Democracy and why it's disliked by some people.

Some people are fond of order. Everything and everyone has it's place, and nothing should be allowed to upset that order. Laws are strict and not subject to interpretation for this crowd. Government is there to maintain the order and to prevent change. For people who think this way, democracy is not a form of government to be applauded. True democracy is incompatible with highly ordered government. In order for a democracy to work, every member of that society has to have a say, and since it's unlikely that every member of a society thinks exactly the same way as every other member, there's going to be some disagreement. This disagreement and dissent is healthy in a democracy. It is required for a democracy to grow and flourish. It does however tend to promote some chaos in the system as not everyone is marching to the beat of the same drum, much to the chagrin of the law and order crowd. I am writing on this topic today because my observations of Western governments since the September 11, 2001 attacks leads me to worry about the state of Western democracy. In the name of "security", our governments have be rapidly eroding our civil freedoms. Police have been given powers of search and seizure unseen since the 19th century, Constitutions have been circumvented and people held without charge or trial for years. Torture is permitted and people who've expressed views contrary to the government are put on "no fly" lists. All in the name of security. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." We lose our personal freedoms to gain security from terrorists, but we lose security of our own persons vis-a-vis our own governments. It can even be argued that the loss of freedom our governments foist on us to advance so called security is an indication that the terrorists are winning.

I'm also not unconvinced that those currently in power in the US and Canada aren't using the guise of security against terrorism for other, more sinister ends. After all, the governing parties of both countries (Republicans and Conservatives) both resent the constitutions of both countries because those documents limit government action into the public and private lives of citizens. Putting it more simply, these two parties seem to talk the talk of smaller government, but then spend their entire terms in office increasing the size of the "security" apparatus of government, and then focus that apparatus on their own countrymen. It appears that these people are more scared of opposition in their own countries than they are of terrorists abroad. In fact, the continued existence of terrorists outside the country provides a convenient excuse for the continued erosion of individual liberty. These people seem to have nothing on their mind but the wielding of government power for the sake of their own self aggrandizement and the benefits of their friends and supporters. They claim populism, but their actions are those of people desperate to cling to power. I suspect there is little these people will do to remain in power. They will use the guise of law of course to make it look like they're playing the game of democracy. They will however try to skew those laws in such a way that anyone opposing them will be at a disadvantage, either during an election campaign in terms of opposition parties, or preventing opposition voters from voting.

My concern is that we've began traveling down the slippery slope to authoritarian government similar to those in developing countries during the 1970's and 80's. Sham elections to maintain the leader's position of power. A small ruling elite ensuring that their friends are rewarded and their opponents are brutally repressed. Democracy is a fragile flower and it won't take much to damage it. They'll achieve their aims of destroying democracy by promising order and stability which plays well with the masses. After all, we all want safe streets to walk on and a stable economy to work in. We all get uncomfortable when someone brings up a point of view contrary to ours, so we try to ignore them, or even get the government to shut them up. This is starting to happen, with our politicians bullying people who hold opposing viewpoints, calling them "unpatriotic" or "unsupportive" or worse, putting them on lists so that when these dissidents travel, they are hassled at every security checkpoint. All we'll really get for this is security for those in power and no freedom for those that aren't.

So I would suggest we view with suspicion any politician that is promising order and safety. For in a vibrant democracy, order is fleeting and safety is safety from those in power. Democracies are inherently unstable. Not so unstable that there's rioting in the streets each election, but unstable in that there is no certainty. That is not a bad thing, contrary to what some persons of various political stripes may have us believe. It's OK that we don't always get a majority government. Yes majorities are more stable, but minority governments tend to represent the will of the people with more accuracy. This instability is what helps keep politicians accountable to the people, despite how much the politicians want to avoid that. To some extent it is this instability that makes democracy work, for the purpose of a democratic government is to promote freedom, and freedom is inherently unstable.

So gentle reader I leave you with a couple of quotes on the subject of freedom and order.

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters." - Frederick Douglass

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist" - Salman Rushdie