Demokratins begränsningar

Det är inte (helt) självklart hur kristna ska rösta. Men att det är en kristen plikt att rösta, det råder det inga tvivel om. Vi ska engagera oss i det samhälle vi lever och verkar i och göra det vi kan för att låta Hans vilja ske, inte dra oss tillbaka till våra kyrkor och vänta på Herrens ankomst. Vi ska inte heller kräva perfektion av det parti eller den partiledare vi röstar på. Gör vi det kommer vi inte att kunna rösta på någon.

I USA är det snart val och där finns ett stort problem med röstskolkande kristna. Där liksom här finns en stor frustration över att ingen av de stora kandidaterna lever upp till de ideal som vi rättmätigt ställer på en människa som ska leda ett helt land. Där liksom här existerar också en förståelig misstro till demokratin som den har utvecklats. Både USA och Sverige domineras av makteliter som till stora delar har lämnat de värderingar och övertygelser som varit helt självklara för alla tidigare generationer. Jag tänker här på äktenskapet som successivt töms på innehåll. Jag tänker på att små oskyldiga människor rutinmässigt dödas på våra sjukhus varje dag utan att någon enda politiker protesterar.

Läget kan verka hopplöst. Felet kan emellertid vara att vi tror för mycket om demokratin. Demokrati är ju trots allt, enligt Aristoteles, endast det bästa av de sämsta sätten att styra ett land. Om detta skriver Benjamin Wiker i en intressant artikel i Crisis Magazine. Wiker skriver:

If you don’t expect much from democracy, you’ll never be disappointed. Contrary to reigning belief, democracy isn’t the best form of government. It doesn’t even merit the dishonor of being the worst form of government. It is, as Aristotle said so long ago, the best of the worst forms of government. If that assertion makes you angry, then you’re too bound to mere earthly things, and hence bound to be continually disappointed by our democracy, expecting from it far more than it can deliver.

Aristoteles menade att det finns sex slags styrelseskick, tre goda och tre dåliga. De goda är kungadöme, aristokrati och politeia. De dåliga är demokrati, oligarki och tyranni. Wiker igen:

What divides the good from the bad is simply this: The good regimes, whether they are ruled by one person (kingship), a few (aristocracy), or the majority (polity), are ruled in accordance with the true good of human nature and for the benefit of everybody (the ruled as well as the rulers). The bad regimes – whether they are ruled by the majority (democracy), by the few (oligarchy), or by one (tyranny) – are not directed to the true good but to the private gratification of the passions of the rulers.

Varken Aristoteles eller Platon var särskilt förtjusta i demokratin. Kanske kan vi få perspektiv på vår nuvarande situation om vi studerar skälen till deras missnöje. Wiker skriver:

Democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks, and Plato witnessed it firsthand in Athens, the very Athens that democratically consigned his beloved mentor Socrates to death. Speaking through the character of Socrates in his famous dialogue the Republic_, Plato marks equality as the defining principle of democracy – a principle that determines not just the structure of the government but even forms the very souls of the citizens. In an extreme democracy, the passion for equality is all-consuming, spreading to every aspect of life, so that not only are all citizens treated equally under the law,_ but all opinions, all passions, all views of what is good are treated as equally meritorious_.
_

Since all ways of life and all views of goodness demand equal recognition, the more noble distinctions between good and evil, better and worse, are banished as old-fashioned and tyrannical. As Socrates remarks in the Republic_, “If someone says that there are some pleasures belonging to fine and good desires and some belonging to bad desires, and that the fine and good ones should be practiced and honored, and the bad ones checked and chained, the democratic man shakes his head at all this and says that all are alike and must be honored on an equal basis.”_

Det är lätt att, som Wiker, känna igen vårt eget politiska system i det som Platon beskriver:

It isn’t difficult to see aspects of our own political system in Plato’s description of democracy taken to its extreme. We too are more and more animated by a passion for equality that undermines any and every distinction between good or bad, better or worse. In our education, we refuse to distinguish between great books and the twaddle of merely popular books; in our music, we refuse to distinguish between the ethereal harmonies of Mozart and the guttural ululations of heavy metal and rap; in our formally civil public discourse we are more and more defined by the politically correct dictum that all pleasures, all ways of life, “are alike and must be honored on an equal basis”; and in regard to our pursuit of happiness, we refuse to distinguish between those who seek happiness in the most elevated virtues and those who seek it in the most elaborate vices. We have fairly well given up any distinctions in regard to sexuality, and we honor, even worship, androgynous pop stars and sexually omnivorous movie stars. And finally, we have lost the battle to pass a constitutional amendment that all notions of marriage are not equal. (Come back in 20 years, when beleaguered conservatives, having suffered one defeat after another, will try to gain support for an amendment limiting marriage to two or more human beings.)

Wiker summerar:

We could sum it all up by recognizing that, for us, rights are more and more defined – in our courts, in politics, and in our own hearts – as “the license”¦to do whatever one wants.” We are indeed approaching ever closer to extreme democracy, where all opinions, all passions, all views of what is good are treated as equally meritorious.

Jag låter dessa ord från Wiker få avsluta:

Do not expect more than democracy can deliver, but do help deliver democracy from itself.