Sunday, March 16, 2014
Thanks to Rick for bringing to our attention the recent article in The Economist entitled “What’s gone wrong with democracy.” I have not read Prof. Philpott’s book to which Rick also referred, but I hope to do so soon. However, I recently completed Erik Larson’s In the Garden of Beasts, which is an account of Ambassador William E. Dodd’s experience as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 1933 to the end of 1937.
When Amb. Dodd returned to the U.S. in early 1938, he delivered an address in New York City and warned Americans and the world how democracy was in peril. It was not necessarily in peril solely because of totalitarian regimes like those of National Socialism in Germany or Soviet Communism in Russia. The source of the problem identified by Dodd went to democracy itself. As he said in his speech, even though humanity was in great danger of an impending disastrous world conflict, “democratic governments seem not to know what to do.” He was aware of the failure of the U.S and the great European democracies to respond to Hitler’s early threats even though there was ample warning. Thus, in Dodd’s estimation, “Western civilization, religious, personal and economic freedom are in grave danger.” (Those who argue that the Mirror of Justice addresses too frequently the issue of religious liberty today should take note.)
Dodd argued that the antipathy of the United States was attributable to the government itself and “certain privileged business groups” who let the crisis that led to World War II happen. Today I would add a third attributable source to this group who allow crises to emerge and prosper: those special interest groups who claim to represent everyone but, in fact, represent their own narrow and often valueless and amoral interests. Has The Economist article changed the analyses of Dodd’s insight?
From my perspective, if offers some solid evaluation of the problems which democracy must face if it is to survive, but it is also off the mark on other of its assertions.
The first point of value in The Economist article focuses on the desire for “rules-based democracy.” This is vital to democratic institutions if the rules (laws) that the democracy promotes and promulgates emerge from objective human intelligence that comprehend intelligible reality and serve the common good. But when the rules a democracy promotes are based not on this formula but on self-interest that denies the existence of objective intelligence and the common good, democracy can easily become a thinly-disguised totalitarianism as Christopher Dawson warned in the early 1950s and as Blessed John Paul II presaged in 1991 in Centesimus Annus.
A sustainable democracy, as The Economist claims the U.S. was, takes hard work of those members of society who are simultaneously its members. Benjamin Franklin was asked a question at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 by a Mrs. Powel, “What, Dr. Franklin, have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin’s pithy response was: “A republic if you can keep it.” Franklin’s response asserts that republican democracy is the work of everyone who is a member of the polis. It is not the preserve of the state—which ought to be a servant rather than master of the people who are governed—or of special interests; rather, it is the right and responsibility of all the members of the polity. And herein resides the problem which The Economist article attempts to address.
As the article implies, once crises are over, everybody—with the exception of the technocrats and special interests—seem to go on holiday. But democracy is and remains the work of the governed less they become the subjects of present-day overlords. The words of Lincoln at Gettysburg remind us that the government of the United States is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” But if the people should lose interest in their right and duty to govern themselves, then many of the problems raised by The Economist emerge with growing ferocity because the government as defined by Lincoln has perished.
A major source of the challenges for democracy, according to the article, is that people are satisfied with receiving benefits from a welfare state but are not interested in contributing to the ruling of the state. Oddly, the article argues that present day China may be an attractive alternative to democracy. While the Chinese regime, as the article states, is obsessed with control, it pays close attention to public opinion. As the authors posit, “Many Chinese are prepared to put up with their system if it delivers growth.” The state has delivered growth, but that growth is now in decline. What will the state deliver in the future if this trend continues as it likely will? Public opinion is not the effort that promotes a durable democracy.
Ironically, the parallels between the problems identified by the article concerning Western democracy and the alleged solutions of China are the same: give the populace what they want right now. Democracy is hard work, the work of those who are simultaneously the governed and the governor. Bread and circuses did not work for Rome nor will this solution work for China, the U.S., or any other nation that calls itself a democracy. One Chinese academic referred to by the article argues that democracy is destroying the West. But this is not true. It is an imposter of democracy that is generating the problems which are corroding the cherished values that must be associated with self-governance.
The Economist further contends that “individual rights and independent judiciaries” are vital to stable and thriving democracy. To an extent, there is some truth to this claim, but more is needed for the claim to be true for the long run. Rights are a popular item for discussion today, but too many advocates for them forget about or even deny the correlative responsibilities that must accompany the claim to rights if the rights that are championed are to be durable. Moreover, rights are self-evident and the gift of the Creator and the source of human dignity. They cannot be the gift of the state, of some political party, or of a special interest. If they are, then they are gossamer. In addition, hard questions need to be addressed about what makes the judiciary independent? Independence from special interests and the power of a totalitarian state is a desirable thing, but independence from the accountability of objective intelligence that must comprehend the intelligible reality of human nature and the world so that the common good can be advanced is not desirable if the noble institution of self-governance is to survive.
I now find myself living in a part of the U.S. that calls itself the Cradle of Liberty. There once was a great sense of pride in this label because the region was a crucible of participation in the common life of the res publica in which the members of society were free to express their opinion and make their substantive contribution. Today, however, if one departs from the thinking of a one-party state where any departure from its orthodoxy is viewed as treason or bigotry, the end of democracy is not only near, it has arrived and taken up residence from which it seemingly cannot be saved. The desire to offer well-formulated objective reasons for alternatives to the product of governance may benignly be dismissed as some form of eccentricity; however, it can just as easily be treated as a new enemy of the state. The “micro-powers” of which the article discusses are not only evident in the world of international law and politics and the operations of NGOs and transnational lobbyists; they are also present in the backyard of local and regional politics in the U.S.
The article is on target when it mentions that the greatest challenge to democracy is from within the democracy itself. As the comic strip character Pogo said: we have met the enemy, and he is us. This is what Dodd contended in 1938; what Christopher Dawson identified as a growing problem in the early 1950s; and what John Paul II discussed in 1991. “[L]iv[ing] from day to day, indulging in the pleasure of the moment” is antithetical to good governance especially if it terms itself a democracy. The stability of such a democracy is only that of an edifice made of cards: impressive to look at but inherently unsound when even the smallest disturbance is present. The clear antidote is participation and responsibility. As was attributed to Edmund Burke, all that evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing. Apathy of the events of the day is a recipe for chaos and disaster. And that is where the Catholic academic who participates in the development of Catholic legal theory has and must exercise a responsible role in addressing the problems raised in The Economist article.
As teachers of the law we prepare the lawyers of tomorrow who will be leaders of their communities as practitioners, legislators, administrators, and judges. They are also citizens; they are members of the self-governed. What values do we inculcate in them? What kind of reasoning do we offer to them? What models of our own behavior do we present for their consideration? Our influence to alter the course that may lead to the end of democracy is not insignificant. We are not reformers; rather, we are renovators of the most durable form of governance yet established: the governance of, by, and for the people themselves. From our responsible participation, may others learn well, for the once cherished institution of democracy is at stake.
RJA sj
