The Threat of Democracy

The Threat of Democracy

Democracy is a holy word. Democracy is implemented in various versions in various geographical locals. Athenian democracy originating at the time of the great Greek philosophers differs from the Parliamentarian Democracy as developed in England. And the one in England is distinct from the system as implemented by the French Constitution. However, in all real Democracies, the primest of aims is the right of the individual. Securing his liberty and freedom, his right to possess, freedom of speech, equal access to the courts, etc.

Democracy is not chaos. Democracy should not educate and encourage chaos. In his book, the Livyatan, Thomas Hobes claims that all social structures are somehow voluntary.  An individual surrenders his desires to benefit while hurting his neighbor in consideration for protection by the society – or the Livyatan. Societies protect its body, protects its family and its property. Democracy is an ideal formula consisting on the one hand with the means to protect one individual from the other and on the other hand to secure freedom of behavior of one in spite of the other.

Democratic life is not easy. Democracy should not be taken for granted. The fact is that there will always be those who will deviate from the limitations of Democracy. The judge, the policeman and the prisons are evidence to the failure – intentionally or erroneously – of he who requires freedom of action on account of the other.

Alas, there is one element – even in Democracies, which is non- Democratic however without which Democracies cannot survive. Education. Education cannot be implemented in a democratic matter. The teacher rules, a parent limits, and educator guides and imposes rules of behavior. The legislator restricts behavior of youth. An adult is prohibited of having intercourse with a minor even with her consent. In many democracies, selling alcoholic beverages is prohibited until the age of 18. His eminence, the citizen, cannot vote. There is an age limit for driving or issuing a passport without a parent’s consent. These limitations are not democratic. They restrict the underage girls or the young drinker, he who wants to select his new government or to tour the world. The legislative assumes that the minor is not mentally mature for these actions. Therefore, liberty – The principal of democracy – applies in a qualified manner to the minor. The educator, democracy’s trustee – is to guarantee that at the right time when the age limit is waived, this minor will implement the tools of democracy according to its values. A very important part of education relates to violence. Its unacceptability in democratic society, its erroneous effects and its threats to the principals of democracy. When democracy is blind, when all is permitted because of the “sacred civil rights” democracy is getting too close to anarchy. Not a philosophical anarchy, like the one preached to by Leib Tolstoy, but a violent one, a destructive one.

The United States of America is a proud democracy. “The Land of the Free” sings every American while saluting the flag. This democracy is challenged by various obstacles. Many integral issues are still disputed. Many object to the extended legislation (recently enacted in New York) allowing same sex marriages the debate in relation to the rights to hold arms, restrictions on the uses of drugs. Democracy should also protect itself against a threat of democracy. And a fine line should be defined.

This week The Economist informed its readers (not as a news item or a social item, but as an economical item because of the profits associated with the toy manufactures) of the United States Supreme Court decision to delete from the Californian law book a law prohibiting the selling of violent video games to children. Justice Antony Scalia maintained that there was “no tradition” in America of “restriction children’s access to depiction of violence” (I am not sure what the honorable judge would say about movie ratings). Democracy at its best. Because all – or almost all – is allowed. “There is no tradition”? The legislators duty is to see that the law will not freeze the law and sometimes the constitutions will require amendments in order to challenge the change in reality. When the Wright brothers commenced flying there was no legislation relating to air traffic. Every country in the world maintains such laws today. 
Until 9/11 access to banks, the ability to deposit major sums in cash was almost unrestricted as democracy also means to do with your money as you wish. The war on terror changed all that. Fighting crime should not be done only by the courts or the police. These tools are the last resource. This battle is at the rear of society, after the criminal created the damage. The war in the front is education. To restrict as much as possible the exposure of the younger generation to crime. To prevent admiration of crime. To assign a desire to other values. What contribution to democracy did the Supreme Court of the United States make with this decision? Why is access to violence allowed and access to drugs is  not? Both damage and access to violence exposes to greater damage. The holiness of democracy was not strengthened by these unfortunate decisions of the Supreme Court. This permission of the Supreme Court was long term (or  not so long) investment to the next violent generation. The Supreme Court did not protect democracy. It kicked it in Democracy’s name. 

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

Zally Jaffe,
Jerusalem.