Why Democracy Can’t Exist Without Love
The French-Italian writer Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) famously said: “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” This statement appears harsh in view of the many people around the globe suffering under their oppressive regimes.
Notably, de Maistre, considered a forefather of conservatism, opposed the French Revolution, which ultimately led to the establishment of democracy across Europe.
A fundamental idea of democracy is the concept of egalitarianism, i.e., that people have equal rights and freedom, as well as equal opportunities to pursue their happiness.
In contrast, authoritarian systems typically restrict the rights and freedom of most people while preserving privileges for those in power. In authoritarian systems, people tend not to have equal rights and privileges and they are not empowered to change the status quo.
Critics of Western democracies may point out that in systems with large wealth disparity, rich individuals also may have privileges and freedom not shared by poor members of the society—thus essentially resulting in similar inequality as seen in authoritarian systems.
Furthermore, through influence on the political and judiciary systems, wealthy individuals may advance and protect their interests much more than less affluent people.
A key difference between the two systems, however, is that in a democracy, the people still hold the power to change matters, while they do not in an authoritarian system.
Democratic systems, therefore, heavily depend on the wisdom of their people to identify suitable leaders. Such wisdom must include the ability to discern propaganda from truth. For democracies, therefore, Joseph de Maistre’s statement truly applies.
The World Justice Project, an independent non-profit organization founded in the U.S., ranks countries by their Rule of Law Index.1 In its latest report, 28 of the 30 highest-ranked countries are democracies, and the other two, Hong Kong and Singapore, are democratic systems with some restrictions. Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Myanmar, and Iran are the bottom five.
What does this all have to do with love? Love is closely linked to the idea of egalitarianism and fundamental rights. Love requires humility, seeing others as equal, with the same privileges as us. Thus, love, defined as the urge and continued effort for the happiness of others,2 is a fundamental drive in a functioning democracy.
Conversely, restricting fundamental rights of certain groups, placing others at socioeconomic disadvantage, and/or limiting their access to power is contrary to love.
Contrary to love is also discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, education, wealth, background, party affiliation, or any other characteristic or ability.
Not coincidentally, societies ranked highest by rule of law and fundamental rights indices also rank highest in terms of their population’s happiness.3 A strong sense of community, wealth equality, and trust in the government’s goodwill are key factors for happiness.4
Unfortunately, we witness the opposite trend in many democracies around the world. Deep rifts of division separate people concerning their countries’ perceived trajectories.
Largely, the viewpoints can be divided into two major categories: a conservative, nationalistic outlook, geared towards preserving traditional ideas and a market-driven economy with limited government oversight vs. a progressive viewpoint, directed at equality and global collaboration, with stronger governmental control over market forces.
Both factions feel very passionately about their viewpoints and distrust each other to the extent that some threaten to dismantle democracy altogether just to get their way. Both fractions strongly believe they act in the best interest of their country. It is up to the people to decide which path to follow.
As we know it, love is always right. More wealth distribution, rule of law, and community engagement facilitates peace. Respect for others and striving for equal human rights is linked to love and happiness. Distrust, division, and antagonism are not only unproductive, they are also contrary to love and happiness. By the same token, opposing democracy equals opposing love.
When we deal with other people from a position of love, we help our collective happiness. That does not mean we should surrender. We can deal with challenging subjects, such as immigration, from a viewpoint of love. No society can accommodate everybody—there are limits. These limits, however, can be enforced with respect and empathy.
Similarly, strong foreign relations are being built on a consistent record of appreciation and fairness, which facilitates effective leadership and international collaboration.
Conversely, history has shown that promoting a nationalistic agenda will invite international resistance and conflicts, which will ultimately hurt a country even if such policy is initially being perceived as “strong.”
Every democracy gets the government it deserves. It is up to us to elect a government which believes in the principles of fairness, respect, and democracy, or in antagonism, egocentricity, and discrimination. The result may determine if we are looking at years of conflicts and wars, or of healing and peace.