A Point of View: Is democracy overrated?

For some time, the leading Western nations have acted upon the assumption that democracy is the solution to political conflict, and that the ultimate goal of foreign policy must be to encourage the emergence of democracy in countries which have not yet enjoyed its benefits. And they continue to adhere to this assumption, even when considering events in the Middle East today. We can easily sympathise with it. For democracies do not, in general, go to war with each other, and do not, in general, experience civil war within their borders. Where the people can choose their government, there is a safety valve that prevents conflicts from over-heating. Unpopular governments are rejected without violence.

... Democracy was introduced into Russia without any adequate protection for human rights. And many human rights were protected in 19th Century Britain long before the emergence of anything that we would call democracy. In the Middle East today, we find parties standing for election, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which regards an electoral victory as the opportunity to crush dissent and impose a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable. In such circumstances democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them.

.. The totalitarian system, I learned, endures not simply by getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. It endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and the state, and by allowing nothing significant to occur which is not controlled by the Party. By studying the situation in Eastern Europe, I came quickly to see that political freedom depends upon a delicate network of institutions, which my friends were striving to understand and if possible to resuscitate.

Believe it or not, it’s actually part of the ten steps to communism, so if self-conceited socialists and “purist” Marxists claim to be against it, anyone can point out to them that it’s already in the Manifesto, specifically as steps 5 through 7:

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. …

That is perhaps the best description of state capitalism that anyone can find out there, so I have no problem letting it stand by itself. Red China’s version is not really different, since any foreign companies that do business over there have to really give the state part-ownership of their property, which over there translates to total ownership by the state eventually.

Therefore, nobody can say that is not where Lenin got his ideas. As he openly stated back in 1918:

Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory.

Any self-described socialist or communist that claims that state capitalism is not part of their agenda is obviously lying. Even Friedrich Engels contradicted himself by claiming that state capitalism would be a final stage of bourgeoisie power and then, in the Manifesto, clearly outlining it as a necessary part of a communistic revolution.

Lovely Roger Scruton piece, thanks for posting. Here "Democracy" refers to the principle of representative government, of course, a loose but popular usage that does not differentiate between a democracy and a republic as actual governmental structure. That there are prerequisites for representative government is well-known, but here, for a change, we actually get to see them, or Scruton's version, and decide how far the United States is down the road with constitutional government fading in the dusty distance.

...democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions.

Well, then, how do we measure up?

First among them is judicial independence.

A court system may be corrupt and still independent, which is, I think, an optimistic view of present-day America. There will always be attempts to re-form the Supreme Court to reflect the Executive will; that is built into the system. And the phenomena of judge-shopping and jury-rigging tug at the very roots of the system. This pillar of Democracy still stands, I think, albeit battered and never out of danger.

Then there is the institution of property rights.

It is astonishing how far this country has proceeded on the road to hell in this regard: doctrines of eminent domain, confiscatory property taxation, confiscation of cash and property with no due process under anti-drug policies, and arbitrary and unconstitutional land seizures under the rubric of environmental policy, are currently the law of the land. No points at all here.

Then there is freedom of speech and opinion.

"Hate" speech laws, anyone? We have an entire public relations industry operating with the complete cooperation of the media whose sole purpose is to purge the citizens' mouths, and by extension, their minds, of terms that may hinder their molding into obedient little government drones. How far we have proceeded down this particular road to hell is witnessed this week in the apparently serious calls for federal prosecution of a fellow wearing a rubber mask in the likeness of the President. That is likely to be hooted out of the public eye, but the fact that it is possible at all speaks very poorly for freedom of expression.

This, however ludicrous, would be inconceivable were it not for present and very active policies of the federal government in (1) collecting every possible electronic intelligence datum on everyone, (2) using the machinery of federal taxation to suppress dissent through the IRS, the SEC, the EPA, and (3) deliberate campaigns within the popular media to suppress, distort, misdirect, and abuse criticism of the current administration's policies both foreign and domestic. No points at all here, either.

Finally, there is legitimate opposition.

This, unfortunately, is moribund between the two principal parties of the United States federal government at this time. It is not dead - the defeat of most of the wilder gun control demands of late is an encouraging sign - but resistance to the more radical progressive demands does not, I think, come even close to representing their rejection on the part of the public whose opinions are supposedly represented. The danger is not so much in such abominations as 0bamacare, which was passed strictly on party lines, but on the acceptance or lack of resistance to subtler threats such as dictatorial edicts from virtually every department and agency in the Executive: the EPA, the IRS, the SEC, the Homeland Security organs, the Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, and the department named with Orwellian irony, "Justice". These are operating in lockstep with but a single purpose in mind: everything, absolutely everything must be regulated. Opposition to this steady descent into a police state appears nowhere within the government whose nominal purpose is to protect against it. Opposition to it is dispersed, marginalized, cursed, ridiculed, systematically repressed.

But it exists, and it is not weak. Should the government continue to proceed along these lines with as little self-control as we have seen of late we may well be at the "alter or abolish" point, and I am speaking as soberly as I know how.

I am sure I have only touched on these points and others here with greater learning will expand, correct, and admonish as they see fit. This, at least, is still possible. For now.

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.