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. 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. better Bad laws come because rulers who do not know about 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, suppling 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 govern ment (3) It educates people want good government and know how to get what they want. And yet the American people believe that in the long run these conditions are bound to come. It has great faith in Lincoln's saying, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Here again is the opportunity for the work of the good citizen in finding out the best methods of government and in getting these methods adopted. The third reason why we believe in democracy as rule by the people is that this makes people more intelligent, free, and responsible. The great purpose of national life, the great purpose of America, is after all not so much to manage things as to help all its people to live the best life. Now to live the best life we must have efficient government, we must have capable legislators and judges, we must have good roads and good schools. But all these important things are not, after all, the most important. The most important thing is that every citizen should know what is wise and best and should try to do it. Some things can be told us and taught us by others. But the greatest lessons of life we learn only by deciding things for ourselves. We learn by our mistakes and failures sometimes even more than by our successes. A little child has to be taught at first many things which the race has been finding out through many centuries. He has to be taught what to eat and what to let alone. He is taught to be truthful and honest, to be fair and kind. But, in an important sense, no one is really taught these things by any one else. It is when we have to decide for ourselves that we really learn in a much deeper way. When I decide for myself that I will cheat, I am deciding not only what I will do or learn, but what I will be. If I decide, on the other hand, to act squarely, I am making myself a square" man. For no one of us is "ready-made." We are building ourselves, and the most important acts in building ourselves are learning and choosing. 66 involves Further, it is only when we have some choice in mat- for responters that we consider ourselves fully responsible. And sibility to be responsible is the mark of a complete man. A child choice is not fully responsible, for he does not understand fully what he is doing; and besides, he is in part controlled by his parents. A weak, or careless, or bad man is not fully responsible; he does not stand up squarely to his acts; he may be careless about paying his debts, or may fail to carry out contracts, or to support his family. Then the law steps in and compels him to fulfil his obligations. A thoroughly upright and honorable man will be responsible for all his acts. He feels responsible for them just because they are his; and this, as we said, means that he had some choice before he performed them. So in government; if we are to be responsible, that is, to be full-grown moral persons, we must have a chance to decide what kind of a government we shall have. And, on the other hand, when we do have this opportunity, we must stand up and take the consequences. We cannot evade our responsibility. We cannot charge our troubles to a king or a boss 99 or to any one but ourselves. For we have chosen our own rulers and are making our own laws. If we do not like the rulers or the laws it is our business to choose new rulers and make better laws. It is just this responsibility which we cannot evade or throw upon any one else that makes democracy a great education in right living. If America had had an 66 1 (4) It makes for peace absolute monarch like the Czar of Russia (who freed Russian serfs by a decree in 1861), slavery might have been abolished very easily. But people would never have been led to think about it and to ask whether it was right or wrong. If some of our great cities could be governed entirely by the United States army, they would be cleaner, more healthful, more beautiful, and there would be less killing and stealing in them. Yet if the people never had to make any effort to have a good government, should we not lose something very important in life? The fourth reason for self-government is that governments responsible to the whole people are less inclined to aggressive warfare and more likely to maintain peace and good faith. Wars have repeatedly been undertaken to add to the glory of a king and the power of a dynasty. Bismarck, in his Memoirs, recites how he tried to induce the King of Prussia to enter the war which resulted in the annexation of SchleswigHolstein, by pointing out to the king that each of his ancestors had added something to the territory of Prussia. France, under Louis XIV, Russia, under Peter the Great and his successors, undertook aggressive wars of conquest. Under democratic government, France has been increasingly peaceable and Russia marked its abolition of the rule of the Czar by declaring at once that it had no desire for conquest. The United States has increasingly valued peace. In the words of President Wilson: Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor States with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an oppor |