Democracy

Irish Jesuit Province

DemocracyAuthor(s): Michael ConnollySource: The Irish Monthly, Vol. 81, No. 954 (Feb., 1953), pp. 43-48Published by: Irish Jesuit ProvinceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20516492 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 11:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Jesuit Province is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Irish Monthly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:48:12 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ijp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20516492?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


DEMOCRACY By MICHAEL CONNOLLY, SJ.

?yn VERY age is befooled by the notions which are in fashion in

IH-it. Our age is befooled by democracy." These words of

William Graham Sumner express a viewpoint which has

never lacked advocates since the revolutions in England, North

America and France ushered in the era of modern democracy. But

of late the dissentient voices have been almost silenced by democracy's tremendous prestige. We were continuously assured during World War

II that the United Nations' war aim was to make the world safe for

democracy. The great Spanish nation, which alone of all Western

countries has met and vanquished in arms the Communist challenge, has been persistently cold-shouldered by the other anti-Communist

States on the ground, it is said, that the Spanish Government is not

democratic. Even the benign authoritarianism of Dr. Salazar has

been looked-at askance, though its conspicuous success in giving wise and beneficial rule to Portugal can scarcely be denied. Indeed, it would seem that the vacuum created by the evanescence of religion in many Western countries is being filled, after a fashion, by the

cult of democracy. Western statesmen are coming more and more

to realize that the fight against Communism requires not merely atomic weapons, but weapons of the spirit too, a counter-idealism

to oppose to the ardent mystique of Marxism. And they can find

nothing at hand to fill the need save something called democracy. Yet when their theorists endeavour to express in words what they mean by democracy, they find the task a difficult one. If they are

well read in the history of political thought, they cannot ignore the

fact that, in ancient Greece, where the word was first coined,

democracy had an unpleasant meaning, connoting something akin

to "

mob-rule ". And to-day the tyrannies beyond the Iron Curtain

call themselves democracies, "

Peoples' Democracies ". Nor is it

right to assume that the word is used cynically or as a piece of audacious and deliberately misleading propaganda. The Nazi r?gime, against which the great war of democracy was victoriously waged, itself claimed to be a true democracy. Hitler called himself an

" arch

democrat "

and National Socialism the "

truest democracy ". Rudolf

Hess referred to National Socialism as the "

most modern democracy of the world ", based, as it was, on

" the confidence of the majority ".

43



IRISH MONTHLY

That this was not an idle claim is acknowledged by such eminent French Catholic writers as D?los and Ducatillon.

The puzzle is explained when we advert to the ambiguity which

lurks in the word. In England and North America, democracy is

commonly supposed to include, as a necessary attribute, respect for

the personal rights and liberties of citizens and minorities. The

English parliamentary Monarchy and the Republic of the United

States have always had a strong liberal character. Hence, English

speaking people too easily assume that democratic political machinery

automatically secures liberal rule, that government by the people is

the sure and, to-day, the sole, safeguard of personal liberties. For

it is important to remember that in classical antiquity, and even at

the present day over most of Europe, democracy has a strictly

political meaning, standing for a governmental device or arrangement; it does not necessarily imply that power will be exercised liberally rather than autocratically. In this strictly political sense, democracy is taken to contain three characteristics: political equality of all

citizens, universal suffrage, majority rule. That these are quite com

patible with totalitarian tyranny the sad experience of the present

century proves. To clarify this difference of meaning between the Anglo-Saxon and

the Continental usage of the word democracy is one of the merits

of a recent book1 by the Austrian Catholic author, Erik von Kuehnelt

Leddihn. It aims at interpreting the European Continent to the

English-speaking world, an important task surely, if the common

front against Soviet imperialism is to be united and compact. As

I read it, I was reminded of a splendid little book published in Ireland

before the war, Modern Democracy, by Professor James Hogan of

University College, Cork. Professor Hogan shows that of the three aims of the French Revolution, Liberty and Equality are mutually

incompatible, while Fraternity is impossible without the Christian belief in the Fatherhood of God. Mr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, too, stresses

the antithesis between freedom and egalitarianism; indeed, this

opposition gives his book its tide. You may have personal liberty without equality, or equality may be enforced at the expense of

liberty (that is the tendency of popular governments); but you cannot

have both together. Mr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn develops this theme in 1 Liberty or Equality. The Challenge of our Time. London: Hollis and

Carter, 1952. 30/

44



DEMOCRACY

90 ample a manner that his book could fittingly borrow Professor

Hogan's title: Modern Democracy. Personally, I prefer Professor

Hogan's work; it is profounder, yet clearer and shorter. But the very

different approach of Liberty or Equality forms a useful complement to that of the Cork professor.

Mr. Kuehnelt-Leddihn claims to be a thomist. but acknowledges,

too, his indebtedness to the researches of modern psychology and

even to existentialism. He has learned from the Scholastics the

valuable art of setting forth his views in order. Thus he begins by

frankly stating his philosophical allegiance, and his first chapter

clearly defines his terms and outlines the treatment. His observations

on the Suarezian doctrine of the origin of political authority show

that he is versed in the discussions of the Schools. His book is not

a continuous treatise on a single theme, but a series of studies loosely knit together by the effort to illuminate modern democracy from a

number of different angles. There is a critical appraisal of democracy as compared with monarchy; a suggestive chapter on the reasons why

parliamentary democracy has succeeded better in Protestant than in

Catholic countries; and two chapters of careful, historical research

on the origins of Nazism. It is the work of a serious student, but

(despite the eighty-five pages of references to books in thirteen

different languages) not of a bookworm; there is independence of

view, imagination, and a serious striving to understand and interpret the political forces at work in the world to-day. The style is often

irritating. It abounds in parentheses, asides, allusions (often cryptic), and an arch use of inverted commas to give a special meaning to

familiar words, but often leaving those nuances quite obscure. There are challenging generalizations, though always accompanied by

copious documentation in the form of precise references to authorities. The whole book suggests a course of university lectures, and we are

not surprised to learn that the author has lectured on political science at different American universities. As a result, some of his material

is of quite specialized appeal (e.g., the chapters on Nazism); but most of it is interesting to all who are concerned with the future of

parliamentary democracy. And in a country like ours, which is de

scribed in its Constitution as "

a sovereign, independent, democratic State ", this subject should be of interest to many.

Those fathers of political science, Plato and Aristotle, considered

45



IRISH MONTHLY

the transition from democracy to tyranny dangerously easy. Their

intellectual heirs, the scholastics of the Middle Ages and the

Renaissance, while teaching a democratic doctrine of the origin of

political power, were far from holding that political power should

remain democratic; St. Thomas, in the 13th century, and St. Robert

Bellarmine, in the 16th, favoured monarchy. During the 19th century, while the democratic fervour of the French Revolution swept the

world, many wise observers were filled with forebodings. Chapter III

of Liberty or Equality quotes their gloomy prophecies. They fore

told, with uncanny foresight, such 20th century phenomena as the

totalitarian one-party r?gimes, the Welfare State and even the Russian menace. And, underlying all, they saw the democratic insistence on

equality. De Tocqueville believed that this craving for absolute

equality at whatsoever cost was motivated by envy. Reduced to

practice, it inevitably led to despotism. Few tyrannies can be so

absolute, so all-pervasive as that of a secure majority in a r?gime where majority decision is the sole criterion of just or unjust law.

The autocratic monarchs of pre-revolutionary Europe would never

have dared to claim the same rights of intrusion into private and

family life which certain modern democratic governments daily allow

themselves. "Even a Louis XIV would probably have been slain

twenty-four hours after proclaiming prohibition . . ." (p. 156). The

kings who claimed to rule by Divine right held themselves responsible to God, and often went in fear of His judgments. Modern democratic

rulers profess responsibility to the majority of the people and curry the favour of the majority. Now the true source of responsibility is God, Whose will is always righteous. Whereas the favour of the

majority is no guarantee of rectitude; recent experience shows how

intolerant?nationally, racially, religiously?majorities can be. That

democracy has remained liberal in certain countries for so long is due, the author thinks, partially to the retention of the institution of

monarchy, albeit in an attenuated form. Liberal democracy has

succeeded better in Protestant than in Catholic countries because of

the Protestant genius for compromise. Whether these r?gimes, un

changed, can meet the challenge of modern, autocratic totalitarianism, the author doubts; democratic procedures are not conducive to the

rapid decisions required by total or lightning war. Thus from many

viewpoints, but especially from its inherent trend towards tyranny,

46



DEMOCRACY

the democratic type of government is subjected to searching criticism.

The argument is stimulating, often provoking. We have grown so

accustomed to regard democracy as obviously the finest product of

political experience that objections and protests at once rise to our

lips. Has not representative, parliamentary democracy worked well

in the most civilized countries of to-day? Is not democracy the best

means of safeguarding personal liberty? Are not Catholic thinkers,

is not the Pope himself, in favour of democracy? This book has

most of the answers. Perhaps they are not always adequate, but

they are all shrewd, thoughtful, erudite.

Dealing with democracy in Catholic countries, Mr. Kuehnelt

Liddihn confines himself to Continental States, and, beyond one or

two vague references to "

the Irish experiment ", does not comment

on the democracy of this country. Yet his book has its lessons for

Ireland, and could be read with profit by Irishmen interested in the

good government of their country. Thirty years are not a long span in the life of a State, yet long enough to reveal significant trends. If the author and his favourite political theorists are right in believing in the inherent tendency of democracies to degenerate into tyrannies, it may occur to us to inquire whether any signs of impending despot ism are to be noted in our Irish democracy. Fortunately, few can

be discerned. Yet many people are perturbed by one feature of all our Governments since 1922, namely, the tendency of the Executive to increase its power at the expense of the other organs of govern

ment, central and local. As long ago as 1933, Professor J. J. Horgan

pointed out that, while the then Constitution was anti-authoritarian in tone, the constant trend of legislation had been to concentrate

power in the Executive. This showed, in his opinion, that such was

the real need and political instinct of "

our primitive and patriarchal agricultural society", and that the liberal democracy of the

Constitution was only political window-dressing. The trend noted by Professor Horgan twenty years ago has persisted until now it is

matter for serious misgivings. They have been voiced quite recently by Mr. F. C. King, in a paper to the Statistical Society which bears the ominous title: "Drifting to Absolutism?

" The trend, however,

is not confined to Ireland, but seems to be shared by most parlia mentary democracies to-day. It certainly is shared by the British

democracy on which our system of government is modelled. There,

47



IRISH MONTHLY

too, the question is causing grave anxiety. A recently published book

by Professor G. W. Keeton (The Passing of Parliament) more than

hints that the end of the drift may be absolute dictatorship. And he

is by no means the first English lawyer to express this fear. Peoples, it is said, get the governments they deserve; and if a people values

State-provided economic security more than freedom plus the burden and responsibility of making personal provision, it must not

be surprised or aggrieved if its Government adapts itself to thai

preference. Democratic mechanisms are no guarantee of personal

liberty, if the society which they control has not a high esteem for

liberty and is not willing to be vigilant and to make sacrifices for

its preservation. Well-distributed private ownership and responsible,

private initiative are two institutions which powerfully safeguard

liberty. Certain trends in present-day Irish legislation and adminis

tration are unfavourable to both, and should make us wary. I refer

especially to the continuous growth of the sector of State-enterprise in our national economy and to the fondness of our administrators

for State-managed, social welfare services on the English Socialist

model. Such tendencies weaken a people's will to freedom. In

modern times the Church is everywhere showing herself the firm

bulwark of personal dignity, responsibility and freedom. Her presence and influence in any country lessen the menace of the servile State.

It is not to be wondered at, however, if tensions should develop between her and the ever-encroaching civil authority. Mr. Kuehnelt

Leddihn's remark on p. 247 is here ? propos: "

The inherent acquisi tiveness of the modern State makes a struggle between it and the

Church almost everywhere inevitable."

THE MODERN STATE The modern State, heir of the kings of old, has a concept of itself

as a person superior to the body politic, and either dominating the

body politic from above or absorbing the body politic in itself.

Now, since the State in actual fact is not a persona, but a mere im

personal mechanism of abstract laws and concrete power, it is thk

impersonal mechanism that becomes superhuman, when that idea

comes to develop its whole potentiality. In the result the natural

order of things is turned upside down : the State is no longer in the

service of men, men are in the service of the particular ends of the

State.?Man and State (Maritain): HoUis & Carter.

48



Democracy

Documents

Transcript of Democracy