8 March 2009

One thing Conservatives have been criticized for lately, with justification, is the desire to spread representative democracy throughout the world, at almost any cost.  This may sound nice, but representative democracy is not so easy to achieve as it might appear when one begins from the assumption that everyone desires freedom and personal rights.  Maybe they do, but, lacking experience with them, they also lack the understanding of the discipline it involves to  live with them.  So, perhaps, one might suggest, might we, despite our long experience with it.

I would suggest two serious threats that face a start up democracy and both have to do with discipline. 

Once a directive or paternalistic form of government disappears and is replaced by one where everyone is permitted to express opinions there turn out to be a large number of them, often passionately held.  That causes problems because the new democrats think that the government should honor theirs - now - and that's not realistic, resulting in extreme cases in anarchy, which is the end game for democracy without discipline, or at least gridlock.  The antidote is compromise, and compromise is difficult under any circumstances to pursue, much less achieve; we in America have been working hard lately to prove just how difficult.  Anarchy or gridlock are the major challenges to democracy.

Anarchy is disfunctional and beckons to anyone who thinks he can replace it with a one man strongman rule that can regain order, generally beginning (in these days) with the strong man getting himself elected democratically and then easing his way into less restrictive power.  Sometimes, perhaps most often, this was the intent in the first place.  But not always.  Democracy, with all its competing opinions, is chaotic, and can result in great difficulty in getting anything done.  Many, with more paternalistic proclivities find this frustrating; most of those  come from a military background of hierarchial discipline.

Gridlock can occur even with a relatively functional democratic process and plays to the ego that is so prevalent among those that seek power.  He who achieves power through democratic means and becomes frustrated with its inability to achieve the ends he desires because of the swirling controversies he is unable to control, can begin to believe that he is the only one capable of dealing with them.  To do so, of course, requires him to dissolve the controversy.  And once having done that, he cannot see relinquishing return to the gridlock he is sure will ensue - for the good of his country, of course.

The result is the same, but so is the cause: democracy requires discipline - but patience as well; not all have either, and when chaos or frustration are accompanied by opportunity, few with the requisite egos are able to restrain themselves.  Examples are legion.

Democracy, and the chaos that inevitably surrounds it, is an acquired taste.  As the king of Saudi Arabia suggested when pressed to move more aggressively toward it, beware of what you wish for.  One might even question whether it can last, but we need put that away for another time.