The following article comprises edited extracts from the book “The Challenges of Democracy and the Rule of Law” by the former Supreme Court Judge:
Jonathan Sumption,
The
Challenges Of Democracy
Democracy can only work in a legal and social culture
where there is freedom of thought, speech and association, uncontrolled access
to reliable information and a large tolerance of political dissent.
The opposite of democracy
is some form of authoritarian government.
It is of course possible
for democracies to confer considerable coercive power on the state without
losing their democratic character. It
has happened in wartime and it happened during the Covid-19 pandemic. But there is a point beyond which the
systematic application of coercion is no longer consistent with any notion of
collective self government. The fact
that it is hard to define where that point lies does not mean that there isn’t
one. A degree of respect for individual
autonomy seems to be a necessary feature of anything which deserves to be
called a democracy.
The chief enemies of
democracy are economic insecurity, intolerance and fear. Economic insecurity heightens concern about
inequality, yet inequality is an inevitable consequence of liberty. It reflects the diversity, energy, ambition
and enthusiasm of disparate human beings in any society in which these
qualities are not artificially suppressed.
In particular, it is a natural consequence of innovation, which is a
necessary condition of economic growth but inevitably disrupts the existing
distribution of wealth.
What is clear is that
when growth falters, people become more interested in the distribution of
income and wealth. This can poison
democratic politics, whether it is justified or not. Extremes of inequality can be socially
disruptive, promoting resentments that undermine the sense of shared identity
that is the foundation of any democracy.
Fear is another enemy of
democracy. People who are frightened
will submit to an authoritarian regime that offers them security against some
real or imagined threat. Historically
the threat has usually been war, but the real threat to democracies survival is
not major disasters like war. It is
comparatively minor perils, that in the nature of things occur more
frequently. We crave protection from
many risks that are inherent in life itself: financial loss, economic
insecurity, crime, sexual violence and abuse, accidental injury. Even the Covid-19 Pandemic, serious as it
was, was well within the broad range of mortal diseases with which human beings
have always had to live. People call
upon the state to save us from these things.
The problem of
intolerance or when it reaches a sufficient scale, polarisation, in many ways is the biggest threat to
democracy. It is not oppression by the
state, but the intolerance of our fellow citizens. John Stuart Mill foresaw that the main
threat to democracy’s survival would be the conformity imposed by public
opinion.
Demonstrations such as
those organised by Extinction rebellion are based on the notion that the
campaigners point of view is the only legitimate one. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to
bully people and disrupt their lives until they submit, instead of resorting to
ordinary democratic procedures. This is
the mentality of terrorists, but without the violence. Democracy can only survive if our
differences are transcended by our common acceptance of the legitimacy of the
decision making process, even when we disagree profoundly with the outcome. This implicit bargain breaks down if people
feel more strongly about the issues than they do about the democratic
procedures for settling them.
Direct action assesses
the value of democratic institutions by one criteria only, namely the degree to
which the activists programme has
prevailed. The contempt for politics
expressed by so many activists is potentially a mortal threat to our democracy.
Aristotle put his finger
on the reason why many people reject democracy. They feel alienated from the
political class that democracies inevitably generate. They do not regard politicians as representative
of themselves, even if they have voted for them.
Citizens assemblies are
currently the favourite proposals for circumventing professional politics, but
they are not chosen by the electorate and are not answerable to anyone. They therefore have no democratic legitimacy. Citizens assemblies by definition lack the
experience that enables professional politicians to assess what they are being
told. They are heavily dependent on the
expert advisors who endeavour to analyse the options and their consequences. The system is too vulnerable to manipulation
and facile solutions.
Whatever one thinks of
our politicians it is an inescapable truth that we cannot have democracy
without politics or politics without politicians! Democracy is an efficient way of getting rid
of unsatisfactory governments without violence.
There are three reasons
why people ought to believe in democracy.
It is the best protection we have for liberty. The creation of a political class may well
be the chief merit of democracy. Democracies
are usually more efficient.
Democracy requires a
common loyalty to the decision making process, which is strong enough to
transcend people’s disagreements about particular issues. That depends on a common sense of identity
and a large measure of solidarity. This
sense of solidarity exists only at the level of the nation state.
The transition from democracy to dictatorship is generally
smooth and unnoticed. It is easy to
sleepwalk into it. The outward forms and
the language of politics are unchanged.
Democracy is not formally abolished but quietly redefined. It ceases to be a method of government but
becomes a set of political values like communism or human rights which are said
to represent the peoples true wishes without regard to anything the people may
have chosen for themselves.
The United Kingdom
is slowly but surely going down this path towards an authoritarian state. Will the people wake up in time to stop it?
