Posted on 03/01/2006 2:34:56 PM PST by SheLion
High up on my list of annoyances are references to the United States as a democracy and the suggestion that Iraq should become a democracy. The word "democracy" appears in neither of our founding documents – the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution.
Our nation's founders had disdain for democracy and majority rule. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall added, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." The founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered under King George III. Their vision for us was a republic.
But let's cut to Iraq and President Bush's call for it to become a democracy. I can't think of a worse place to have a democracy – majority rule. Iraq needs a republic like that envisioned by our founders – decentralized and limited government power. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Democracy, what the Bush administration calls for, is different. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws aren't necessarily based upon reason but power. In other words, democracy is just another form of tyranny – tyranny of the majority.
In Iraq, Arabs are about 75 percent of the population, Kurds about 20 percent and Turkomen and Assyrian the balance. Religiously, Shia are about 60 percent of the population, Sunni 35 percent with Christian and other religions making up the balance. If a majority-rule democracy emerges, given the longstanding hate and distrust among ethnic/religious groups, it's a recipe for conflict. The reason is quite simple. Majority rule is a zero-sum game with winners and losers, with winners having the power to impose their wills on the minority. Conflict emerges when the minority resists.
The ideal political model for Iraq is Switzerland's cantonal system. Historically, Switzerland, unlike most European countries, was made up of several different major ethnic groups – Germans, French, Italians and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, conflicts have arisen between these groups, who differ in language, religion (Catholic and Protestant) and culture. The resolution to the conflict was to allow the warring groups to govern themselves.
Switzerland has 26 cantons. The cantons are divided into about 3,000 communes. Switzerland's federal government controls only those interests common to all cantons – national defense, foreign policy, railways and the like. All other matters are controlled by the individual cantons and communes. The Swiss cantonal system enables people of different ethnicity, language, culture and religion to live at peace with one another. As such, Switzerland's political system is well suited to an ethnically and religiously divided country such as Iraq.
By the way, for President Bush and others who insist on calling our country a democracy, should we change our pledge of allegiance to say "to the democracy, for which it stands," and should we rename "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?
That's why we're a representative republic ... the only one on the face of the planet ...
The difference is Locke versus Rousseau. In most of the world, Rousseau won the argument; in the US its nip-and-tuck with Locke hanging on by the slenderest of threads.
In the US it is generally understood by people on our side of the aisle (above a certain age) that when we say "democracy" we mean "republic". Unfortunately, we are a dying breed, and since the distinctions are not taught in public schools or anywhere else, the people who can articulate the distinction are few and getting fewer.
You are right; we would have a greater chance of success if we dropped the references to "democracy" in favor of "republic"; that puts "rule of law" right up front rather than getting lost in the details. It also helps to distinguish among less than perfect regimes (and all regimes are less than perfect) which ones are headed in the right direction; a not-quite-democratic regime that respects rule of law being superior in almost all respects to a democracy that doesn't understand rule of law.
I agree with your reference to the Swiss system as being the ideal for an ethnically divided Iraq; a federation with a fair amount of regional autonomy is probably the only thing that can work long term, if anything can work at all. If that fails, the only thing that remains at that point is to divide the country into at least two, if not three, separate entities. That brings with it another series of problems (being that the people involved are not Swiss).
There is no perfect answer for Iraq. We should never, obviously, let "perfect" be the enemy of the "better than Saddam".
Walter Williams is a great writer and a great economist. I almost always enjoy his columns. But other than the fact that he happens to be a smoker, what does this article have to do with your keyword list?
I remember when we used to be a republic.
Those were the days, before "democracy creep."
The people who think history started the day they were born were exactly the types the Founders had in mind when they chose a republican form of government.
The Constitution was written with a mind to a stronger people than we have now.
The whiny "worried well" will be the ruin of us.
All real Americans need to call it what it is, and remind everyone all the time. Long live the republic!
I think that most of the keywords were added by people thinking they were busting the Lionesses chops.
Good article. I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up with an answer to a question: It's a Republic, if you can keep it.
There have been more than a few virulent anti-smokers posting here celebrating the majority's voting away restaurant and bar owners' private property rights because they choose to accommodate smoking customers.
They don't like the "stink" dont'cha know, so that trumps everything.
If this isn't the clearest example of the tyranny of the majority, I don't know what is.
It's okay, as long as you don't step on their toes. Funny how things work, isn't it.
Walter Williams is a great writer and a great economist. I almost always enjoy his columns. But other than the fact that he happens to be a smoker, what does this article have to do with your keyword list?
Gee, I don't know. Why don't you add your own?
That's why I love you!
YOU get it!!
Thank you!
Aren't they a HOOT? LOL
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
- Thomas Jefferson -
I think a lot of us get it, but you put in the hard work.
And that's why we love you.
Democracy=Democrat
Republican=Republic
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.