The Futility of True Democracy

By Matthew Clark

Democracy is like a fire blazing in a woodstove. Contain the fire in a woodstove and the benefits are enormous. Heated house, well cooked food, boiled water for coffee, tea, or even washing. Nevertheless let the fire out of the stove and it will destroy everything in it's path until it runs out of fuel!

As most of us know democracy commenced in ancient Athens during Greece's classical age. There is much to admire in how the Athenians of classical Greece conducted themselves. Certainly the idea of individual liberty is the finest contribution man has made to civilization. Yet despite their heightened ideas of participatory democracy the citizens of Athens voted in 339 B.C. to force the exceptional teacher Socrates to consume hemlock (poison) for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens. Clearly individual freedom had collided with democracy in ancient Greece with popular direct democracy winning. Death was the result!

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D. both liberty and democracy dissolved in the Western World. In the rest of the world neither idea have ever been practiced. Thus political rule throughout the globe fell into the hands of brutes. Only the benign determination of God alleviated some of the malevolent dictates exercised by the political hierarchy.

Starting in the 13th century a political trend away from coercive statute began. 1215 (The Great Charter, Magna Carta) saw the initiation of jury law, where one was judged not by king but by one's peers. Edward 1st, monarch of England, called the first Parliament (The Model Parliament) in 1295. This Parliament was comprised of a legislature of common man (House of Commons). Quickly Sovereigns in other lands called Parliaments of their own, giving voice to freemen within their borders. Following this progression the Renaissance was launched where Europeans adopted a deep admiration for classical culture. That admiration encouraged an enthusiasm for individual liberty. At that point it became inevitable, given human nature, that crown and subject would come into conflict.

In the 1600's the Dutch rejected monarchy in favour of a Republic. Interestingly they limited the Stadholders (national political leader) powers, indeed put in measures that allowed the Stadholder to be replaced, yet did not rely on democracy to do so.

Meanwhile the Scots rebelled against the monarch (The Prayer Book War) in the 1630's. In the 1640's Britain fell into civil war in order to limit the kings dictate. Parliamentary forces, representing the people triumphed. Sadly autocratic rule by the king was replaced by authoritarian rule of Parliament. Upon the triumph of the peoples legislature the king was executed, followed by the establishment of a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. Democracies conquest had led to tyranny!

Almost four decades later, after a monarchy had been re-established, the British fell into insurrection once again, this time resulting in successful revolution. On this occasion the rebels focused on recognizing individual liberty for the common man, as eloquently articulated by John Locke. What was the result of this action? Over the next two hundred and fifty years the attainment of wealth and empire achieved by no power previously in recorded history.

Almost a century later settlers in the New World took up arms against their political masters (ironically located in London, England). A bloody eight year war was waged to free the colonists living in the (now) United States from the Monarchial and Parliamentary lawmakers in London. Ultimately successful, the leaders of the new Revolutionary nation set up a new political order which would recognize, similar to the English Revolution, the individual rights of all citizens, in perpetuity! To do this these men (historically referred to as 'The Founding Fathers') relied on an armed citizenry (the 2nd amendment), a system of checks and balances within the government, where one structure would limit another section of government, and vice versa. Republic rather than monarchy was instituted so that one man overlordship would be onerous to install.

What was not relied on to any great extent was democracy. In the original form of U.S. government there indeed was a popularly elected House of Representatives whose greatest responsibility, as it is with British Parliament, was creating and amending a budget for public authority. In the Senate every State was allowed 2 Senators, who were selected by the individual State legislators. As for the Vice-President and President, they were elected by an electoral college whose members in turn were decided by procedures enacted through each individual State (for the representation from their jurisdiction). If the electoral college could not declare a winner for President the House of Representatives voted to decide the victor. Yet the poll is not performed by total count (having 435 Representatives vote, with the candidate acquiring the greatest number triumphing), rather it is done by State(s) (If a candidate carries California by 40 votes yet loses Rhode Island and Delaware by one vote each he/she is behind 2 to 1). Later on the constitution was changed so that the appointed Senate selected the Vice-President if the electoral college could not do so.

Clearly the founding fathers had looked at past history and opted to keep their nation on a path of individual freedom rather than popular democracy. While accepting the principle "Consent of the governed" the democracy instituted into the early United States government was 'Indirect Democracy.' Peoples will was checked as was every other vehicle of government. Result: Eventually over the next 200 years achieving Wealth and Power beyond any other political entity in recorded history.

America stayed true to her founding until the civil war (1861-1865). Abraham Lincoln, while nobly emancipating black slaves, was in just about every other way an authoritarian figure. Without just cause he attempted to eradicate habeas corpus from U.S. law ( this was frustrated by the Supreme Court). He instituted an unconstitutional income tax (finally eliminated by the Supreme Court in 1872). Lincoln hated Indians, his policy towards Indians was not genocide, in his case mass murder would suffice. Lincoln despised English Canadians because they were associated with Britain, despised French Canadians because they were French, and again hated Indians in Canada because they were Indians.

Under Lincoln the U.S. federal government expanded dramatically as well as increased regulation in an unprecedated manner. Yet after his assassination subsequent administrations over the next twenty years undid a large percentage of Lincoln's actions. Intrusive government was all but abandoned, while regulations, until the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of the 1890's, were miminal.

The path of no return for the United States commenced in 1913 when the Senate became a popularly elected body. Since that time unchecked democracy has run amok, as has the United States govenment, whose bureaucracy has exploded in size and power. It is now, in this contemporary age, the largest predator/parasite against it's own citizenry (terrorists are pikers compared to the American government). It is also the number one devourer against other nationals. True democracy has led to malevolent oppression.

In Britain the point of no return commenced when George V agreed to limit the House of Lords ability to vetoe legislation passed by the House of Commons. Since that pre WWI event Great Britain has morphed into the (Dis)United Kingdom. She has lost her empire, impoverished her people, bankrupted the government, corrupted her legal system, all and all turning everyday life in the U.K. into a dystopian farce (raising the nations flag is now considered a racist act by the current Starmer administration).

Popular democracy. as in any unlimited human endeavor, leads to tyrannical behaviour. In the case of true democracy counter productive behaviour is exhibited by both political leader(s) and participatory citizen. You, the reader doubts this? Put under scrutiny every U.K. government since 1997, every U.S. administration since 1988, the dystopian Prime Ministership of Canada's Justin Trudeau, Emmanual Macron's pedophillac internship as President of France. All of these malignant national political rulers, along with those of many more unnamed (in this article) nations, are the products of true (direct) democracy.

If we the people are to remedy the pathologies infecting our nations we must practice impulse control. Consent of the governed must be achieved through indirect democracy, combined with checks and balances installed in every facet of the administration of government. It is our best hope to create the condition of Government for the people by the people!

References:

University of Wisconsin-Madison

wisc.pb.unizin.org/ps160/chapter/7-2-madison-on-democracy/

Amicus Curia, Series 2, Volume 4, No.3

522-577 (2023) Montesquieus Theory of Separation of Powers, Legislative Flexibility and Judicial Restraint in an Unwritten Constitution, Zia Akhtar-Grays Inn and Coventry University