Why is democracy subversive, radical, and dangerous? Because it proposes the dream that people can rule themselves and make decisions about their own fates — an assumption explicitly worked out in the public realm, obviously, but with many implications for the private realm. Once you tell a person that they are justified and capable of participating in making decisions about how the community will be governed, it’s difficult to turn around and tell them that they are incapable of making decisions in other realms of their life like religion, health, etc.
For most of history, and that includes today, real democracy has been opposed by those who insist that decisions governing the community should be in the hands of a select group — special interests who believe that they have the skills, the right, or the mandate to do for others rather than letting them do for themselves.
These “special interests” should not be understood narrowly. They should be understood broadly as consisting of just a single dictator, an oligarchy, a professional class, an aristocracy, a meritocracy, or even just a bare majority of voters.
When any such individual or group assumes the power to rule without the input of the rest of the citizenry, a type of tyranny is created and this is contrary to the dream of democracy:
- “First Democracy wished to avoid tyranny more than anything. That is why it did not define itself as majority rule, although it put to the vote most policy issues and some questions of leadership. The essential features of First Democracy were freedom from tyranny and the inclusion of all citizens in governance. These go together. Any kind of tyranny — including majority rule — keeps some citizens out of government. ...This is the most important and the most controversial idea behind democracy: it is a natural part of being human to know enough to help govern your community.”
The ultimate purpose of real democracy is to oppose and avoid tyranny. Woodruff offers these symptoms of tyranny:
- A tyrant is afraid of losing his position, and his decisions are affected by this fear
A tyrant tries to rise above the rule of law, though he may give lip service to the law
A tyrant does not accept criticism
A tyrant cannot be called to account for his actions
A tyrant does not listen to advice from those who do not curry favor with him, even though they may be his friends
A tyrant tries to prevent those who disagree with him from participating in politics
All of these attributes can occur in the context of a single tyrannical ruler or in the context of a tyrannical majority group. What's important is not the numbers of those involved but their disregard for principles of law and for working in harmony with others. This can be a problem in America and Woodruff believes that while America has had some great successes in fostering the basic values of democracy, it’s also had some great failures — and, even worse, that it’s moving away from democracy on every point.
First Democracy: The Challenge Of An Ancient Idea
Woodruff argues that America is weaker when it comes to education, reasoning without knowledge, citizen wisdom, natural equality, rule of law, harmony, and being free from tyranny. He explains how and why in some detail in the last chapter, and it’s a sobering analysis of the state of American politics today.
At first glance Woodruff’s book First Democracy may appear to simply be a historical work about ancient Athens; yet while it is that, it is also much more. It's an explanation of how and why ancient history continues to have important lessons for us today. It’s a book not just for people interested in ancient philosophy, politics, and history, but also for those interested in contemporary philosophy and politics.
« Back...
