Alexis de Tocqueville wrote prophetically it seems. In reading "Democracy in America", I marvel at how well he identified not only the deficiencies inherent in the US system of governance, but also the appropriate balance that the citizens create in ensuring liberty. This may seem counter intuitive, the idea that democracy and liberty are at odds, however it is obvious given the recent events that have occurred in the United States. While not wanting to address the issue of race in the Trayvon Martin case, or the lack of institutional fortitude exhibited by Congress to pass even a simple bill, it is necessary to see how our system of governance has become hostage to the moment. As such, it can no longer fulfill its basic purpose.
So, let's first define some terms. Liberty is the ability to follow your own beliefs, thoughts, etc. without an arbitrary power structure attempting to stop you. Of course, that is my definition. The Oxford dictionary defines liberty as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political viewpoint. The same dictionary defines democracy as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. With these definitions as the base from which this blog will grow, let's find out what exactly is going on.
The idea of liberty, that is, the ability to live as one sees fit without fear of an authoritarian system denying that ability, was radical in the age of enlightenment. While revolutions gripped the world (United States, France), the idea of freedom from an absolute leader was the compelling factor to the establishment of both republics. It is necessary to view liberty in this vein. While there are those who would argue that the President of the United States is an absolute leader, this is a false premise. An absolute is never voted out of office. The framers of the Constitution had a very real fear of an absolute leader and created the presidency with very limited powers. Since then, the power of the executive branch has expanded, however that is a whole other blog completely. This clinging to liberty is what has driven the idea of individualism in the United States. The ability to be free to create your future is paramount to the idea that most Americans have about their own lives.
As for democracy, it is only a system of governance. I cannot state this with more vigor. Democracy, as a system of government, allows for the pursuit of individual liberty. However, as a system of governance, democracy has a responsibility to ensure that all citizens are afforded the same right to pursue liberty. It also has the responsibility to ensure that laws that are legally established are justly enforced. The enforcement of laws via democracy can lead to a natural rift with liberty. How? Those pursuing liberty may feel that the democracy that they live in are an absolute power that is only designed to limit their ability to be 'free'.
It is the paradox of the pursuit of liberty intertwined with a democracy that represents the people that devolves into the issues that we, as a nation, face today. So, what is a possible remedy for this? The political concept of 'self-interest rightly understood' as developed by Alexis deTocqueville is the best way to balance these desires. It is the desire of most people to pursue their own freedoms as an individual. That, it seems, is a natural extension of the human condition. Individualism, couched in liberty, can create a society that fully devolves into anarchy. On the other hand, collectivism, couched in democracy, can devolve into absolutism. When one individual can claim that their right is greater than the right of another individual, we, as a society, face the death of a young man (regardless of race), shot by another man (regardless of race) which is allowable by law. This is the devolution of liberty. To protect the rights of one individual over another is not democracy. However, if the law is passed by a legislative body and found to be legal, it is democracy. This is the politics of now. Rather than follow the idea of coming together as individuals with common interests to change the laws by becoming politically active, citizens only protest and expect someone else to make the change. Certainly, the right to assemble is guaranteed, however, why only assemble? Why not attempt to run for office, and become the voice for those with whom you hold a similar self interest? It is not the job of the government to ensure that you are treated a certain way. Rather, it is the role of the citizen to be active and able to become the check against those who are in government. That is the only true way in which to balance our desire for liberty with a democracy that represents the will of the people.
Indeed both liberty and democracy can coexist. In order for that to happen, citizens must realize their role in the system as well. By simply finding those who have the same interests, and then petitioning the government or becoming a representative of the people, citizens can fulfill their duty to be the ultimate check and balance against any leader (legislative or executive) who uses their role to become a despot.
So, let's first define some terms. Liberty is the ability to follow your own beliefs, thoughts, etc. without an arbitrary power structure attempting to stop you. Of course, that is my definition. The Oxford dictionary defines liberty as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political viewpoint. The same dictionary defines democracy as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. With these definitions as the base from which this blog will grow, let's find out what exactly is going on.
The idea of liberty, that is, the ability to live as one sees fit without fear of an authoritarian system denying that ability, was radical in the age of enlightenment. While revolutions gripped the world (United States, France), the idea of freedom from an absolute leader was the compelling factor to the establishment of both republics. It is necessary to view liberty in this vein. While there are those who would argue that the President of the United States is an absolute leader, this is a false premise. An absolute is never voted out of office. The framers of the Constitution had a very real fear of an absolute leader and created the presidency with very limited powers. Since then, the power of the executive branch has expanded, however that is a whole other blog completely. This clinging to liberty is what has driven the idea of individualism in the United States. The ability to be free to create your future is paramount to the idea that most Americans have about their own lives.
As for democracy, it is only a system of governance. I cannot state this with more vigor. Democracy, as a system of government, allows for the pursuit of individual liberty. However, as a system of governance, democracy has a responsibility to ensure that all citizens are afforded the same right to pursue liberty. It also has the responsibility to ensure that laws that are legally established are justly enforced. The enforcement of laws via democracy can lead to a natural rift with liberty. How? Those pursuing liberty may feel that the democracy that they live in are an absolute power that is only designed to limit their ability to be 'free'.
It is the paradox of the pursuit of liberty intertwined with a democracy that represents the people that devolves into the issues that we, as a nation, face today. So, what is a possible remedy for this? The political concept of 'self-interest rightly understood' as developed by Alexis deTocqueville is the best way to balance these desires. It is the desire of most people to pursue their own freedoms as an individual. That, it seems, is a natural extension of the human condition. Individualism, couched in liberty, can create a society that fully devolves into anarchy. On the other hand, collectivism, couched in democracy, can devolve into absolutism. When one individual can claim that their right is greater than the right of another individual, we, as a society, face the death of a young man (regardless of race), shot by another man (regardless of race) which is allowable by law. This is the devolution of liberty. To protect the rights of one individual over another is not democracy. However, if the law is passed by a legislative body and found to be legal, it is democracy. This is the politics of now. Rather than follow the idea of coming together as individuals with common interests to change the laws by becoming politically active, citizens only protest and expect someone else to make the change. Certainly, the right to assemble is guaranteed, however, why only assemble? Why not attempt to run for office, and become the voice for those with whom you hold a similar self interest? It is not the job of the government to ensure that you are treated a certain way. Rather, it is the role of the citizen to be active and able to become the check against those who are in government. That is the only true way in which to balance our desire for liberty with a democracy that represents the will of the people.
Indeed both liberty and democracy can coexist. In order for that to happen, citizens must realize their role in the system as well. By simply finding those who have the same interests, and then petitioning the government or becoming a representative of the people, citizens can fulfill their duty to be the ultimate check and balance against any leader (legislative or executive) who uses their role to become a despot.
No comments:
Post a Comment