In an article in Christianity, Democracy, and the Shadow of Constantine, Hammerli asks a provocative question. "If individual rights are permitted to overrule the will of the people, can the society still properly be called democratic'?" (42-3).
The true essence of democracy has been a fascinating question for me for a long time. It seems to be used by many as a catch-all word for a just and free governmental system, but it seems unclear what the specifics often really mean for people. I remember the Bush administration using the phrase "establishing democracy and freedom" as they thought about assisting troubled regions of the world. And it seemed like democracy and freedom were virtually synonymous in those contexts.
But what is democracy? Is it a government set up to protect a set of objective individual rights and liberties for an equitable society, or is it a government set up to insure the will and rule of the people will stand? Of course in a perfect world those often come together, and a case could be made that historically they do. But I remember also being forced to think about this question after reading about the 2006 Palestinian elections. In the election for the
first time the party that received the most votes was Hamas, defined by most Western countries as a terrorist organization. Was this just an unfortunate result of the democratic process? Can a people ever collectively choose a course for their country (via election) that is unjust, unequitable, and undermines individual rights? Would we then be forced to say this is the consequence of "democracy?"
But on the other side can (or should) a government set itself up to protect objective individual rights and liberties even if that stands against the will of the people?
In a post-modern world, there is very little room (if any) for something to be considered as a transcultural objective individual right or individual liberty. Even though this type of vocabulary is widely used. Nevertheless, in a Christ-shaped world, values are foundationally non-subjective. That allows me room to say, while democracy (as the rule of the people) might be the scaffolding most likely to lead to a just, free, and equitable society, it is not the essence of such a society. In fact, it can be the scaffolding for something entirely the opposite. I agree with Hammerli that we seem to have lost the meaning of democracy, when it is used synonymously with whatever is labelled as a good and just government. But I worry about a day when an appeal to the traditions and values of the majority will surprisingly overule the very things Hammerli values (like the beautiful expression and meaning behind a crucifix). What should our our public policy be then? I fear a day true justice, freedom, and equality will be something the demos has very different ideas about. And I wonder if we're not clear what democracy is, and the parts of it we love, whether we will have the categories to navigate such a world well.
Hammerli is asking this question in relation to an Italian Court's decision upholding the right to hang a crucifix in a public school. Subsequently, the European Commission on Human Rights disagreed, saying the crucifix violated neutrality regarding religious convictions. The commission continued by saying, the cornerstone of democracy is based on individual rights that include a government not encouraging, establishing, or promoting particular religious convictions regardless of the majority's traditions and beliefs. Hammerli finds it very ironic that a position claiming to be democratic must decide against the will of the majority, against the demos, the people. That is the context of the question he asks above.
The true essence of democracy has been a fascinating question for me for a long time. It seems to be used by many as a catch-all word for a just and free governmental system, but it seems unclear what the specifics often really mean for people. I remember the Bush administration using the phrase "establishing democracy and freedom" as they thought about assisting troubled regions of the world. And it seemed like democracy and freedom were virtually synonymous in those contexts.
But what is democracy? Is it a government set up to protect a set of objective individual rights and liberties for an equitable society, or is it a government set up to insure the will and rule of the people will stand? Of course in a perfect world those often come together, and a case could be made that historically they do. But I remember also being forced to think about this question after reading about the 2006 Palestinian elections. In the election for the
But on the other side can (or should) a government set itself up to protect objective individual rights and liberties even if that stands against the will of the people?
In a post-modern world, there is very little room (if any) for something to be considered as a transcultural objective individual right or individual liberty. Even though this type of vocabulary is widely used. Nevertheless, in a Christ-shaped world, values are foundationally non-subjective. That allows me room to say, while democracy (as the rule of the people) might be the scaffolding most likely to lead to a just, free, and equitable society, it is not the essence of such a society. In fact, it can be the scaffolding for something entirely the opposite. I agree with Hammerli that we seem to have lost the meaning of democracy, when it is used synonymously with whatever is labelled as a good and just government. But I worry about a day when an appeal to the traditions and values of the majority will surprisingly overule the very things Hammerli values (like the beautiful expression and meaning behind a crucifix). What should our our public policy be then? I fear a day true justice, freedom, and equality will be something the demos has very different ideas about. And I wonder if we're not clear what democracy is, and the parts of it we love, whether we will have the categories to navigate such a world well.