TR EMERITUS

“Why do democracies fail?”

That subject has been asked a lot in recent years, in books, on opinion pages and news broadcasts, and in an increasingly tense public discussion. But nearly invariably, I find myself responding to the question with another: Why shouldn’t they?

Democracy is uncommon and transitory, according to history, which is the only accurate reference we have on the subject. It appears to flare up almost unexpectedly at some fortunate location and then fade out just as abruptly. Genuine democracy is difficult to acquire and unstable once obtained. It is the exception, not the rule, in the vast picture of human events.

Our democracy is not so much a positive driver for good governance rather a protection against an extremely bad one. Plato, in his still provocative “Republic,” provides a framework for five types of government: aristocracy (rule by the “best”, that is, experts trained at governance), timarchy (rule by military honors), oligarchy (rule by a wealthy minority), tyranny (rule by a despot answerable to no one but himself) and democracy (rule by the people as a whole—a “mob” as Plato saw it), and while not all fall into these categories, they all contribute to our political systems.

Despite its complexities, the core premise of democracy is deceptively simple: everyone should have an equal voice in how society as a whole conducts itself. According to Paul Woodruff’s 2006 book “First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea,” “in democracy as it ought to be,” “all adults are free to chime in, to join the
conversation about how they should arrange their lives together.” Nobody has total power, which breeds misuse and arrogance. Is it really necessary to think any farther than that? But who is to say ‘they’ aren’t reasonable?

It doesn’t help that once such an individual has been enthroned, everyone else is eager to surrender to him. It’s as if they suddenly understand how much freedom they have in his distinguished presence. As long as man is free, there is no more persistent or agonizing care than finding someone to kneel down to as soon as possible, proclaims the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov.” And what a sweet surrender! Alexander, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, and Mussolini were all outstanding political seducers, crowd-pleasers, and smooth talkers throughout history. The fact that once such a guy is enthroned, others would gladly submit to him does not help matters.

Their interaction with the audience was especially close. For whenever power is wielded and displayed in such regimes, the consequence is immensely erotic. People, for example, appear to be in a state of collective pleasure. The seducer’s declarations may be hollow, even stupid, but that doesn’t matter because each one takes the aroused audience to greater heights of ecstasy. He may now do whatever he wants with his enthralled followers. They will give in to any of their master’s desires.

This is the human milieu in which the democratic concept emerges. It’s no surprise that it’s a losing battle. Genuine democracy does not make extravagant promises, seduces or charms, but rather aspires to a certain level of human decency. It’s not erotic at all. It is a frigid affair in comparison to what happens in populist administrations. Who in their right mind would choose the mundane obligations of democracy to the quick gratification provided by a demagogue? Frigidity over limitless ecstasy? Despite this, the democratic principle has come near to being realized a few times throughout history – moments of grace when humanity almost managed to surprise itself.

That is ultimately what democracy is about: an ideal that people seek to put into practice on occasion. Never fully and never for long — always clumsily and timidly, as if on trial. It is one of those elusive things, along with happiness, whose promise, even if it is always postponed, is more significant than its actuality. We might never achieve it, but we cannot afford to give up on our dreams. A deeper worry is that even the will of a majority may have little or no influence on how the country is governed.

Sjorne Shen

8 Responses to “Tyranny Of The Mob”