Why Democracy Is A Bad Idea

Solvenia went to the polls today. On the ballot, a measure to restore the rights of ethnic minorities who were "erased" from the country's records following the breakup of Yugoslavia. The measure was overwhelmingly defeated with 95% of the voters voting to deny the existence of the minorities.

"It is a manifestation of racism, intolerance and extreme nationalism," said Tanja Rener, a sociologist. "The mere holding of the vote is a loss for democracy and human rights and a victory for those who preach about blood and territory."

Actually, Ms. Rener is wrong. The vote is an absolute victory for democracy. It is also proof of why democracy is a bad idea -in Slovenia, in Iraq, or America. Democracy is the tyranny of the mob.

The mob voted to deny basic rights to those different then themselves. They have voted to continue having a people without a nation living amongst them. This really is not all that unusual. It is part of human instinct. We tend not to trust those different than ourselves in any way. So given the chance to deny them, human nature will make it happen. America and to a lesser degree Western Europe are abberations in this respect, not the norm. The result of this vote should have been completely unsurprising to all but the ignorant.

This is exactly what will happen in Iraq if we were to institute a pure democracy. The Shi'ites would vote out of existence the Sunnis, the Kurds, the Christians, and anyone else within striking distance of their military. Pure democracy as a form of government is a failure.

What Iraq and Slovenia need, and America and Western Europe has, is a representative republic.

The matter of the rights of the "erased" never should have gone to a popular referendum. Instead, Slovenia needs the rarest of rare people: the Leader.

Not a leader like George Bush who can rally people in time of trouble. Not a leader like Tony Blair who can persuade his people to join an unpopular cause. Not a leader like Bill Clinton who gives the people what they want.

No. They need a Leader like a José Aznar or Yitzahk Rabin. Someone who will sacrifice his career in the case of the former or his life in the case of the latter to pursue a course he believes to be right, good, and in the best interest of his people - despite whatever beliefs they may, in fact, have themselves. True leadership involves making unpopular decisions, sometimes wildly unpopular ones. Real leadership has long term payoffs, not short term ones, which is why it is usually so politically distasteful. Voters have very short term viewpoints. Leaders must look beyond the noise and find the true calling.

The "erased" in Slovenia will never get their rights back through a popular vote or even a Parliament. If a Leader comes along who believes in their cause though, it might just happen.

But true Leaders are incredibly rare. Ronald Reagan came close, I might even be persuaded that he was a true Leader, but I don't think he quite made it. Winston Churchill was a Leader. Neville Chamberlain was not. Israel has had many Leaders in its short history, probably more than all other nations combined in the same time frame. Great leaders abound, but truly Great Leaders are a rare commodity indeed.

Democracy suffers because it is never able to spawn and benefit from such a Leader. Republicanism, whether it be the American model, the British Parliamentary one, or the Israeli model are all capable of taking advantage of the rare opportunities presented by such men. Therein lies their comparative strength as opposed to mob rule.

The ethnic minorites of Slovenia need a Great Leader, not a referendum.

Contrary to the statements of Ms. Rener, the vote in Slovenia was a triumph of democracy - and all that is wrong with it.