English 
Español 
The origin of democracy
Today there is much talk about the crisis of democracy. Winston Churchill once said that ‘it is the best alternative among the bad forms of government’. At the same time, people in emerging countries are as if hypnotized, looking at democracy as the panacea that will cure all their ills. But very soon it is revealed, that every democratic government is only as good as the rulers who exercise power. In its time, democracy has also fascinated Europe, looking at the example of Abraham Lincoln in the USA, and much closer, to Switzerland, the oldest democracy in the world.
Although it is thought that Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu were the forerunners of democracy, in reality this form of government is nourished by a Judeo-Christian culture that has been cradled for almost four millennia, because for it to work well it has to rely on people of great moral integrity, as an English character formulated: ‘Democracy is only for gentleman’ who are aware of the dignity of man.
Despite the great disasters that have taken place in the world, initiated by abuses of power that were initially democratically legitimated, it must be acknowledged that the world has never progressed as much – and not only materially – as it has in the last hundred years.
Ever since there have been men on earth, there has always been an authority in a social group, which began as a nomad, then a tribe. There were chieftains, sorcerers, wise men, or old men, who, because of their high age, considered themselves capable of governing and judging. When the transition from nomadic life to agricultural settlement took place, small populations with a higher quality of life and more people began to emerge, resulting in more stable systems of authority. What is interesting in this development is the fact, that a minimum ethical code had always been assumed, which arose from rational common sense: not to steal, not to kill or harm another unjustly, to respect things (property rights) and another’s wife etc. Transgressions against these principles had much more severe sanctions than those of the present. Revenge was one of the forms of punishment, which often went beyond the limits, creating an atmosphere of continuous struggle that so much hindered civilizational progress for centuries. The imagination of Hollywood tries to show us in so many films how the Huns, Spartans, Persians, Egyptians, Indians in America etc. lived in this way.
Since the dawn of man’s life on earth many centuries have passed with minimal progress in science and technology. It was only with the advent of the people of Israel that a rich ethical codification based on monotheism appeared, culminating later with the advent of the Christian era, which established the revealed divine Law, confirming and perfecting the previous moral laws. Thanks to these teachings, the Judaeo-Christian West was able to develop much further than the other peoples of America and Asia.
Influence of Jewish and Christian principles
And so, because the West had a clearer notion of what moral good and evil is, little by little, thanks to the work of the Church and its educational institutions, a higher way of life based, ultimately, on freedom and love of God and neighbor began to emerge. Even today, these principles come as an uplifting shock to so many non-Christian peoples in Africa and Asia. The Judaeo-Christian concept of the family is what contributed most to the progress of the West, because it allowed for the optimal education of children, triggering a ‘virtuous circle’ with enormous positive consequences for modern science and technology, which have their roots precisely in Judaeo-Christian culture.
Its principles have profoundly inspired the laws in the West, which are based on the fact that man, as a rational being, is free, and therefore to achieve good, he must be loved and have the means to achieve it, thus overcoming the tendencies towards evil (for example, stealing, being unfaithful, lying, making others suffer unjustly, etc.). Therefore, man is responsible for his actions, and deserves sanction from public authority when his behavior harms the rights of others.
Initially, the origin of political power was derived from dynastic descent or from another principle quite different from democracy. Only a few centuries ago this power began to be assigned by a council or the people, through decisions by all or by those who considered themselves their representatives. But already in Greece, and then in Rome and in the Middle and Modern Ages, Caesar or the King did not always have absolute powers.
The emergence of modern democracy
Democracy as we know it today is relatively recent. The French Revolution, which broke out in 1789, did not invent freedom, equality and fraternity, but these principles were taken from the philosophical teachings of Christian inspiration and were wielded as weapons against the so-called ‘ancienn regime’ (old regime of political-dynastic court). Is not it proof that the remedy claimed by this revolution was worse than the disease it was intended to cure, killing millions in wars and street uprisings, persecuting the Church and everything that opposed it? I think it is an example, like so many in the history of mankind, that good cannot prevail without being good oneself. The same thing is happening today in other ways.
Now I remember reading Beethoven’s biography recently. Politically they were a great romantic. With great naivety he thought in Vienna that Napoleon’s incursion into Austria would finally mean liberation from the dynastic and monarchical yoke, but he was soon disappointed when he saw that Napoleon behaved even worse than the previous nobility. Our time and our world of the last hundred years present a new situation, because the Law is gradually being dissociated from the principles and the Christian life that underlies it. Let us look at some examples:
Hitler came to power through democratic elections, in which he received decisive support especially from the Protestant sections of the electorate. And in Czechoslovakia, shortly after the end of the Second World War, the communist party obtained, also democratically, a relative majority sufficient to appoint the head of the government. In both cases, the consequences were catastrophic, meaning in the case of Germany 54 million deaths in the Second World War, and in the case of Czechoslovakia, the communist oppression of a people of 15 million inhabitants, until the Velvet Revolution in 1989.
What had happened? Why had democracy failed? Because the electorate had trusted the elected leaders to defend their rights. Although the electorate was bewildered by the dramatic timing of both elections – the humiliation of the Germans after World War I, and the feeling that the Communist Russians had liberated Czechoslovakia from the German protectorate – the voters could not help but want good, justice and brotherhood for themselves. And instead they had to suffer the opposite, because they had fallen into the typical electoral trap, whose bait is the illusions of the voters, who, with their vote, their work and their taxes, give strength and power of command to those who will later lead them to the precipice.
The abuses of the democratic system
Throughout these pages we will see that almost always, the injustices and abuses of the government are the result of not having respected the truth of things, natural reason and common sense. And when the error is presented as an attempt, doesn’t it become a lie aimed at manipulating the electorate or justifying the unjustifiable? Certainly, in politics there cannot be truths as in science, but only opinions that lead to prudential decisions, which in turn lead to a good result, if the good for all has been sincerely sought, which presupposes respect for the Natural Law and human rights, which must always be the premises from which to start.
But something very different is the deliberate distortion of the truth in order to achieve an end that is alien to the common good. Therefore, the truth in politics does exist and must be demanded in terms of the right intention of the ruler and, above all, in terms of understanding according to the truth of the problems and in the way to remedy them. Here the criterion of truth is given by the demands of justice and the criterion of proportionality between the measures to be applied and their effects. For example: Hitler and his ideology around the superiority of the Aryan-Germanic race has led to disastrous effects. At the other extreme we find the good governance of an Adenauer, who has sought the truth in the demands of justice that he found in the encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’. I leave in the inkwell many other examples of good government, whose minimum requirement is the right intention of the ruler, even if later they would have been wrong about some things, as is the case of Charles De Gaulle, Ronald Reagan and others.
Nowadays, although the economic and political problems are very complex, the citizen should never cease to be vigilant about the measures that the State applies to solve them, in order to avoid, if necessary, the tendency to selfishness of its rulers, when they no longer live for their people, but for themselves, trying to submit everything to their absolute control. Under this pretension of some leaders, wouldn’t it be logical that they assume a personal responsibility for their government’s actions (‘political accountability’)? Therefore, we have to see who and how they have rolled – in some case – a snowball that hurts the people. In general, we citizens are also to blame, because we do not continuously monitor the government’s management, relying on the Constitutional Rights, which unfortunately almost nobody knows in detail.
How to avoid abuses
These abuses of democracy are being repeated again and again in so many countries today. How can we overcome this vicious circle? What would be the measures that would allow us to overcome it, or at least to mitigate it?
Firstly, as I have just said, part of the blame lies with the citizens, insofar as they themselves do not live according to the dictates of their conscience. If this was not well formed in the family itself, man can hardly have the sensibility to concern himself with political matters; will such people not rather choose the list of a political party, without knowing the people to whom they give their vote, without asking about their ideas, their visions? This type of citizen is more likely to be seduced by the satisfactions that make consumption and life relatively easy, thanks to high economic productivity, based on increasingly advanced technologies. For example, in the USA, the average time spent watching television is four and a half hours. In Europe it is somewhat less.
Then there is overfeeding, alcohol, sport, tourism etc., which ensures a good material life, never before seen in the history of mankind. Even what was the poor third world thirty years ago, today are emerging countries where hunger and extreme poverty have been significantly reduced. But all this material satisfaction may well numb the interest in the affairs of political government, which at the time of elections tends to elevate to the pedestal of command people of insufficient profile to administer with competence, honesty and justice the common good.
How to choose good leaders?
Finally there is the fault of the elected ruler, insofar as he himself does not have the necessary profile for his position. Here we must take into account that an honest, well-considered person is not enough, because in the exercise of political leadership the person elected will find himself with a power that requires not only decency and honesty, but also a profound decision to remain morally impeccable. I ask the reader: How to find such people, which demands a previous knowledge even of the particular life of the individuals who aspire to reach the political command? For example, in the United States, a candidate for President has no chance of being elected if he does not run with his wife and children. A ruler who deceives his wife, or who leads an immoral life in other orders, will have no reason not to deceive his people as well.
As for the professional competence of the ruler, should not a similar preparation be achieved as that of an architect, a doctor, etc.? It is interesting to consider that, in all countries, the Law regulates especially those professions whose exercise exposes the citizen to a risk in his physical and psychic integrity, requiring higher studies and an officially defined technical preparation, which will then allow the exercise of Medicine, Architecture, Law, etc. Moreover, the citizen who requests such professional services is also supported by the recommendation of a trusted third party. Cómo votar mejores políticos
However, access to the political function requires only being elected. Here no previous study or preparation is required, due to the dogmatic principle that every citizen has the sacrosanct active and passive political right: that is, the faculty to vote and be voted. And this situation becomes even more complicated when not individuals but parties are elected, which may well be dens of all kinds of manipulation of elements that should never have come to power. Winston Churchill once said that the best thing is to elect rich political leaders, because they would be less inclined to steal from the citizenry and would take more care of their honor.
The dogma that every citizen has all active and passive political rights has been cradled by the enlightened rationalist thought of Locke, Monsquieu, and others, then vindicated in revolutions, and finally imposed on public opinion as a kind of truth of religious faith. Could it be that this juridical concept of equality, without any preconditions of due preparation, is based on the Volterian rationalist prejudice that every man is good by nature, and that only bad influences can degenerate him? If we were to start from the obvious truth, that every man is also inclined to evil, it would probably have been possible to save a great many disasters.
One way of solving this enormous problem could be a constitutional principle requiring a university degree as a necessary condition for access to government positions. In this way, institutions could be created in order to train the candidate in the moral and professional aspect for the good performance of the political command. France, for example, has its School of Public Administration. Other leading countries train their political cadres in certain universities, just as multinational companies prefer those who have studied at Harvard. Other forms of preparation and knowledge of the person is the political career. At the same time, there should never be a lack of laws that prevent corruption, waste and a public administration that does not dispense with digital technology to streamline and expedite its operations. Above all, a good anti-corruption law is important, without any compromises that would mean leaving the door open for manipulation, for example, in the awarding of public works. A specific, negative example is provided by an anti-corruption law in a Central European country: it states that all public works must be subject to public tendering, except in cases of extreme urgency. And this loophole is continuously leaking projects that do not have to be subject to open tendering.
The question is: what can the citizen do to improve the management of political government? I suggest some ideas to the reader:
- Read the Constitution, to become aware of their rights of petition to the public official.
- Form an association or group to make petitions or complaints to the government. The Internet allows you to create a blog or a web page from which you can motivate and move thousands and millions, as can be seen in the USA and other countries. It would be desirable that these action groups are above the party political factions, with the advantage of nuclear power thus to more citizens. The strategy would be to carry out the ‘ˇmanagement´’ of citizen discontent, in the form of notes signed on the Internet, or printed and sent to the government. Do we not hear so many justified complaints, from so many friends and acquaintances, that have no effect because they do not reach the knowledge of political dignitaries? The experience of the Tea Party in the USA, for example, indicates that a fraction of the electorate is heard and taken seriously. At the same time, this effort facilitates the political formation of the citizen.
- Therefore, we have to be deeply convinced that it is not enough to go to the ballot box, but then we have to exercise our constitutional right to monitor the management of the Government, which will take shape in what was said before or in as many other initiatives that may occur to us in our specific political situation, without excluding public demonstration in the streets.
In this sense, during my stay of 18 years in Switzerland I was able to admire how the right to the referendum, anchored in the Helvetian constitution, works: if one hundred thousand citizen petitions are delivered to the Federal Government in Berne, the latter has the obligation to call for the vote on the matter raised, paying all the expenses from the public treasury. I remember that more than twenty years ago, the Swiss Federal Government was determined to apply for membership of the European Union, something which was prevented precisely by a referendum, which was repeated after many years, with the same negative result.
Could it be that the referendum is so rejected by the majority of those in power, because it limits their powers and forces them to focus more on what the people want, by voting not on people but on the very issues of government? It is interesting to note that the most important countries such as the USA and Germany do not have it, and it is very easy to carry it out today through the Internet. It is a pity that governments keep their distance from their constituents, who feed them through high taxes. They listen little to their people with the prejudice that the citizens really do not know what they want, or that they are too ignorant or unworthy. Symptoms of this arrogant attitude are not lacking in any country, unfortunately. A positive example, in this sense, is perhaps Angela Merkel in Germany and, in her time, Ronald Reagan in the USA.
- Promote the personal knowledge of the Head of Government, the President, Ministers, Judges etc. Is it not striking that at this point the initiative is usually taken by political dignitaries or TV, but not by the platforms of citizen action? It can be illustrative in this sense to put in Google the concept ‘Political Social Networks’ or ‘political actions on the Internet’ to realize that the Internet can revolutionize the political intervention of the citizen because it is accessible to everyone at almost zero cost. To do this, it is enough to overcome one’s own comfort by cutting the time spent watching TV.
Finally, one cannot forget the enormous importance and reality of the Rule of Law, whose institutions have always allowed for a series of effective guarantees in favour of the citizen. The legal body of laws, whose head is the Constitution, has proved to be very positive, especially through the introduction of the principle of the division of the three powers: legislative, executive and judicial. At the same time, however, it must be said that the law alone does not provide good government. We need, as we said above, good governors, who understand their work as a vocation of service.
Despite all the defects of democracy, it is precisely and above all the rule of law that has allowed great progress throughout the world. It is interesting to note that the richest countries are the ones that most seriously cultivate the rule of law, even though the democratic function always has great defects and is subject to all kinds of abuses. It has happened so often that a country has done well during a period of bad governance, mainly thanks to the rule of law and its institutions.
In conclusion, is democracy nothing more than a formal technique for electing rulers, directly or indirectly, without any guarantee that they will do well in their positions? Pre-election promises and future political ideals are often aimed only at capturing votes. It is very likely that a king today, if he is a good person and has been able to surround himself with a good team, would do better than a democratic government that is not up to the task from an ethical or technical point of view.
Another alternative could be the election of a group of citizens of recognized moral and professional solvency, to entrust them with the entire management of the executive branch, which in turn could be entrusted in part to an international audit firm that is in a position to administer the common good in a manner analogous to how a large company is run, according to technocratic criteria, seeking maximum efficiency with minimum costs. The regime of the rule of law would mark its functions, powers and limits. The control of its management could be overseen by an executive branch and by the judiciary branch, which would be specially prepared for this function. Thus, the people would have to elect only the members of the legislative chambers, which in turn could appoint the President – the executive power – and the members of the judiciary. This system would be very austere, which in turn would make it possible to reduce taxes and boost economic activity. The great advantage of the services of a foreign audit, as the executing arm of the executive branch, would be in the annulment of favoritism and in the maximum rationalization of public administration, which would thus be much less costly.
A State whose rulers do not in fact recognize human rights and dignity of man, will they be able to enact just laws? Similarly, a State that does not respect the Church and other religious groups will probably not be able to count on citizens who are well formed in their conscience, which will have dire consequences for all areas of social coexistence.
A government that does not protect the family would not ensure the good emotional and moral education of the children. Furthermore, it must respect the principle of subsidiarity, by virtue of which the powers that be must always give preference to citizens’ initiatives, in matters where the State can and must encourage intervention by intermediate groups, in sectors such as education, the protection of the family, labour matters, sport, health, public transport, etc. This respect for citizens’ initiative must be linked to a regulatory function of minimums and a policy of subsidies, which in the end will be less costly for the State than doing everything itself, without the base.
In other words, the government and the entire state apparatus must have the sole purpose of promoting the common good of the people. This seems to be unclear to the current State in some countries, because there is a clear tendency to want to do everything itself, considering the citizens as a kind of livestock that every year has to be left to be taxed, absorbing through taxes up to 50% of the income of its subjects (individuals and corporations). Moreover, this attitude of the Government slows down individual initiative in sectors that do not have an immediate profit motive (support for the family, education, health, sport, culture, etc.), partly curtailing individual freedom and that of intermediate groups.
