Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom foundation has an excellent article in the Chicago Sun-Times about the distinction between democracy and liberty, a point I make regularly and loudly on this blog. Richman writes:
But it would be a mistake to equate democratic procedures with freedom, which the Bush administration and many others are eager to do. There is a big difference between democracy and freedom. In fact, democracy can be, and has been, the engine of freedom's destruction.Definitions matter. What is democracy? Literally, it means that the people rule. But what does that mean? The 19th century French political philosopher Benjamin Constant identified two notions of liberty: one ancient, one modern. The ancient notion held that liberty lay in the right to participate in the democratic process, to cast one's vote. In this way the polity freely carried out its will, regardless of the impositions on individuals. The majority could even determine the society's religious practices. Ultimately, this is a collectivist version of liberty. The freedom of the individual may not thwart the "will" of the group.
In contrast, Constant wrote, the modern notion of liberty is individualistic. It denotes the right to conduct one's own affairs, to control one's property, to practice whatever religion one wishes (or none at all), and so on. Participation in the political process is one rather minor aspect of this liberty; after all, what means more in the everyday lives of most people: voting or controlling their own persons and property?
Those two conceptions of democracy are in conflict, and they always have been. In the contest between liberty and democracy, I choose liberty every time. That's why I reject the majoritarian arguments from social conservatives complaining about "unelected judges" taking away their "right" to tell other people what they can do with their lives.
- Log in to post comments
I think there is a cultural component to the concept of liberty and democracy. In my admittedly naive and not extremely educated opinion, it seems to me that eastern philosophies tend to value the good of society over the good of the individual, while western political philosophies value the good of the individual, not necessarily at the expense of society, but over an abstract concept of "social good." However, the current republican philosophy appears to be more eastern in nature, since they believe that the rights of the individual should be compromised for the good of society.
The constitutional experiment from which we have tried to understand our relationship to our "self" governing, requires a component long lost on most of the US population. Inherent in the concepts of civil liberties is the premise that individuals would comprehend their responsibilities towards others, and act just so. Likewise the processes of this democratic republic require responsibility as well at every level of participation. Citizens need to be responsible: for acquiring the essential information to vote, for actually voting, and for accepting and obeying, within the implied and explicit contexts, all the laws. Representatives have fundamental responsibilities to provide accurate and honest representation as well as participate to their fullest extents. It seems to me that only a very small minority of the US population is acting responsibly in any of these roles. We are not holding our elected officials responsible for their actions, nor are we holding our fellow citizens responsible for their failure to vote. Many it seems are ignoring the responsibilities of liberty through infringing upon those of others for personal gain(how else could one describe the rampant proselytizing disguised as "moral values" legislation?).