The Democratic Ideal
BY C. DELISLE BURNS.
THE real .issue in most countries today is not merely political,_ nor economic, but moral.. The question is not merely who shall rule nor how wealth shall be distributed, but how men shall treat their fellow-men. Is one man to admit the right of another to his own opinion ? Or is one to be master and the other an instrument of his will ? That is the real issue between Democracy and Dictatorship, as it has lately been fought out in Germany ; and as it stood some few years ago in other countries which have established Dictatorships. The supporters of Democracy have foolishly allowed the dispute to degenerate into a mere question of institutions : but the institutions which were believed in the nineteenth century to be democratic are of minor importance, if compared with the ideal for which our forefathers were 'working. Democracy has nowhere and never been achieved. It was once believed that an extension of the franchise would secure it ; but that has proved to be mistaken. Parliament, throughout most of its history, has not been democratic; unless -the oligarchy of male landowners in ancient Athens can be given the name whose sense we have entirely transformed: France is not, in the modern sense, democratic so long as its women are excluded from direct political power. We have, in fact, created a new ideal ; and the old institutions within which it was developed may prove to be ineffectual, without weakening the ideal: The critics of Parliamentary institutions are not necessarily opponents of democracy : but some of them—both- on the Right and on the Left —are opposed not merely to what the nineteenth century did but also to what it was trying to do. Dictatorship is advocated either as the only practical method of government or as the necessary preparation for equality in a classless society : and such advocacy implies an assumption about the proper • relations between men which is fundamentally opposed to the democratic.
Democracy, whatever the institutions it may use, depends upon persuasion of some by others and not upon the- superior force of some. It was a mistake of early democrats, confused by the theory of the vote of a majority, to suppose that such a vote expressed the threat of superior force. But in practice minorities were much less oppressed within the democratic tradition than outside ; and in any case, persuasion was always assumed to be the ideal method. Again, democracy implies that " the law " is based upon a general agreement, not upon the will of the few requiring obedience of the rest. Finally, democracy aims at deriving from every member of the community some. contribution in thought and emotion, not merely in muscular effort, towards public policy. But the institutions through which it was hoped this ideal would be achieved, were mediaeval : and gradual reform of the representative system, of the civil service, and of education, in England and elsewhere, did not eradicate the inediaevalism of autho- ritarian and what Bagehot called " reverential " elements in them. And now a crisis is upon us. The reformed institutions; adapted to new conditions under the influence of a new ideal, worked well enough when the changes proposed in. any community were not funda- mental. A majority of one is allowed by the minority to decide upon policy, so long as the minority do not feel strongly, one way or the other, about that policy. But when the issue cuts at the very roots of ancient habits and beliefs and therefore. arouses strong feelings, the vote of a majority—even a large majority—will not be accepted by all as a decision. What then ?
No method of fundamental- change has been discovered within the democratic tradition ; and no method of resisting such change, if it is likely to occur. On the Left, then, - or on the Right, men fly to force. Call it revolution, if you will. It is, in fact, civil war ; and like war between nations, it is merely a sign that no method has been discovered for making or resisting the funda- mental changes which the situation seems to promise or to threaten. The establishment of a Dictatorship is only a successful civil war. We in Great Britain may avoid the issue for some years yet. But it would be foolish to ignore the nature of the struggle which is now being fought out in Europe ; and it is doubtful whether we shall be able to escape the effects of whateverthe may be. A momentary success of one or other armed group in any one nation will not decide the future, as war cannot produce peace. And the idea that a successful dictatorship will prepare for a society in which diversity of opinion is respected, is quite fantastic. To find some other way, therefore, is an urgent problem for those who still adhere to -the democratic tradition, even if they are critics of the institutions with which it has been entangled.
It is a problem of government. It is futile to try to discover how many different kinds of opinion may exist within any community ; and still more futile to -make government depend' upon • discussing them all. Democracy cannot possibly involve that each man or each group shall go upon a separate way, after a separate interest." - If there is no common purpose for public action, no community' exists. But assuming that there is some common purpose, even if some do not know it, new methods for apprciaching the democratic ideal can be worked out, if - we rid ourselves of ancient ideas of representation, of amateurs in politics or in office, of debating, of " interests " and many other unexamined traditions. We have inherited, together with a noble ideal, an amazing amount of political and economic rubbish. Advocates of dictatorship are right in saying that the chief function of citizenship cannot be merely voting for an amateur in public affairs who, once in "every few years, makes vague speeches in the district from notes supplied by a central office. But what then is the chief function of citizenship in a democratic-society What common purpose is there, for each to 'support ? No one attempts to state it, except in war. But whatever it is, the machinery for making it effectual—radio, cinema, travel—has not yet begun to be used. And only if the sense of home common purpose is 'wide-spread and effectual, will the appeal to force be avoided by either side when those who desire fundamental social change think they are as strong as those who resist it.
Previous page
