A Problem in Democracy
This article by Ishtiaq Ahmed raises an issue I fret about a lot. It’s one which doesn’t get discussed much, especially not in unequivocal and non-euphemistic terms. The issue is: democracy is widely seen as a good thing, and in many ways it is a good thing, but – there is a problem. The problem is that there is no magic mechanism that prevents majorities from voting to take away or deny the rights of some people – of even a majority, such as for instance women. The disputes over the Iraqi constitution are all about that problem, obviously, and yet the problem is seldom put in quite those terms. But it is a very real problem, which is why constitutions and bills of rights are also seen as good things. Democracy is seen as a good thing, constitutions and bills of rights are seen as good things; it’s not always quite in the front of everyone’s awareness that the two are more in tension than they are complementary – that bills of rights are needed to correct democracy at least as much as to collaborate with it.
After World War II when the United Nations proclaimed peace, democracy and human rights as antidotes to tyranny and war, it was assumed that as the new states developed and modernised, they would also embark upon the road to democracy…A problem which was never resolved in the UN Charter or the UDHR was that of people voting into power a government which would abolish private property or institute racial laws or religious dogma as state ideology.
Just so. A problem that was never resolved, and still plagues the world.
Would Islamists become good democrats if they take part in elections and gain power? Some people think that if the FIS had been allowed to assume power in Algeria it would have become a moderate party. On the other hand, critics point out that Abbas Madani, one of the leaders and ideologues of FIS, had declared that they will not take away women’s right to vote but would convince them to transfer it to their husbands or fathers!
And some women in Iraq took part in counter-demonstrations when women’s rights campaigners demonstrated for women’s rights in the constitution – carrying placards that said ‘No Equality!’ That’s it in a nutshell. What if a majority agrees that all women should be deprived of rights? Would I think ‘That’s democracy’ and feel obliged to submit? I damn well wouldn’t. A majority once thought slavery was a fine institution. They were wrong. It’s important to be clear about that. Majorities can be wrong, tyrannical, unjust – there is no God of Democracy seeing to it that that never happens.
Under the circumstances, we need to ponder upon the prospects for democracy in the Muslim world. There can be no denying that Islamists are now a major constituency in all Muslim states. Can one establish democracy by excluding them? Equally, the question is why should I support the right to vote for Islamists if I fear that they will undermine my freedom to think and write and express myself? These are dilemmas that we face at present when discussing democracy in the Muslim world. I believe a middle path can be found. One should in principle allow all parties to take part in elections if they do not openly advocate violence and intolerance and commit themselves to respecting the equal rights of women and non-Muslims. However we need to develop mechanisms which ensure that a parliamentary majority is not abused by Islamists or any other extremists.
And the question is why should I support the right to vote for Islamists if I fear that they will undermine my freedom to leave the house without permission, to leave the house at all, to be independent, to be autonomous, to own myself? I shouldn’t, I can’t, I don’t. I don’t support the right of anyone to vote to take away anyone’s basic rights. I don’t.
“They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years, and we’re not using it anymore.” –George Carlin
This problem is a classic one, usually referred to as “the tyranny of the majority”. An unchecked democracy might consistently vote against the interests of 49% of the population. That’s the whole point of constitutionalism. For example (and this is not the only way to do it) the American Constitution grants rights, powers, and privileges that cannot be legislated away. Amending the Constitution is purposely made difficult, requiring a supermajority at several cooperating levels.
Yes, I know. Funny, though, that even though it’s a classic problem, it gets mostly swept under the carpet. The potential (and for that matter actual) dangers of democracy are not exactly emphasized. The outcome in Iraq aeems to have taken a lot of people completely by surprise, which is odd, given Iran’s recent history.
An unchecked majority could easily vote away the rights of more than 49% of the population – as a religious duty, for example.
“Swept under the carpet?”
I think not. It is THE central problem — and explicitly understood as such — in American Constitutional law.
The problem is that ‘democracy’ is just a mechanism. It guarantees nothing about the ethical content of its outcomes. When people talk about the benefits of democracy, the wonders of living in a democracy, what they actually mean [assuming they’re not being ironic] is the benefits of living in a liberal-pluralist society. But of course one can’t say that out loud these days, esp. not in the USA where ‘liberal’ is a cuss-word…
Dave writes “one can’t say that out loud these days, esp. not in the USA where ‘liberal’ is a cuss-word”. Unfortunately the word “liberal” is used in many different ways and its meaning in the expression “liberal democracy” is not what it means in political discourse in the US. Nor in France where it applies to what the locals call “Anglo-Saxon capitalism”. And Margaret Thatcher (pause to clap/cry in pain/reach for revolver according to political taste) described herself as a “19th century liberal”.
Speaking as someone who seems, almost be relflex, to always be on the dise that isn’t the majority, I too have thought about this a lot. I think there is a lot of truth in the famous Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government you can think of, until you try to think of a better one.
It seems that what democracy has to have is a strong set of laws, constitution, bill of rights or whatever to protect those NOT in the majority FROM democracy.
To me, that means that before you try to construct such a system you must have some sort of belief in the universality of individual rights (even though such rights are themselves only a construct) that underlies it all. I’m not sue that such a belief does – at the moment – exist (mainly for religious reasons, it seems) in the Middle-East. Hell, it’s only a pretty recent invention in the West, and some of us don’t seem to have quite got the hang of it properly yet. So, I think Iraq has a long way to go yet.
I think the problem here is education and experience. If you have grown up with democratic norms and respect for democratic traditions then you are less likely to vote for parties who are going to take this away.
However, ina society with no such experience or education, if someone comes along promising heaven on earth but also to get rid of democratic institutions then you will vote for them. If you are desperate then you are even more likely to vote.
I honestly believe that cynicism about politicians is a great thing. If you don’t trust them then you are more likely to want to keep some power over them.
Unfortunately people in the middle east don’t have this experience and so will vote for anyone who promises to solve their problems.
As our late anarchist, George Woodcock put it: ” . . . the truest democracy is not that in which the majority imposes its will on all minorities. It is surely that in which minorities are allowed to flourish, even at sone expense to the patience of the majority.”
But there you are. People who clain to know God’s Own Truth tend to be impatient.
“It is THE central problem — and explicitly understood as such — in American Constitutional law.”
I know, I know. But that understanding doesn’t seem to inform the public understanding of the subject much – that’s why I talk of under-carpet-sweeping. The word ‘democracy’ is very often used as if it necessarily and inherently includes, or is even defined by, freedom and rights – the terms are often used interchangeably. Which I always find rather frightening. If the voting public doesn’t understand that you can (easily) have democracy and still not have rights – that’s dangerous.
Yes, Ophelia. There is a post on point this morning at Volokh which indicates the great distrust the American people have for the judiciary.
My own take is that only a naif would be surprised that people are skeptical of those with power. And in fact, considering the centrality of law in American society, one should not be appalled but in fact heartened that people have an instinctual distrust for any institution with great power.
As understandable as that distrust may be, it is also good that we do have a judiciary which to some limited degree is independent of the mob.
Hmm. ‘The American people’ have a great distrust for the judiciary? The whole of the American people?
And those of ‘the American people’ who do have such a distrust have it partly because they have been trained to have it, often more by rhetoric and histrionics (the Schiavo case for instance) than by argument.
‘Those with power’ include voting majorities.
“one should not be appalled but in fact heartened that people have an instinctual distrust for any institution with great power.”
What institution? I take it you mean the judiciary? But the judiciary is not the subject of the comment.
And the issue isn’t ‘the mob’ but the majority. A majority can be quite refined and still be tyrannical.
The American People don’t agree with you, Ophelia. Volokh indicates that they feel our gay liberal activist judiciary has gone too far in granting the godless minority a right to exist. Furthermore, atheism is responsible for the moral decline in this once-great country–the most recent Fox News poll proves this. Therefore, all true Americans support George Bush’s new law against criticizing faith-based religions. You of all people should be glad of this, because it means we won’t be turning into communists. You’re not a communist, are you?
The judiciary, lawyers, laws, the whole judicial system become as one — and not surpriingly — as they are one system.
And yes, OB, I think there is a significant degree of skepticism, cynicism, distrust — call it what you will – for the legal structure — and my point is that considering the enormous power of that system such skepticism is both to be expected and also healthy.
Btw, I am a member of the Washington State Bar (inactive).
“skepticism, cynicism, distrust — call it what you will”
These are different things. Let’s not call it what we will. Instead, let’s call it by its most accurate name.
“my point is that considering the enormous power of that system such skepticism is both to be expected and also healthy.”
Well, David, I find that comment somewhat beside the point. 1) I don’t really care whether it’s to be expected or not – that’s not the point. 2) I also don’t much care whether it’s healthy or not. 3) Healthy in what sense? 4) Even if all that is true, so what? What follows from that? In short, what’s your point? That doesn’t seem to me to answer the point I was making in any way – it seems like a diversion. It’s not so much that I disagree with it as that it leaves the basic point untouched.
No, Ophelia. In fact it is exactly on point.
Your contention is “The problem is that there is no magic mechanism that prevents majorities from voting to take away or deny the rights of some people – of even a majority, such as for instance women.”
And while of course there is no “magic mechanism,” the problem you point out — “majoritarian tyrrany” — was clearly recognized by the Founders of our Republic and has continued and will continue as an everlasting tension in our system. The Founders’ answer was both an appointed Senate and a Federal Judiciary, also appointed, to act as a fly-wheel and to slow down the passions of the mob and its elected officials.
So coming full circle, the skepticism/distrust etc (sorry Karl, there are gradations of feeling on tghis issue) for judges and for the whole legal system is a natural outgrowth of the mechanism set up to dealwith the problem you identify.
So in fact, Ophelia, what I wrote is very much on point.
No, David. In fact it is not ‘on point’ – because you left out all the connections, and the argument. I see what you’re getting at, true enough, but you’re not making an argument, and you’re assuming that everyone will follow your leap from what I said to what you said. Not everyone will follow that leap, because just for one thing it requires familiarity with some parochial American discussions.
If, as Mr Tingey suggests, “Communism is a classic religion – you can tell by the body count, if nothing else” then we can put an end to the age-old question of what causes wars – obviously it’s religion and religion only.