creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley
14 Dec 2011
Newt's Past and Future Leadership

Almost all political commentators agree on one thing. The Republican presidential campaign is unlike any we … Read More.

7 Dec 2011
Secular, Liberal Egypt: We Hardly Knew Ya

One of the nice things about human history is that no matter how much people or their leaders misjudge events … Read More.

30 Nov 2011
How to Break the Partisan Fever

Sunday on "Meet the Press" Colin Powell blamed divisive, poisonous Washington politics on the media … Read More.

Democracy in Decline

Share Comment

The broad, sneering European-elite response to the plucky Irish vote to oppose the further centralization of governmental power in the European Union and the emerging opinion in China suggest that from Brussels to Shanghai, democracy may be losing its appeal.

Democracy, broadly understood as government by the people being governed, has been the upward aspiration of Western civilization for about 1,000 years — and of the rest of the world for about 100 years. Certainly since the Magna Carta in 1215; arguably going back another millennium to when the Germanic tribes selected their chiefs through a more-or-less popular rather than hereditary method. The pace quickened in our Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789, advanced further with Woodrow Wilson's call for the self-determination of nations after World War I. The democratic urge gained further rhetorical support in the post-World War II United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21:

"(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

"(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

"(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Arguably, the aspiration for and expectation of democracy reached its zenith with the fall of the Soviet Union and the prediction that the end of history had been reached in the form of liberal democratic capitalism as practiced in the last decade of the 20th century.

But events and experiences I have had in the past week reinforce a growing sense I have had for a few years that the ideal and practice of robust democracy may be seen in history as a quirk of the 18th-20th centuries. I can imagine students 500 years from now studying democracy the way we study medieval history: its rise, its high period, causes of its decline.

Admittedly, the rise and aspiration for democracy has not been a line steadily upward. In the 1930s, many in the West thought that both Mussolini's and Hitler's fascisms seemed to work better than Depression-era democracy. For others at the time, the Russian effort at communism seemed the better alternative.

But for those of us born in the middle of last century, in the afterglow of democracy's WWII triumph (with, admittedly, a huge assist from Soviet Russia's overwhelming military sacrifices and triumphs on the eastern front), democracy seemed the objective of the entire world.

Even the Soviet-controlled nations put the phrase "democratic republic" in their names. And post-colonial governments in Africa all at least talked in terms of democracy.

It first hit me with force that democracy may not be a universal goal when I was in Russia in 2005 to discuss my book on radical Islam. Almost everyone I met — from leading academics, to my driver, to radio talk show hosts, to all sorts of people I met in bars — loved Putin and were contemptuous of democracy and capitalism. Every Russian I met wanted a strong government, thought democracy is inherently corrupt and useless, and that capitalism is another word for theft.

Last week, I was in China and had an opportunity to talk with several Chinese businesspeople — some top executives, some shopkeepers and, once again, several middle-class people in bars (a small sample out of 1.3 billion Chinese). Each was perfectly content to let the unelected Communist Party run the government, as long as economic growth continued. A point made by several of them (admittedly, all the people I talked with are doing well economically) and also made by a local academic expert is that the rest of Asia is noticing that the Chinese Communist Party-managed economic method is working better than the American democratic capitalism method.

I find it melancholy to consider that perhaps people aspire to self-government not because it is the natural and dignified condition of man to be free and self-governing, but merely only if it is likely to turn a quick economic profit.

Which brings me to the Irish vote. After a similar vote was lost in 2005 in France and in the Netherlands, the decision of the European elite was to redecide the matter by going around the people and deciding through parliaments (where the fix was in) rather than by plebiscite. Only the Irish insisted on a vote of the people before turning over sovereign power to Brussels bureaucrats. And they voted it down 53-47 percent — against the loud voices of all the political parties and national leaders. God bless the Irish people.

Almost the entire business, political and cultural elite of Europe argue for centralizing EU power in Brussels because it will be good for business (and give Europe a more coherent voice and action in the world). The price for that is to reduce the role of democratically elected government officials and to give more power to unelected governing forces.

Is that why partisans risked their lives sniping at Nazi soldiers and throwing homemade bombs at German panzer tanks a mere half-century ago? Is the world getting ready to give up its birthright to self-govern for a mess of pottage?

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. To find out more about Tony Blankley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
And indeed, Mr. Blankley, the same decay in democracy has infected our own country in the past 8 years. We have a president originally installed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision instead of a completed election who lied to us and the rest of the world in order to justify a brutal, unnecessary war (against a secular state--one of the few in the Islamist-dominated middle east you fear so much), and now tries to pawn off that act of unlawful aggression as a fight for democracy. He has walked all over treasured constitutional guarantees like habeas corpus, he has approved torture, and by attempting to declare himself immune from Congressional oversight, he is attempting to sabotage the balance of power our forefathers so carefully erected by creating the three branches of American government. This is indeed an era when democracy is taking it on the chin, and we can only hope that our next president will have the head, heart, and backbone so sorely lacking in our current president to lead us out of these dark times.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:09 PM
Masako must not have been paying attention. The 5-4 Supreme Court ruyling did not install George Bush into the presidency. It forced Florida to stop recounting votes, by Gore request, that continually showed Bush to be the winner. There is zero evidence that Bush lied us into a war. The best one can reasonably say is that he misled us. What he did, in fact, was convine the nation to back him in acting on a percieved threat. That's his job. It is the Congress who failed to do their job. They are still failing. So, the WMDs weren't there, but that's no tlying as Bush though that they were there. Nor was he the only world leader to think so. He was merely only the only one to do something about it after the world body agreed to do something about it. And let's not forget that if Russia, Germany, and France ahd not been recieving kick-back from the oil-for-food scandal, they would most likely have agreed to go along with us, which would have painted a very different picture. Also, the president always sold the war in Iraq as a part of the War on Terror which he always sold as a fight for democracy. Habeas Corpus is not granted to non-citizens by the constitution, nor do the prisoners in Gitmo fit the Geneva definition of POWs. That's not Bush's fault, he just happens to be right about it. And he only shields himself from congressional oversight when Congress is abusing their popwers in that arena. If anybody is to called guilty of blatantly violating the Constitution and sabotaging the balance of powers it is the Legislative and Judicial Branches. As far as presidential abuse of athority, Bush isn't the p[lace to look. You'll find much worse in the likes of Clinton, Nixon, Truman, Kennedy....even Lincoln.

It's not that there is anything wrong with having a different opinion, but facts are facts and you don't seem to have any.
Comment: #2
Posted by: One_Free_Man
Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:06 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Tony Blankley
Dec. `11
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

23 Sep 2009 End the Coarsening of Civic Discourse

21 Sep 2011 Double-Dip Learning Curve

14 May 2008 Race and the 2008 Election