Слике страница
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER XXXVII

DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT

D

EMOCRACY is used in this discussion in two Two senses: democracy meaning self-government meanings and democracy meaning equality. We do not democracy

of

intend to use the word "Democracy" in the sense which is so common among us, the name of a particular political party, as when we say that Woodrow Wilson was the candidate of the Democratic Party. In Greece, where the word was first used, it meant rule by the common people, the free citizens, as distinguished from rule by a king or by a few. Rule by a few was called oligarchy or aristocracy. Growing out of this usage is the meaning of democracy as self-government. (1) SelfBut at the same time, besides its meaning of self- governgovernment or government by the people, it included ment also the second meaning, equality. Our Declaration (2) of Independence was a great democratic document in Equality both of these senses. It affirmed that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. This was democracy in the first sense. It also declared that “all men are created equal." The words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg are often quoted as expressing both these aspects of democracy-“ a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." For although the word "equality" is not used, the words "for the people" evidently mean, for the whole people, and not for some special class of the people. "For the people" implies, then, that all men

Four

reasons

for selfgovernment

(1) No other gov

ernment is right

have an equal right to be considered, although, of course, it may not mean that all men are equal in all respects or for all purposes.

We shall consider these two meanings of democracy separately, and in the first place we may well ask, Why do the American people believe in democracy in the sense of government by the people?

Many reasons might be urged for rule by the people. Let us consider four. (1) No other kind of government is right, for no one has a right to govern another without that other's consent. (2) It gives a better government. (3) It makes people more intelligent and responsible. (4) It is less likely to plan and wage wars of aggression. We can see that it was the first of these reasons which was strongest with our forefathers; today we are putting more emphasis upon the last two.

The first reason appeals to men who have been oppressed or treated unfairly by any government. As we saw in the earlier part of this book, in the clan or tribal life there was really a sort of self-government. The old men of the group handed down customs and decided quarrels, but the group did not think of them as really making laws. Frequently the old women would have as much influence in certain matters as the old men. Obedience to customs was not forced, but was given as a matter of course.

But in military life the chief came to the front, and if he were successful, became the king. He was often thought to be divine and his commands were sacred. Or if he was not regarded as divine, he was at any rate so strong that his commands were obeyed as law. It has been gradually and step by step that the people have gained any right of making laws in modern Eu

ropean states.
Because of the long, hard struggle
which was still fresh in mind when the early settlers
came to America, men prized the right to govern them-
selves. And though they did not at first object to a
king, they did insist very strongly upon regulating
their own affairs in all the ways which their original
charters allowed. In their great Declaration they did
not affirm a completely new principle when they de-
clared that all governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed. Philosophers
had said many times that the right to rule came from
the will of the people. Nevertheless, the Declaration
was the boldest, strongest statement of this principle
which had ever been made by the representatives of a
whole people, and it made an epoch in the world. Many
in Europe do not believe in this principle at all. They
believe that certain kings or emperors have a divine
right to rule. The American idea is that while the
little child needs to be ruled by its parents, and the
insane or criminal have to be cared for or restrained
by others, no one class of people has a right to rule
other classes. As Lincoln declared in his reply to
Douglas, "No man is good enough to govern another
man without that other's consent."

should

rule

Two questions may come up at once when this is Why the said. Did our Fathers think this applied to slaves? majority And does it mean that every one must consent to every law or to the government as a whole in order to make the law or government right? The answer to the first question is easy. No doubt our forefathers did not apply this to slaves. The second point is more difficult. One philosopher, Rousseau, thought that to make a government just there must be at the outset unanimous consent to form a government. But when

The

majority must respect the rights of the minority

forming the government, those who entered into it might agree unanimously that when the government had been established, a majority should rule. This would make a majority rule just and right because all had agreed to it originally. We now recognize that men do not make governments by unanimous consent. Much less does every one in a country agree to every law. Nevertheless, we do assume that people who live in a country accept the government as a whole. Where there is free discussion and a free ballot, we think that the choice of the majority is, on the whole, the only practical way to settle any question. If the majority does not rule, then the minority rules. In the long run, the majority would seem to be more likely to be right, provided that matters have been thoroughly and fairly discussed.

But, on the other hand, it does not follow that a majority is always right. Nearly every great reform, every new principle of progress, begins with a few. At first these will be in the minority. It is often only after years of discussion that they can persuade the majority to adopt the minority view. But the majority is not only slow in adopting new ideas, it is also liable to decide matters selfishly. In such decisions it may be oppressive and disregard the interests and rights of the minority. It is for this reason that certain rights are secured by a more permanent form of law called a Constitution. We have seen how anxious the makers of the United States Constitution were to provide checks and balances to prevent the majority from interfering with the rights of the minority. Nevertheless, it is the American principle that, when they have fully thought things through, men are reasonable, and therefore that in the long run they have a right to make

their own laws and govern themselves. The different methods for voting and for passing upon laws by the courts are all intended to make sure that we act thoughtfully and in a reasonable way.

better

The second reason which has been given for democ- (2) It racy is that it produces better government. It is some- gives times said that men know what is good for themselves. governBad laws come because rulers who do not know about ment things, or who are looking out only for themselves, make laws for other people. No one wishes to harm himself. Therefore, if all people are represented in making laws and in executing them, there will be no chance for either ignorance or oppression.

This argument sounds plausible, but things do not always work as the argument supposes. Wise men may know how to manage their own affairs in a better fashion than any one else can manage affairs for them, but this is not necessarily true of the ignorant. In our large cities particularly we have not yet been able to obtain very good government. A group of people frequently vote for an alderman not because he is honest or intelligent, or because he will plan for the welfare of the whole city, but rather because he will find jobs for them or for their friends. Another group of people will try to have a man elected mayor not because he is the best man for the city as a whole, but because he promises to give them special favors such as franchises for street railways, or for gas or electric lighting, or profitable contracts in constructing water-works, supplying coal, and the like.

We have to confess too that what is really the will of the people is very hard to discover. The best we can say is that the will of the people will give good government only when the majority of the people both

« ПретходнаНастави »