The ‘Underthrow’ of Democracy

We are all familiar with the processes of the overthrow of a democracy by force, but can a democracy be destroyed by the consent of the governed – the ‘underthrow’ of democracy? During the McCarthy period I used to ask myself this question and, more particularly, if it could, would I as the citizen of a democratic society, be thereby required to accept this decision by the majority of the people? In brief, can a democratic society democratically choose another form of government, say a dictatorship? In what follows I want to suggest that this is possible and, what I did not consider at that time, it is being done at this moment.

Some time ago John Dean wrote an article for Fndlaw in which he argued that it was possible to convert our democracy to a dictatorship within the constraints of the Constitution. I want to discuss the possibility that this could be, and possibly is, being done without the mass of the population knowing it or, in a sense, caring.

The first requirement is that the population is basically satisfied with its society. There is a pervasive sense of well being. Most people have adequate food and shelter and people’s minds are kept distracted by entertainment, a constant stream of innovation, and the general feeling that tomorrow will be better than today. This is the root theme of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World in which citizens are bred to their occupations and provided with soma drug-induced vacations whenever they showed signs of unrest. I think the evidence is that we have, in the main, such a population. For example, it puzzles me that, in view of the economic, foreign policy, and military debacles and the dismal prospects for the future, there has been no significant public unrest. Knowledgeable young people undertook the “Battle of Seattle’ and large numbers demonstrated against invading Iraq, yet these efforts generated no resistance from the population as a whole. While others have written of this phenomenon attributing it to corporate media control and hence citizen ignorance, I think it is more substantially attributable to citizen indifference due to being sheltered from the dire direct impacts of a debt-based economy. The relevant information is easily available on the Internet for those who care to look for it.

Assuming this to be the case, a second factor is that the citizenry has, through technology, size of population and the intrusion of wealth, been substantially divorced from the major decision making process. This has occurred to such an extent that even their legislative representatives have been removed from the process by an arbitrary executive – at least those who were not sheep to begin with. Again, no substantial protest.

This absence of protest has been in my judgement a significant factor in the rise of the notion of a unitary presidency in time of war. This situation is a clear indication that there is a movement in this country to create a dictatorship out of this democracy and that that movement has reached the highest levels of government including the true believers on the Supreme Court. While the movement is couched in terms of this presidential power only in times of war, it is obvious that we have an administration and a Republican candidate prepared for continuous war - McCain asserts 100 years. One hundred years of conditioning is more than enough to produce a generation accepting of dictatorship as a proper form of government. It took only forty years of a standing army to produce acceptance of perpetual militarism in this country. The fact that McCain made this statement makes it clear he has no concept of war’s destructive impact on a democratic society – or he is aware of it and, like Bush, intends to exercise his dictatorial powers.

Perhaps our democratic values became so commonplace, so seldom made the focus of thought, and their necessity disguised by affluence, that in our large and complex society power was moved from the people to a few who conduct a puppet show we call voting. Voting is the only democratic function most people are aware of. Yet how many of us have analyzed this process in terms of democratic practice? The candidates are largely chosen for us. Those that oppose the accepted doctrine are weeded out by denying them exposure in a large society dependent upon mass communications. Kucinich was an obvious victim of this process. Even the remaining “elect able” candidates are become the focus of trivia administered by the media. Serious consideration of major issues is not allowed to get through to the public. The people, therefore, make their selection on the basis of distracting trivia such as gay rights and abortion. The focus on small things when faced with large issues is a feature of childishness. Thus voting itself has been trivialized although its shell remains and democracy is thereby defeated or underthrown.

Bob Newhard