Democracy is regarded by some as one of mankind’s greatest achievements. But it’s hard to ignore that lately, it’s been both held at the highest ever regard, and is in the worst condition it has ever been. We have the shift in our approach to democracy to thank for this. Originally the democratic system was not an end, it was simply a method of government which presupposed equality (among Athens’ born free men of age) and through this tried to establish a shared sense of responsibility for the state.
In the West, democracy was adopted for a similar reason but, like in Athens, it came across a road block. Since democracy presupposes equality, why should poor people or women be excluded? So democracies moved to expand their domain, through women suffrage, through the civil rights movement. Democracy was the driver of change. Equality was followed by liberty and a sense of community. Things couldn’t be going any better. This led to democracy being held in the highest regard, in fact it even became one of the core Western values. This is where I believe the West went wrong.
Democracy used to be nothing more than a tool. A useful tool which led to many good changes within societies, but a tool nonetheless. On its own, democracy lacks a moral character which would make it desirable. Like a drill or a hammer aren’t desirable for their own sake – they can be used to assault someone as well as to build a hospital. The West had other values which it achieved through the means of democracy. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the constitutions which we regard as prime examples of democracy – like the American or French constitutions. Both of those talk about values which those states are built upon and which they strive to protect. But democracy isn’t mentioned as one of them. This pattern continues in the constitution of the largest democracy in the world, India, where democracy is also not recognised as a value.
However, in the modern political debate democracy appears to be an end on its own, an intrinsic value. This is also how it’s portrayed in the EU values charter. To some ends justify the means, and so democracy has been used to rationalise war crimes, create double standards, break the international law, and in most condemnable instance, undermine democracy. In various ongoing conflicts the side which is deemed ‘undemocratic’ is held under higher scrutiny than the other side. The same crimes committed by Ukraine and Russia, or IDF and Hezbollah, are judged differently because one of those sides is upholding democracy, while the other is a threat to democracy. A ‘threat to democracy’ is also a sufficient reason to contest the results of presidential elections in Romania, even if further investigation shows no foreign involvement. Hillary Clinton contested her loss under the same pretences, and four years later so did Trump, leading to January 6th.
The French establishment will manipulate the election process to curb the chances of the scrutinised yet popular party winning, as they did just this last election. Perhaps the allegation of being ‘undemocratic’ will be enough to dissolve the German party AfD, as a proposed bill suggests. Democracy-the-virtue can also justify starting wars or destabilising functioning states, in the Middle East for example. These wars interfere with other core values of the West, like liberty or domestic tranquillity, to take a page out of the US constitution, and yet they are justified through the appeal to democracy, which vindicates all the means.
The current western establishment treats democracy as the value all the other values establish, while quite the opposite is true. Democracy helps to bring all the other Western values about. Could they be achieved through different means? Possibly. And this should be a reminder that democracy is not an end but an instrument, and this is what made it desirable.
The current approach leads to a paradox, an iteration of the paradox of tolerance. For democracy-the-virtue to continue, it cannot tolerate that, which is deemed undemocratic. And the way this is executed leads many to become disillusioned with the current system. It seems to preach freedom of expression on one hand but posting a joke mocking Germany’s Vice-Chancellor will lead to a police raid? It preaches respect for the rule of law but the Prime Minister of Poland is on record saying that he calls upon “fighting democracy” which allows his action to be “incompatible or not fully compliant with the provisions of the law”. It commits itself to diversity of perspectives and ideas, yet it actively limits the expression of ideas critical of the establishment? The peace promoting democracy must be brought about through war?
These questions themselves are deemed undemocratic, sometimes even alt-right. But if the establishment is not willing to answer those who ask them, these people will not stop wondering. And soon it may well be that the only people who will answer will be the exact ones which are now deemed enemies of democracy. This alienation between the idea of democracy-the-virtue and its actual application leads to alienation and a rise of dissatisfaction with the whole democratic system and not only with the current establishment. This sentiment can be observed across Europe as well in the US. And the more this “undemocracy” is persecuted, the better it seems to be doing. I believe that the only way to actually preserve democracy, is through the return to seeing it as a useful tool rather than an end. The perception of democracy, both within the West and globally, has been damaged greatly, but I hope that it is not too late to reverse this shift.
