, who could serve for life, but this was balanced by having nine justices who make decisions by majority opinion. The process of government is democratic throughout, but the higher up the governing ladder one goes the more distilled it becomes. At least, that appears to have been the original intent.
The founding fathers didn't stop there. Their concern with democracy extended to their fear that to get to an end product, an elixir vitae that would energize government, keep it alive, and protect the Constitution's democratic processes, required a variety of voices fermented in the tumultuous vats of politics and then carefully distilled like a fine brandy into laws of the land that would appeal to and appease the democratic palate of the masses, while protecting the varietal minorities. This, it was hoped, would preserve the fragile unity of a newborn nation.
The value of distilling unity out of diversity is inherent in the idealism that created the United States. While, initially, not every citizen had a right to vote, every citizen had a right to address government; a right to express their own opinions, which led to the Bill of Rights. Liberty is quickly lost where voices are readily silenced and the will of one can be trampled underfoot by an unprincipled mob. These are the basic seeds upon which the republic of the United States was established.
THE TUMULTUOUS VATS OF PARTISAN POLITICS
True democratic processes require a catalyst to begin the fermentation of ideas and a delivery system to distillery of government. That catalyst is politics. Politics is often uncouth, divisive, generally ill mannered, and ill informed which led Churchill to observe, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Nevertheless, there can be no true democratic process without the mash and sludge of politics.
Partisanship in the form of political parties is the first stage of turning crude opinion into something usable; for within the diverse opinions of the people resides a resource that can be refined to energize a cohesive nation. As government generated by democratic processes begins to grow, it generates more political fodder for the public to chew on and ferment over. As a result, a pendulum effect is created in the legislative process. Legislative actions create political reactions that create increasingly similar actions and reactions.
This left/right momentum actually results in progress if there is a sense of balance and rhythm within partisan debate. At some point, there must be a consensus or at least a temporary acquiescence to majority opinion in order to maintain civility. If not, the pendulum of discourse begins to act erratic and tends to swing more in one direction than the other or begins swinging too far left and too far right and eventually the legislative branch of government is incapable of moving anything forward and comes to a halt, leading to civil strife or increasing the role of the executive branch to govern arbitrarily to keep government moving.
This certainly was experienced in the United States during its Civil War period and is evident in today's polarized Congress. It takes extremely devoted leaders to the nation's Constitution to avoid its being destroyed democratically and to restore the balance needed to preserve the democratic system it defines.
While the Constitution serves as the distillery of its democratic processes, raw democracy remains the crude substance that generates political power and partisan politics. To garner support political parties of various stripes have attempted to manipulate the flow of this crude power source to their advantage. Who should vote and where they should vote remains to this day a constant in political maneuvering.
HIERARCHICAL DEMOCRACY
Over time, the democratic processes are likely to shape the very distillery designed to refine it. I believe the original intent of constitutional government in the United States was to curb the volatility inherent in what is known today as populism. As the distillation of raw democracy is increasingly filtered through the legislative process to becoming the law of the land, the more elite and select the filters become.
I believe the intent of the founding fathers was to limit, as much as possible, the influence of partisan politics on most offices held at federal level, like senators, Supreme Court justices, and the President. These offices we're originally intended to be positions that answered to a limited constituency. The one exception was the congressional office of representatives. Representatives answered to their local constituents, senators were answerable to their state legislatures, the President answered to Congress, and the Supreme Court justices answered to no one. Refined as it was, the democratic process was identifiable throughout the process with exception of the President who has limited arbitrary powers as Commander in Chief of the military.
This system would change over course of U.S. history. The framers of the Constitution allowed for change and restructuring through its amendment process. The framers were inventing something that would have to take on a life of its own. As brilliant as the Constitution is, it has vulnerabilities. Although the framers of the Constitution did their best to create a balanced government that provides checks on abuse and misuse, they knew of no perfection in human endeavor that guards against human weakness and its proclivity for corruption.
This awareness is most evident in the oath of office the President takes, "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is even more evident in the oath taken by members of both congressional houses and one of two oaths sworn by Supreme Court Justices, "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."
Such oaths recognize that the biggest threat to the Constitution is its vulnerability to abuse and misuse by the very people sworn to uphold and defend it. It also implies that the Constitution is vulnerable to attack by the very people whose voices are protected by it.
**********
As mentioned at the beginning of this post, the purpose of this series of posts is to examine the question if democracy can be threatened or is it a case that democracy lends itself to manipulation and undermining the constitutions that guide its use. In the next post we will examine some of the vulnerabilities inherent in the United States Constitution.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment