Why Democracy is Dangerous

Of all the words in English, or any other language, the most misunderstood in modern times is democracy. To the ancient Greeks, it meant “rule by the people,” a form of government where citizens of city-states decide their own fate. To modern scholars and bureaucrats in the West, democracy is a panacea, a one-size-fits-all form of government recommended for everyone around the globe. In order to gain a better understanding of how dangerous this line of thinking really is, we must examine the major pitfalls of this system, along with the requirements for a democracy to function effectively.

Democracy can easily become tyranny

Among the most qualified men to comment on democracy was America’s fourth president, James Madison. A principal architect of the American Constitution, Madison was well versed on the topic, having absorbed a multitude of books written by scholars in ancient Greece and Rome. A polymath who understood human psychology, Madison knew that qualities such as ego and vindictiveness cloud the judgement of every citizen in a given society. That is why he made the following observation in Federalist #51, a document written in support of his proposed constitution.

It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

To grasp this principle, so eloquently put forth by Madison, we can examine what happens in the aftermath of a “democratic election” in a society that has not undergone a religious reformation and a political Enlightenment. When the devout citizens of such a society are encouraged to participate in free elections, the results always confound Western observers.

In 2006, the US and the European Union (EU) spent months promoting a legislative election in Gaza and the West Bank. Washington provided millions of dollars in foreign aid to build infrastructure in Palestinian territories while the EU sent numerous observers to ensure that the election process was free and fair.  When the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, emerged as the victor of these elections in Gaza, everyone in Washington and Brussels appeared shocked. What followed was a predictable repression of secular opponents of the new regime in Gaza. The usual pundits tried to explain why an extremist party like Hamas had defeated the Western backed Mahmoud Abbas and the PLO. It was as if no one in Washington or Brussels understood that democracy without liberalism is the worst form of tyranny since the majority will always vote based on their religious beliefs.

Another example to highlight the ignorance of Western academics, analysts and policymakers on the topic of democracy occurred between 2010 and 2012. This time, a reliable Western ally was abandoned in Cairo. Similar to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back in 1979, Hosni Mubarak was discarded for another “people’s revolution” destined to usher in an era of freedom in the Middle East after the “Arab Spring.”

The results were as predictable as they were disastrous. The so-called Democratic Alliance, under the leadership of Mohammad Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) emerged as the overall winner. Western academics and pundits were flummoxed once more. Many among them evolved into full scale apologists for the MB, denying that the organization ever supported Islamic extremism. 

One result of the new atmosphere of majority rule in those heady days was an uptick in violence against Egypt’s Coptic Christian community. Church bombings and beheadings of Christians escalated for months in anticipation of the new Islamic regime. Unfortunately, none of the foreign sponsors of the Egyptian election had taken the time to “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” Without the intervention of the Egyptian military, Cairo would surely have become another state sponsor of terrorism, similar to its Shia rival in Tehran.

Democracy requires an informed and an enlightened citizenry

The narrative that democracy is the apotheosis of governing systems and the ultimate destiny of all nations gained new traction at the conclusion of the Cold War. The death of the Soviet Union was the final nail in the coffin of global communism in 1991. Many felt that this was “the end of history” and all nation states would sooner or later become democracies. Even more enthusiastic factions in the United States felt it was America’s duty to export this form of government around the globe. It is ironic that the American proponents of exporting democracy had forgotten the following admonition by James Madison.

A people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.

We need look no further than the example of Germany during the late Weimar Republic to prove this point. In the aftermath of the Great Depression and the resulting mass unemployment, many ordinary Germans decided to gamble. They bet on a man who had promised to bring jobs, prosperity, strength, and respect for Germany. The year was 1933, and the man was Adolph Hitler. His National Socialist Party (NSDAP) won nearly 44% of the popular vote in the last free election of the Weimar Republic. History would soon reveal what was waiting in store for those who voted for the Nazis, and for all German people. Misery, war, death, destruction, and the scorn of the international community was what credulous Germans received in exchange for their vote. The party represented by the man with the funny mustache who delivered hair raising speeches was the devil in disguise.

More interesting still is that Germany before 1933 was considered the most educated and culturally sophisticated society in the world. Yet, the majority of voters did not have the time to dig deeper into Nazi ideology. Most people who voted for the Nazis had likely not taken the time to read Main Kampf. Hitler’s autobiography contained clues about his impulse for war and genocide. Would German voters in 1933 make the same decision having had the ability to predict the rubble that replaced their great cities a mere twelve years later, in 1945? Probably not, but the example of Germany only highlights the dangers of democracy blindly exported to societies where political tolerance, a prerequisite for democracy, has not taken root.

 Conclusion

The 20th and early 21st centuries are replete with examples of wars fought to export democracy. Indeed, the argument has been made that if every country was a democracy, there would be no more wars. This line of reasoning comes from the school of “democracies never go to war against each other.” Of course, the NATO war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 and the 2020 Armenia-Azerbaijan war over Nagorno-Karabakh lay that theory to rest. Similar to fine wine, democracy is something that must develop over a long period of time. In Western Europe, the process began with the Protestant Reformation. It evolved slowly over five centuries through the Enlightenment, the English Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the extension of the franchise to women in the 20th century.

As long as people outside the West are coerced to accept democracy as a condition for receiving loans from the World Bank or joining the WTO, they will never deem this style of government as their own. The best thing Western government and NGOs can do to advance the struggle for democracy is to encourage concepts of political tolerance, respect for the rule of law, and reformation in regions of the world where religion determines the outcome of politics. Time will take care of the rest.

MJ Javani is the author of the Janusz Soltani series espionage novels available on Amazon.