This election cycle, voters were motivated by the slogan that “democracy was on the ballot.”
Democracy is the ballot, sine qua non, and if democratic states trust the will of their populace, they must accept that flawed candidates sometimes get elected.
The goal of democratic states is not to prevent the rise of “bad” candidates but to support, defend and reinforce democratic institutions so that no single candidate or slate can diminish them, lest they face the wrath of the people to remove them from office, also by democratic means via recall, impeachment, electoral defeat, or, if warranted, by legal action.
If Americans really want to ban bad candidates from even running, we can look for inspiration to the institutions of another technically democratic state: The Guardian Council of Iran does an excellent job of keeping offensive candidates off their ballots. Perhaps those fellows have some tips fundamentalist liberals and conservatives here can use.
Purported supporters of “democratic,” “little-D” values point to Viktor Orbán, Viktor Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin as examples of dictators who took power via democratic means, then dismantled institutions or staged autocoups to make themselves the centers of their nations’ political universes. What such arguments omit is that Hungary, Belarus and Russia only developed their pseudo-democratic institutions within the last 30 years after a decade of turmoil following the collapse of the Soviet Union that held their countries together for three generations.
Previously, Belarus had the unfortunate status of being a buffer for centuries between Muscovite grand dukes and tsars and Polish nobles.
Source: aboutartnouveau.wordpress.com
Hungary was formerly part of the most powerful empire in Eastern Europe until it was dissected by western Allies after World War I. Hungarian racial identity is still tied to the memory of that fallen empire, which Orbán willfully exploits.
Russia has also been a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma long before Winston Churchill made that remark of the Soviet Union.
| The Troika Allegory about Russian National Identity from Gogol’s “Dead Souls” |
| “And you, Russia of mine—are not you also speeding like a troika which nought can overtake?..What is the unknown force which lies within your mysterious steeds? Surely the winds themselves must abide in their manes, and every vein in their bodies be an ear stretched to catch the celestial message which bids them, with iron-girded breasts, and hooves which barely touch the earth as they gallop, fly forward on a mission of God? Whither, then, are you speeding, O Russia of mine? Whither? Answer me! But no answer comes—only the weird sound of your collar-bells. Rent into a thousand shreds, the air roars past you, for you are overtaking the whole world, and shall one day force all nations, all empires to stand aside, to give you way!” Narrator, Part 1, Chapter 11 from the 1842 novel “Dead Souls” by Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol [1809-1852] |
Even Russians are confused about themselves, as is best expressed in an analogy from Nikolai Gogol’s “Dead Souls” that many feel is fundamental to their self-identity: “And you, Russia of mine — are not you also speeding like a troika which nought can overtake … whither, then, are you speeding, O Russia of mine? Whither? Answer me! But no answer comes.”
Putin took the troika’s reins, but his control is as tenuous as that of the tsars and premiers who preceded him.
American democratic institutions date back to before our revolution and they are more robust than progressives or alt-right activists fear or seemingly desire.
Yet Americans in the last few years have become increasing angry about witnessing those they dislike having the same freedom of speech that they do. They demand that news outlets “deplatform” figures from the other side of the spectrum, both elected officials and random folks on social media, or call and complain that so-and-so was allowed to share their opinion in a newspaper.
“How dare they speak like I do! How dare free speech be free! I can’t believe I am forced by absolutely no one to read it!” the hypocrites shout, or tweet, or proclaim on private blogs or social media pages. But no ideas or opinions are “harmful” or “dangerous.” George Orwell warned us about a society in which a big brother regulated “bad” ideas.
If ideas wander into absurdity, and they’re out in public sphere, we can mock the illogical and irrational garbage, rebut them with facts and eviscerate their foolishness. Deplatformed ideas merely huddle in dark spaces and fester into monsters.
Readers can be angry about the opinions voiced in my editorials, and many tell me so via a letter to the editor. That’s what it means to sit in this chair and write opinions like this once a week.
If you object to another letter or my opinion, write a rebuttal addressing those points. A civil society debates policy in public. We voice our views to the thundering masses and let the public, our friends and neighbors, judge our ideas in expressed in words. Those who bash me, or the author of a letter, or your favorite newspaper to friends because they can’t craft a coherent counterargument may feel some empty catharsis, but they’ve lost the public argument of ideas, and that’s the only thing that matters.
Democracy doesn’t only take place on the ballot. It is on newspaper pages, public social media platforms, at council meetings and community forums.
The urge to silence is an illiberal violation of the institutions of our republican democracy. That’s a bigger threat than any official, letter or dumb tweet.
