The Evils of Democracy or We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident

Democracy. As a youngster growing up in Canada, I was taught that this was what made our nation great. This is what set us apart from the despots, dictators and kings in the less privileged parts of the world. It was why my forefathers fought and died to protect us from the evil forces who would conquer us and reduce us to serfs in a totalitarian system. I'm sure my brethern south of the border were schooled the same way. Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, gave us the lofty idea of a government "of the people, by the people and for the people". And our soldiers continue to fight and die trying to bring democracy to far flung and backward places such as Afghanistan and, in the case of the US and Britain, Iraq.

But as I observe the results of this exercise in those nations and contemplate where the protests and removal of dictators recently in the Middle East, I come to a realization that democracy should not be the objective. Given a nation that heavily subscribes to a religious doctrine, there is a very good chance that the majority in such a democracy will choose a theocracy that flies in the face of our ideals while, at the same time, reflects the will of the majority of the citizens.

In a discussion on social conservatism, a friend recently said to me that we are a nation of laws. Laws reflecting the mores of the Judeao-Christian majority should be respected. In Canada, this is probably true since the idea of protecting individual rights has come to us relatively recently. But in the US of A, they rebelled against British Rule and their Declaration of Independence (in my opinion one of the greatest documents ever penned) did not speak to democracy. Jefferson's immortal words made, instead, a statement on the natural rights of mankind. Individual rights "Endowed by the Creator" to all men. Patrick Henry didn't say "Give me democracy or give me death". No, his rallying cry was LIBERTY.

Democracy has been described as a tyranny of the majority. In its simplest form, it imposes the will of those who form the largest segment of society upon individuals who do not share those beliefs. It was the thought of popular Muslim theocracies forming in the Middle East that caught my attention but the same situation occurs in the west when the conservative element justifies current laws based on the idea that "We are a Christian nation".

In Canada, we are the heirs of the British parliamentary system of government, evolved over millenia. The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, threw off the yoke of history and had the opportunity (and obligation to redefine both individual rights and government from scratch. After the first ill-fated attempt to establish a federal government via the Articles of Confederation and Union, representatives of the new states sat down and crafted what would become the supreme law of the land, the Untied States Constitution. It set out the structure of the government of the United States of America and placed restrictions (mostly long since ignored) on it.

At the end of the process, some of the states were uncomfortable with a lack of protection of the individual rights that Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration. Thomas himself was not present at the time to speak on the issue (I wish he had been) but the fears were that the government would supercede the rights of the individual and land the new nation back in the very type of tyranny it had just thrown off. Some of the drafters of the Constitution felt that the ideal of individual rights was so central to the nation that their protection in the document was superfluous, but to assuage the worry, the first ten amendments AKA Bill of Rights was added. In addition to the defined rights, the 9th Amendment went so far as to say the enumerated rights were not the only ones held by the people. When I look at the courts' hair splitting referrals to the BOR as people try to protect themselves against the intrusions of an ever increasing government, their adoption was not just a good idea, it was essential to protect the people from the institution that would take everything, given half a chance.

Canada only received a limited Bill of Rights in 1960. In 1982, with the repatriation of our Constitution, we were further protected by the Charter of rights and Freedoms. This is a pale shadow of the American Bill of Rights because it limits itself by imposing a "reasonable limits" clause in the very first Article. Furthermore, a government may override any provision of the Charter for a fixed period of time simply by inserting the word "notwithstanding" in the legislation. So we have individual rights as long as they are "reasonable" and the government doesn't decide otherwise. This is why I look to the United States as the beacon of natural individual rights. They engaged in the debate centuries ago and, despite the sad changes that have taken place since then, they described an ideal that I cherish.

So should we be a nation of laws? In so much as those laws protect the natural rights of each individual from the actions of other people and the government, I believe we should be. But where laws are enacted that restrict actions not infringing on the rights of others, I believe that the government oversteps its bounds in a society based on liberty. These laws are often a reflection of the will of the majority, whether it is to limit personal freedom on moral grounds as the social right would prefer or to confiscate and redistribute wealth as the left advocates. This illustrates that a democracy can easily result in a denial of individual rights.

I have heard my American friends say that they are not a democracy but a republic because of the aspersions cast on democratic government by the Founding Fathers. But what is a republic but a representative form of democracy, subject to the whims of the majority at the ballot box. The key is that they are a Constitutionally Limited Republic. It would be better if those that governed today understood what that document stood for and what limitations it defined, but at least it does still exist to provide a framework for the debate that continues to this day.

So, in closing, thank you Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence. Thank you John Locke for inspiring Jefferson. Thank you to the Constitutional Convention for stating that individual rights should come before the rights off government. And I hope that some day the people who have been gifted with this legacy actually begin to understand what it means.