Democracy’s Seven Deadly Sins

“Democracy.” We hear a lot of talk about this all-defining concept. It is the magic elixir for the world’s political ills. Politicians brandish the term as they would a crucifix before a vampire often coating their actions with the honey of “Democracy” in order to win our support.

Yet true Democracy is often different than what we are led to believe, so it behooves us to better understand this most American of our ideals.

To best define something, in this case Democracy, it is helpful to look at its polar opposite, what it is not. “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” which I have been devouring the past two months is a divinely ordained wake up call in this respect. In it we learn, by negative experience, the essential elements of a true democracy. That is, since Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler represented the polar opposite of a free democracy, by studying the characteristics of this most fascist of states we can more clearly appreciate what defines our free democracy, and be better able to follow it.

First, the hallmarks of Hitlerian fascism:

1) A populace made subservient by catastrophe and fear;

2) Political leadership more focused on personal gain and/or special interests than the greater public interest;

3) Concentration of power, without the safeguard of checks and balances, in the head of state; who had

4) A powerful military made accountable to that head instead of to the people; and who also had

5) Control of the airwaves that enabled the constant broadcast of false information; and who

6) Gave total priority to corporate interests over those of workers and lower classes; and who

7) Eliminated dissent through intimidation and brutal force, and the fomenting of public opinion against critics of the head of state through appeals to nationalism and patriotism.

These are the Seven Deadly Sins for not only democracy but for all free, communal societies. Now let’s look at the corresponding polar opposites for each of these traits in truly free democracies:

1) A populace with faith--in their country, in each other and in their government;

2) Political leaders, fairly elected and solely focused on the greater public interest;

3) Shared political power with safeguarding checks and balances on the head of state;

4) A powerful military answerable to the citizens through their elected representation;

5) Open airwaves, treated as the public franchise they are, where divergent viewpoints are given equal time;

6) Workers’ interests are equal to those of the corporations;

7) Encouragement of comment and criticism as a patriotic act.



Remarkably, a perfect example occurred as I was writing this. George Bush gave his speech calling for Congress to pass his military tribunal legislation so “…the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice.”

Bush said his military commissions would ensure a full and fair trial for the accused and that “The Supreme Court determined that military commissions are an appropriate venue for trying terrorists, but ruled that military commissions needed to be explicitly authorized by the United States Congress.”

Yet this is not so. First, his is a gross mis-statement of the Court’s ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, where it ruled that any military commission or court-martial proceeding must comply with the law of war as defined by our USMJ and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Secondly, Bush could have had the trials long ago under these well-established rules. Instead he unilaterally and unnecessarily trashed our honored system of justice for no reason whatsoever. He would deny the accused such basic rights as knowing the evidence and witnesses against them, while allowing hearsay and potentially coerced testimony to be used as evidence

So why this need to run roughshod over our Constitution as well as our international obligations under historic treaties? If the government’s case is as strong as Bush tells us it is, then why the need to try them in Hitlerian style? For those kangaroo courts were similarly ordered, the verdicts all but certain before the “trials” ever began.

Further imperiling our Democracy, the president continually grabs more and more power to himself while trying to eliminate the checks and balances our Constitution demands. Most blatant are his “signing statements.” These are done after Congress—a Republican-dominated Congress at that—passes laws that are already reflective of his desires.

But this is not good enough. He has, over 750 times, RE-INTERPRETED those laws even further so that they will mean EXACTLY what he “interprets” them to mean. Never before his presidency has this been done to this degree, and it was never done at all until Reagan’s term of office.[1]

Traditionally, Congress hammers out compromises, the truest act of a representative democracy, and the President signs the bill or vetoes it, which allows Congress to re-address it. Instead President Bush has not vetoed even one bill. He deceptively ushers in members of both parties, smiles, signs and takes photos. THEN, he effectively reneges by making the newly signed law say what the Congress never intended.

These are anything but acts done within a true Democracy. They are more akin to the classic definition of fascism. A non-partisan Congress would not allow this to happen. But like the Reichstag in Hitler’s day, Congress goosesteps to its leader’s tune, ignoring the Constitution, the people and our over 200-year history of representative democracy.

Add to all this: 1) The Administration’s branding of dissenters as disloyal traitors, 2) their complete capitulation to the captains of commerce, 4) a populace made divided, suspicious and fearful, 4) unprecedented levels of scandalous Congressional sell-outs, and 5) a compliant media that has too often abdicated its traditional role as a watchdog for the truth and the commission of Democracy’s seven deadly sins is nearly complete.

I say nearly because in spite of efforts to chill it we still have a robust freedom of speech with many outlets for its voice. We remain Americans to the core, innately connected to the highest ideals of our nation’s noble beginnings. Regardless of the occasional shortcomings of its leaders Americans will in the end defend their democracy.

In the meantime we are left to love the sinner, while hating the sin.

[1] For an excellent review of Bush’s signing statements see: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/