Anti-Climacus

WELL: Johann at Harry's Place:

"The second point is a more complex one. The view it is responding to has best been expressed by Harry here. He explains, "My solidarity is not with ‘the Iraqis’ and it never has been. My solidarity is with Iraqi and Kurdish democrats and it is clear at the moment who their main enemy is." I have a huge amount of sympathy for this, but I fear it contains a logical flaw. How can we side with Iraqi democrats and not the majority of Iraqi people? If a majority of Iraqis want the US out in two months (and god knows, I hope they don't, but it seems to be the case), then how can we be democratic and oppose such a fundamental desire from a mjority of people?

If we defy the majority in the name of democracy, what kind of Iraq will the democrats eventually inherit? Won't it be even more radicalised and angry? Won't the democrats - rightly - look out of touch and be deposed swiftly?"

It certainly looks to be the case that a democracy is bound to begin on an illiberal note. Either it will be the case that everyone agrees there should be a democracy, and you've just begun your vigorous defense of freedome of speech and the rights of minorities with a display by a total majority without any dissent at all, or else you begin over the objections of at least some people. How can a new government possibly claim all the things we want it to if it admits, as a starting point, that at least some opinions are off the official menu?

I hate to bring up the teleological suspension of the ethical (it's a concept I tend to overuse), but it seems pretty reasonable to argue that even the groups who are outside the democratic process can be included in. Thus, the anti-federalists get their Bill of Rights as a condition of the constitution being ratified over their objections.

I've been doing some thinking through various historical examples, and I've not found reason to believe that any democracy or republic can make it very far without some (sometimes longstanding or intense) illiberal periods. They're not normatively desirable, obviously, and it's the job of people in a society to make sure that the run of illiberality is kept to a minimum, but sometimes the right thing has to be done even over the objections of the many.

More troubling than the theoretical/moral considerations are the practical ones. I suppose my answer would be this: there's a chance, to be sure, that undermining the majority in the name of democracy will backfire in a really ugly way. But a non-democratic government is almost certainly going to be as bad (or worse), and it's not clear that you can make it to a good form of government by any other way. It's a small chance, but a chance nonetheless.