DEMOCRACY AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

Whereas in the previous entry, our helpful Hobbes provided us with some unusual intellectual fodder for an offbeat discussion of the almost-beaten-to-death word freedom, here he is again, with another such offering of yet another beaten-to-death political term democracy. Before we dismiss what he has to say as trivial and inconsequential political science 101, let us first agree that having a sound definition of a term, even if such a definition does not appear at first sight to advance our specific discussion one bit, is better than not having any sound definition at all and pretending that just because we are carrying on a “serious” discussion, this is by itself sufficient proof that we know what we are talking about.

So, democracy it is, but this time we are to see it according to the authority of Thomas Hobbes.

“The difference of Commonwealths is in the difference of the sovereign, or the person representative of the multitude. And because sovereignty is either in one man, or in an assembly, and into that assembly either everyone has the right to enter or not everyone, but certain men distinguished from the rest; it is manifest there can be but three kinds of Commonwealth. For the representative must be one man and if more, then it is the assembly of all, or of a part. When it is one man, then it is a monarchy; when an assembly, then it is a democracy,” (this is all there is to it!) “or popular Commonwealth; when an assembly of part only, then it is called an aristocracy. Other kind of Commonwealth there can be none, for either one, or more, or all, must have sovereign power (which I have shown to be indivisible) entire.” (Leviathan, Chapter XIX)

It is curious that what Hobbes calls “democracy” is not what democracy means in America today. For him, it is merely one of the three forms of government, alongside monarchy, and aristocracy. (Apparently, he never uses the word republic, probably out of some anti-Cromwellian principle, or something. In fact, I have run a search for this word through both his books in my computer files and--- surprise-surprise!--- found none). What is important however is that in all these three forms of government, according to his thinking, it is the sincere and compelling desire of the populace, the will of the majority, to enter into a contractual relationship with the sovereign of their choice, allowing him, or them (the Assembly), to rule over their Commonwealth, and over each of them, thus giving up their natural freedoms in exchange for being competently (!) protected from the outside threats, while at the same time keeping the law and order inside their established community, to prevent them from otherwise reverting to the natural state of anarchy. In this limited context, the closest thing to an understanding of the word democracy would be Hobbes’ will of the people, and I will rather agree with him than with some ignorant nitwits authoritatively talking about global democracy today, that such genuine will of the multitude can express itself in three different forms--- all of them revealing an unmistakable democratic origin. Furthermore, it ought not to be taken for granted that the said “will of the people”--- especially where religion plays a big role in national life--- would be necessarily disposed toward an American-style democracy or freedom, with all that it entails, including freedom from morality and even from elementary social decency, which is rampant today among the “higher-developed” nations.

In other words, the American “democratic” way of life, in today’s multipolar world, may have a lot more to do with this nation’s tremendous wealth, and be a by-product of such wealth, rather than with everybody’s or anybody’s “inalienable right.” We cannot carelessly impose a consequence of being rich on others, who are poor, unless we are willing and eager to share our wealth with them, which, I understand, is not exactly in the cards.

So, finally, the bottom line here is that, in each individual case, democracy is what they call democracy, and not what we tell them it ought to be. Being the will of the people, it is their will, and not the will to power of Washington politicians and of their ideologically obsessed strategists.