Is
America a democracy? This is a question that I have heard time and again
through out my life. One occurrence has stood out in my memory. Once while
studying at the University library I remember over hearing a conversation
between two young girls, well I suppose more of an argument about this question.
In the end one of the two insisted that America was not a Democracy, but
instead was a Republic.
I
doubt that she understood the definition of a Republic. That it included any
state that was absent a monarch and whose government was a matter of public not
private concern. This included nations like the United States that maintains
universal suffrage allowing all members of the public to play at least a small
role in the operations of the government. Of course the definition of a
republic is on the other hand very broad. It would also include a nation
such a Russia.
It
is hard to argue that Russia is a democracy. Its elections are highly corrupt and constantly challenged by internal and external organizations.
According to the website, freedomhouse.org, Russia has no freedom in the Press
and only limited access to the Internet. In the US we enjoy complete freedom of
expression through a free press and uncensored access to the Internet. The
greatest fear our people experience when heading to a voting booth is that of having
to wait in a long line. In Russia, and many other countries, voting comes with the fear of repression and threats of abuse, incarceration, and torture at the hands of local authorities.
In the US all of these freedoms are made possible by one key aspect of our form of
government, The Rule of Law. I mentioned this idea before in a post I wrote
about Chen Guangchengs the self taught Lawyer and activist of recent fame. It
is an important idea, which many Americans have become hostile to over the
passing years. Americans seem to be hardwired to oppose all forms authority
they view as external to their individual lives. Even when the law in question
may be for the exact purpose of preventing other individuals from restricting
their individual rights or in many cases may be necessary in terms of the public
good.
In
the end there is a great deal going on behind the question I posed at the
beginning of this post. Too much I feel for a single post, so it is my humble intention
to write a series of posts on the subject over the next few weeks. For now I
will leave you with a quote from Aristotle’s Politics. Feel free to leave your own thoughts in the comment
section about this quote:
“But
one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular
principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if
this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be
sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute
justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share;
so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the
rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is
sovereign (Aristotle’s Politics 1317b).”
Looking forward to your thoughts as I start this series. Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment