“THE ANATOMY OF DEMOCRACY”
A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear
Sunday,
All
There are few concepts as simple as democracy. It means, simply, that the people rule. There are no kings or emperors, no nobility at the top of government. The people rule. What could be more straightforward and uncomplicated than that?
Of course, it isn’t quite that simple. In truth, in practice, in the real world beyond the world of mere theory, democracy is something that is very, very fuzzy.
In practice there are many forms of democracy – from our essentially two party system of President and Congress to European systems of multi-parties and Prime Ministers and Parliaments. Each of these and dozens of other forms found in diverse countries have their own advantages and disadvantages. And of course no democracy works flawlessly. The simple fact, for example, that in our country only a minority of eligible voters actually choose the winner raises some question about to what extent the people actually rule. When only a minority participate, the claim of democracy – that the people rule – is a fairly fuzzy claim.
This week we go to the polls for an important election, a “mid-term” election, as it is called, which has potential for re-charting the course our country has been going for some time. It is not my intention this morning to address the many issues we face – though I may touch on a few before I’m done. Nor is it my intention to assess specific candidates – which is something that is not inappropriate for me to do at a Sunday service in my role. I am more interested today in looking at the process of democratic elections as we experience them in this country.
It seems to me that however simple the concept may seem to us in theory, there is very little about it in practice that is simple. The process of democracy is fuzzy. It is complicated, fragile, and uncertain. As I consider the topic as we experience, it seems to me that one can draw important distinctions about what we mean by democracy.
When we speak of “democracy” we sometimes are referring to the “democratic process.” Other times we are referring to something less specific and more encompassing which might be called “the spirit of democracy.” Still other times, some people have identified an even broader principle called the “democratic faith.” These three perspectives – the democratic process, the spirit of democracy, and democratic faith – are not, to my mind, the same thing.
“Democratic
process,” of course, refers to the institutional system we adopt to allow
popular rule. Our system of
representative democracy, of elections, is not pure democracy – it is a
practical and limited democracy. Pure
democracy was illustrated by ancient
But pure democracy has its own problems. For one thing, there is little that would make such public officials accountable to the people at large, for their decisions are not subject to recall by an electorate, since there are no elections.
For that and
other reasons, mostly very practical ones, all modern democracies have adopted varying
forms of representative democracies, with public official chosen by votes of
the people. Elections tend to fuzzy-up
the concept of democracy, and generate problems and uncertainties. There is a long-standing debate, for example,
over whether elected representatives are put in office because people respect
their judgment and want them to make the policy decisions, or whether
representatives are sent to do the bidding of the electorate. Should our legislators support a given policy
in
Also, there are times when democracy, frankly, not an appropriate way to make decisions. I’m not sure I would want to go into an operating room for surgery, and have the medical decisions made by a vote of everyone who knows me. Nor would I want to be flying in an airplane where the passengers vote on how the plane should be flown. Democratic theory does not permit expert opinions to affect policy decisions. Where is that line to be drawn? Should we vote on whether life begins at conception? Should the “experts” be trusted to decide about environmental policies affected global warming? The process of democracy is fuzzy.
It seems to me, though, that some of the fuzziness we find in the democratic process can find clarification (to some extent) by considering, instead of the process, the “spirit” of democracy.
The “spirit of democracy,” it seems to me, is something a bit easier to pin down, especially as it has been shaped by the American tradition. The spirit of democracy is found in the defining document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence. The heart and soul of our nation is summed up in these words penned by Thomas Jefferson:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles. . . .”
That is the spirit of democracy which we affirm it in this country. Those words have often been called the “American Creed.” They were adopted in 1776, and thirteen years later, after a bloody war of revolution, a Constitution was crafted to prepare a process that would give practical form to the spirit of democracy enshrined by those words.
Based on those words, the spirit of democracy is grounded in a commitment to three things: to equality, to individual human freedom, and to powers derived by consent of the governed. Any process that promotes those values serves democracy. Any process that inhibits those values obstructs democracy. Equality, individual human freedom, and power derived from consent of the governed: such a perspective begins to clarify some of the fuzziness which is found in promoting any specific process as democratic.
If we take these principles, what I’m calling the “spirit of democracy, as our guide, we might be able to see some areas where our system, our democratic process, seems be going awry. Some of these are becoming bellwether issues in our elections.
For example, the “spirit of democracy” absolutely requires protection of minority rights and protection of civil liberties. From a simple “process” point of view, if democracy means simply “the people rule” then the people have a right to enact anything they want. They can establish a certain religion as the official religion of the country, and outlaw any others. They can enact laws which deny equal rights to homosexuals or any other category of citizen, as long as the majority vote on it. As a process, that majority decision may seem democratic. But such decisions would violate the very heart of the democratic spirit. The spirit of democracy protects individual human freedom, and one segment of citizenry may not oppress another segment, even if the majority endorses it. Democracy may mean “majority rule,” but without protection of minority rights the democratic spirit is dead.
This is what William Ellery Channing meant in 1842 when he said that “the primary, fundamental act required of a people is, that it shall lay such restraints on its own powers as will give the best security against their abuse. This is the highest purpose of a constitution.”
Whatever the democratic system may permit, the “spirit of democracy” requires that individual rights be enshrined in constitutional protection, and that the majority cannot alter those protected rights. In this country, constitutional protections are guarded by the judiciary, which is designed to be independent of politics. That is why it seems so dangerous to me when legislation is proposed from time to time to deny to the courts jurisdiction over specific issues of human rights. Recently, for example, politicians have been trying to deny courts the jurisdiction for deciding about same-sex marriage rights. To shift protection of human rights from the courts to the legislatures is a fundamental violation of the spirit of democracy. Channing also observed that “The great evil to be feared in popular government (meaning “democracy”) is. . . the sacrifice of great principles in momentary impulses.”
Another recent affront on the spirit of democracy is the relationship under our system between money and politics.
For example, we the people have become increasingly shocked by the corrupting influence of political lobbyists. We have been disgusted by the exposure of blatant exchange of various monetary and other favors for votes. Nothing could be further from the spirit of democracy than a system which allows our elected representatives to be given travel junkets, expensive dinners, golf retreats, or for that matter even campaign contributions, from those who are seeking their vote on crucial issues. It is an affront to our democratic commitment to equal citizenship and to government by the people, to have influence be bought and sold by favors.
I hasten to add that this is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of limiting power and democratizing influence. That in 2006 the issue seems to stick more to the Republicans than Democrats is simply because the Republicans have held the bulk of the political power for some time. Most commentators with any insight have pointed out that when the Democrats had held the lion's share of power in the Congress and the White House for a long time, we saw the same kind influence peddling by political lobbyists. The problem isn’t party – the problem is that power tends to corrupt, and our system has few protections against that kind of corruption of power. It is time to create protections against the corruptions of influence peddling by lobbyists.
Closely tied to this, a similar insult to the spirit of democracy is the way we finance elections. There is little question, and I think any politician speaking candidly would agree, that money is the single most important factor in getting elected in this country. Again, this is a violation of the democratic spirit of equality and popular government. In American elections from city council to President, most elected officials owe their job to those who paid for their campaign more than any other factor.
Again, this is not partisan; it is equally true of both parties. It is an assault on the spirit of democracy to continue to allow elections to be determined primarily by those who are able to buy the candidate. It doesn’t matter whether it is the Chamber of Commerce or the United Auto Workers. It doesn’t matter whether the money comes from a right-wing millionaire or a left-wing millionaire.
These two problems taken together – influence peddling and campaign finance – seem to me to show that we are in danger of losing our democracy to a “plutocracy.” A “plutocracy” is government by the wealthy. It means government by whoever is able to purchase the election. Unless something is done to change course, I fear we are on the road to that destiny.
I have said that the democratic process is almost always “fuzzy,” uncertain. I have also said how paying attention to what is meant by the “sprit of democracy” can clarify some of that fuzziness.
There is yet another way of clarifying the fuzziness of the “democratic process,” and that is understanding what is sometimes called the “democratic faith.”
It is appropriate, in a setting such as our church, to revisit the values of the democratic method. The democratic value is deeply ingrained in our religious tradition. Among the seven principles that shape the by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist Association, is this:
"To affirm and promote the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large."
From our very beginnings as a religious movement, we have affirmed this democratic process. Our congregations are governed by that system, and even the denomination is not designed hierarchically, but rather with each congregation having its own autonomy and self-government. Unitarianism developed in this country simultaneous with the country itself, and it is deliberately affirming of the democratic principles that shaped our nation. It is no coincidence that Jefferson and Adams were both Unitarians.
Our religious heritage is grounded in the value of individual freedom of belief, and the practical implementation of freedom in a society of people, whether congregational or national, is democracy. Democracy is the political counterpart of freedom.
Historians of religion in this country sometimes have spoken of what they call "the democratic faith." I think there is good reason to think of democracy as a form of faith. Faith happens when we have confidence in something when we don't know entirely for certain that it will work. We have faith that our car will get us where we are going. Sometimes the faith fails us. We have faith that the educational system will do well with our children. There are times when that faith isn't justified. Yet we cannot live without some kind of faith in things which may not work completely right.
Democracy relies upon a belief in equality: that every person deserves an equal voice in decision-making. Such conviction requires a kind of faith. I know, for example, that my point of view on certain issues is the right point of view! On issues from abortion rights to tax reform, I know I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong! But a belief in democracy transcends any personal conviction on issues. It says that regardless of how certain I might be on an issue, more important than my opinion is the right of each person to their opinion and to be able to express it. It involves a faith that respect for each individual is of more value than any personal opinion. Sometimes my point of view will lose -- in fact often my point of view loses -- yet I have faith that the method of democracy is more important than the triumph of my opinion on any single issue.
This is true in any democratic setting, in churches as well as in nations. In my nearly 20 years of closely observing church dynamics, I have to say my deepest respect goes to those people who express a point of view, who lose when an issue is voted, and remain devoted to the congregation and the institution in spite of not getting their way. This is the embodiment of the democratic faith. Sure, there are some issues of principle that may be too big for some people to accept in good conscience, but that happens very, very rarely. My admiration is for those who demonstrate a democratic faith -- a loyalty to the process which transcends any loyalty to a specific position on any one issue. They know that their voice is important to the overall process, and if their opinion doesn't prevail this time, it will at some other time. In either case, their opinion has value for the whole group.
Democracy, therefore, also relies on a faith in freedom -- that differing points of view are a benefit, not a detriment, to the health of society. The central point of this faith is a belief that truth will emerge if different ideas are encouraged, and truth will be smothered if different views are prohibited. It is faith in what might be called "the marketplace of ideas," believing that there is some kind of "invisible hand" which operates, when ideas are given unfettered freedom, to guide us to the right conclusions.
We don't know this for certain, of course. It may be that some very bad ideas do win in a democratic process. In fact we know that has happened and does happen. Slavery was once democratically accepted in this country. Hitler came to power through a democratic process. Prohibition, McCarthyism, forced relocation of Native Americans, segregation in the South -- there are many very bad ideas that have won at some point in a democratic system.
But the faith of the democratic "faith" is that the good will more likely and more often triumph through democracy than through any other method. Most of these very bad policies were overturned precisely because democracy allowed them to be overturned. Faith, as I said, is having confidence in something when we don't know entirely that it will work. Sometimes it doesn't work, but the faith allows us to stay with it until it does -- or until times and opinions change to merit a "new" answer.
This faith in freedom operates in any democratic setting, in churches as well as in nations. As Unitarian Universalists, we affirm our faith in a free search for truth -- to seek the truth in love, as we say at All Souls. This may mean that there are people among us who have found different truths than we have -- whether it be Christian-based, humanist-based, Buddhist-based, New Age-based, or something of their own making. What keeps us together is a common affirmation of that freedom, and a deeply held faith that freedom is the most effective and reliable path to truth. At All Souls, that common affirmation, that sense of community -- that this democratic religious institution offers us -- is what makes us strong and able to flourish now for over 100 years.
It is that same sense that has allowed our country to flourish over more than two hundred years. I speak of the spirit of democracy – a commitment to equality of citizenship and a commitment to individual liberty that underlies a faith in majority rule. Democracy is fragile and uncertain, but our commitment to the spirit of democracy beyond the simple process will help protect democracy from its inherent flaws.
Our political system is a faith – a faith that freedom is the most effective and reliable path to justice. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. spoke of that faith in his book “The Disuniting of America.” Here are his words, with which I’ll close:
“When
we talk of the American democratic faith, we must understand it in its true
dimensions. It is not an impervious,
final, and complacent orthodoxy, intolerant of deviation and dissent, fulfilled
in flag salutes, oaths of allegiance, and hands over the heart. It is an ever-evolving philosophy, fulfilling
its ideals through debate, self-criticism, protest, disrespect, and
irreverence; a tradition in which all have rights of heterodoxy and
opportunities for self-assertion. The
(American) Creed has been the means by which Americans have haltingly but
persistently narrowed the gap between performance and principle. It is what all Americans should learn,
because it is what binds all Americans together.
READING from William Ellery Channing
“The Duty of the
1842
[This is a very
lengthy essay in opposition to slavery.
In the essay Channing offers a critique of democracy, saying that
protections of individual liberty cannot be violated by popular will.]
Democracy, considered in itself, is the noblest form of government, and the only one to satisfy a man who respects himself and his fellow creatures. But if its actual operation be regarded, we are compelled to say that it works very imperfectly. It is true of people, as it is of king and nobles, that they have no great capacity of government. They ought not to exult at the thought of being rulers, but to. . . tremble at this function of government, exercise it with self-distrust, and be humbled by the defects of their administration.
One of the first lessons to be taught to a people in a democracy is self-distrust. They should learn that to rule is the most difficult work on earth: that in all ages and countries, (leaders) have sunk under the temptations and difficulties of the task; that no power is so corrupting as public power, and that none should be used with greater fear.
The great good to be sought and hoped from (democratic) institutions is, to be freed from unnecessary rule. . . . The grand good of popular institutions is liberty, or the protection of every (person’s) rights to the full, with the least possible restraint. . . . If I am to be hedged in on every side, to be fretted by the perpetual presence of arbitrary will, to be denied the exercise of my powers, it matters nothing to me whether the chain is laid on me by one or many, by king or people. A despot is not more tolerable for his many heads.
By democracy we understand that a people governs itself; and the primary, fundamental act required of a people is, that it shall lay such restraints on its own powers as will give the best security against their abuse. This is the highest purpose of a constitution. A constitution is not merely a machinery for ascertaining and expressing a people’s will, but much more a provision for keeping that will within. . . bounds. It is the act of people imposing limits on itself. . . .
The great evil to be feared in a popular government is instability, or the sacrifice of great principles in momentary impulses. A constitution which does not apply checks and restraints to these perils cannot stand. . . .
I want as little government as consists with safety to the rights of all. I wish the people to govern no farther than they must. I wish them to place all checks on the legislature which consist with its efficiency. I honor the passion for power and rule as little in the people as in a king. It is a vicious principle, exist where it may. This language (may) not win me the name of Democrat. (But) if by democracy be meant the exercise of sovereignty by the people under all those provisions and self-imposed restraints which tend most to secure equal laws and the rights of each and all, then I shall be proud to bear its name. But the unfettered multitude is not dearer to me than the unfettered king.