Democracy is Never Not in Peril

Jack Charteris                            

What do Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Jair Bolsonaro, Narendra Modi, Nicolás Maduro, Bongbong Marcos, Viktor Orban, Recep Erdoğan, Marine Le Pen, and Aleksandr Lukashenko have in common that I’ll bet you never thought of? They’re closer to Plato than to Popper. Before Platonist philosophers tear their hair out, here’s Plato, individualism’s worst enemy (excerpts are from “The Laws” Book 5; 739 and Book 12; 942):

1. Speaking of “…wives, of children, and of all chattels,” Plato claimed that they share “… a common property…” (Namely, that they belong to the state. So much for the notion of individual autonomy.)

2. “The greatest principle of all … is that nobody … should ever be without a leader … even in the smallest matters. … For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals … only if he has been told to do so.”

[Emphases mine] 

Even when allowance is made for context, this sentiment is the apotheosis of totalitarian elitism: the very antithesis of democracy. (I associate ‘liberal’ with pro-individualist tolerance of others and define democracy as institutionalized equitable treatment of all members of a society.)

Some sycophants have interpreted Plato (above) as merely stressing his opposition to anti-social selfishness. But this is like claiming that divine genocide is born of a loving God’s frustration with human evil: Conceptual pretzel-twisting is the apologist’s métier. Political commentator Fareed Zakaria talks of ‘illiberal democracies’ in our time, citing examples that I think show his concept of democracy to be defined in terms of a fairly universal franchise. I see it differently: If all members of a society are treated equitably, all would have an equal say in their governance, and a universal franchise would follow as a consequence, not a precursor. (Some analysts distinguish between ‘full’ and ‘flawed’ democracies, and between ‘hybrid’ and ‘authoritarian’ governments. But categories are what categorizers make of them. I consider ‘Illiberal Democracy’ to be oxymoronic.)

Democracy stems from unremitting protection of individualism (everything that Plato railed against). The sole exception is its intolerance of intolerance (whether by individuals or groups): The rule, as the aphorism goes, is that your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. No plurality of any attitude or practise whose effect is to thwart the freedoms of others can be tolerated in what I’d call a democracy. So it’s a matter of opinion. Mine is that India, for example, is not an ‘illiberal’ democracy, because it is not a democracy at all, despite its near-universal franchise.

As I see it, the civil liberties records of the Nordic and ANZ countries top the list; those of Afghanistan, Myanmar, and North Korea are at the bottom. Serbia ranks below Mongolia and Ghana and the Philippines. South Africa is only 72% as democratic as New Zealand, and India is only 84 percent as open as South Africa. China is 98 percent as anti-democratic as North Korea. Overall, the Nordic and ANZ countries are far and away the most democratic, well ahead of the U.K. and Japan. And 15 percent of the world’s countries are more democratic than the U.S. Bottom line: Democracy is guaranteed civil liberty rather than just a universal franchise. 

The line, of course, is always indistinct: Norms may fluctuate widely as governments change and interpretations of constitutional provisions differ and their implementation undergoes both wilful and unintended manipulation. Democracy is never plane sailing and (in a mood of mixed metaphor) often survives by the skin of its teeth. America is on the very brink. And this matters, because if America falls, other dominoes will fall.