The Biden administration has thus far pivoted its foreign policy narrative on ideology, namely vis-á-vis the other two superpowers, Russia and China. However romantic the “democracy for all” mantra may sound, the realization of its end in accordance with the connotation attributed to ‘democracy’, that is, the Western conception thereof, is practically, as much as theoretically, unattainable.
For as long as the world is comprised of a number of countries defined by borders; where the populace inhabiting a given country identify itself as a national unit distinct from those residing beyond its borders; and, such distinction has engendered a national character peculiar to each population—formed and ingrained by virtue of history, civilization and culture, and common fate, geography, as well as blood (to some extent)—; the “demos” component of the term intrinsically renders an across-border transference of models of democracy reasonably impracticable—due to incompatibility with diverse national characters—; leastways, until borders are obliterated, national characters are melted down in the crucible of universality, and these, in turn, are subsequently melded to form a universal unity of mind and heart; only then, is a universal indoctrination of democracy plausible.
Democracy is beautiful—sublime, indeed—yet imperfect. Perfection can never be an attribute of democracy. As a matter of fact, the quality of being perfect confers on democracy the ‘contra-demos’ notion of infallibility, which is far more dangerous to liberty itself than autocracies—for even autocracies admit a margin of error and allow the occurrence of mistakes a possibility, however latent this could be—in that it places the entire populace, and consequently the government it produces, under a mass illusion of inexorable correctness, let alone righteousness—which is de facto an act of self-deification; only in this case of an entire population; and, to add to the hazard, its government.
It was no other than Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, who deduced in The Federalist Papers (1788),
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions,” (Federalist, No. 51).
Thence, the only realm wherein the hypothesis of a perfect democracy looms [emphasis added] as a potentiality with promising prospects for manifestation into an actuality, is the heavenly one. But, in the heavenly realm, still, perfect democracy would fall short from potentiality—much less, actuality—as theology has made it known to us that angels were not endowed with freewill like mankind; whence came their innate state of perfection; that their only stimuli for action are God’s volition and commands, and these are perfect per se.
Hamilton was absolutely right on all accounts in this—especially, the a-posteriori recognition of the ‘necessity of auxiliary precautions’. Everyone promulgates the sunshine when talking about democracy and eschews any reference to the nightfall. One would marvel at the numerousness of errors, horrors, and atrocities authorized by, and undertaken in the name of, democracy. Shedding some light on such remorseful misconducts and applications does not implicitly turn democracy into a dysfunctional or fiend mode of governance; quite the contrary, it constructively contributes to its healthy application and functionality through learning and adjustment.
For a democracy to be authentic, it must needs be imperfect. And, granted! All-too-often, this imperfectness may result in great difficulties, irreversible mishaps, and, I would dare add, unpardonable murders.
This comes from someone who considers himself a liberal democrat; nevertheless, he remains true to himself to acknowledge the facts which were borne in history. The fervently celebrated Athenian democracy—which was democracy at its infancy—committed one of the worst, most horrific, and despicable crimes in history: it brought about the murder of the father of our moral philosophy, Socrates. The result of granting few hundred halfwits (that’s an over-compliment, really!) [emphasis added]—whose judgment was formulated on the basis of illustrated insinuations from Aristophanes’ (424 BC) comedy play, “The Clouds”—the power to decide on Socrates fate.
One must never lose sight of the truth: That despite his assured end, Socrates devotion to Athens, all its values, and everything the city stood for—democracy, which sentenced him to death, included—remained unfaltering [see Plato’s (360 BC), “Crito”]. He chose death over exile.
What about the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution? Was that in anyway ideal or true to the moral values [emphasis added] of democracy? Romanticizing the guillotine: As ‘the first born equality mechanism the revolution had introduced’. The inherent psychopathy therein is disturbingly immeasurable by any metric. Imagine having cows, goats, sheep, and calves writing poems flirting with a butcher’s knife.
Yet again, was it not democracy the very vehicle for Hitler’s ascension to power in the early ’30s of the last century?
And, in more recent times, with respect to the United States, it was the American version of democracy wherein the electoral college vote has the final say that put someone like Trump—who ended up tearing the country’s social fabric apart—and, left the country divided—in the White House.
Thereon, it would be safe to contemplate the idea that democracy is subject to error, and could render undesirable outcomes. That is, not every byproduct thereof is incontrovertibly ethical, moral, or in the best possible interest of all stakeholders. Notwithstanding all its imperfections, democracy’s sublimity springs from the partaking of the multiple threads of society knitted together in wielding their reason and might to exercise the inalienable right for self-determination in alignment with their collective character and its aspirations.
For the truth of the matter is this:
Democracy is a country-specific-peculiarity not a universally-standardized-model. When Britons had it at hand to decide on their form of rule in the mid-seventeenth century, the monarchy was preserved—and it endures till this very day. There is an innate and profound reason why the British preserved the monarchy after 1648: as it has always been deeply embedded into their perception of national character and identity. No country has more history, culture, and heritage shared with the United States than the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, one is a republic and the other is a monarchy; and the two enjoy a harmonious special relationship.
The question is: Perhaps the core democratic values persist across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, would Americans accept a comprehensive application of British democracy in the United States, in its entirety? To put it mildly, they would most definitely entertain some reservations pertaining thereto.
That being said, the Russian model of democracy—sovereign democracy, “Sovereign democracy is a “form of political life where the political powers, their authorities and decisions are decided and controlled by a diverse Russian nation for the purpose of reaching material welfare, freedom and fairness by all citizens, social groups and nationalities and by the people that formed it,” (Stent 142)—is the construct of the Russian national character, not tailored to satisfy the American character.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with, approves or disapproves of, is attracted or repulsed by, such a model of democracy; sovereign democracy is a legitimate form of democracy; if one views it with Russian spectacles; for it is a Russian-democratic-peculiarity; as well as an expression of the Russian spirit for self-determination. Otherwise, Russians would be flocking in millions out of the country—which they are not [emphasis added]. In short, for better or worse, they approve this form of democracy, so long it cultivates Russia’s potency and uphold their national pride—a sacrosanct sentiment for the Russian spirit.
In fine, it is sheer hubris and utterly futile to persist in the pursuit of an end (a universal indoctrination of democracy) that could never manifest as an eventuality. The doctrine for exporting a ‘certain version of democracy’ has to be abandoned, for should it come to fruition, it would inevitably distort the very spirit of democracy, which revolves around the defined national character particular to each demos (the people in any selected country). It is never too late to pull the plug on this counterproductive narrative, and redirect it towards the things that truly matter i.e. capabilities.
Simply put, an ideological rhetoric creates a great vacuum for miscalculation to hover within—whilst the hazard of which is overwhelmingly incalculable.
On a positive note, HAPPY 4th of July people!
Reference
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 51, in The Federalist Papers, ed. n.a. Apple Books. Originally published in 1788.
Stent, Angela E. The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.
