Is democracy immoral?
POSTED BY Kirgy March 22nd, 2012 : 0 COMMENTS
Communism is born with the hope that through a communal wealth, and a central leader all of society will benefit as every individual will be treated equally. Yet we know all too well from news reports in the west that some of the gravest political actions are given degrees from dictator’s offices. Egypt’s uprising showed the absurd discontinuity between the responsibility of the leader to the people. When a people are starving in the streets, and the leaders family are all each multi-billionaires living in multiple mansions and these images and stories finally reach the hands of the people, its not hard to see why death was on the peoples lips. In a communist state, although the ideology of communism may be documented, written and preached, the cognitive process which relies on one man to take the ideals from the mind and release them as practise to the people is hindered by one major factor. Social pressure.
When we stand back and look at a democratic structure, we can actually see a shockingly similar correlation between the dictator of a communist state and a primister of a democracy. They both lead the country, they both have advisers for various departments, they both are given the burden of securing the people’s interest, whether that be fiscal, social, militant or moral. The dividing element is social responsibility. A democratic government is set under the people through forceful, periodic elections by the people. The crux of social pressure is where this weighs in. Although we may claim labour, conservative and liberal democrats are different, their polices are almost identical except some issues which, in my opinion, are over inflated beyond their overall standpoints. For instance, they all support the overarching fiscal interest, social interest, militant interest and moral interest.
We come to the question then, why is it all too common that a communist government falls to immoral conduct, yet we find democratic government, although by no means perfect, gains a better reputable global profile? It is because the competition behind elections, and the need to please the people drive government to listen. It is fair to say therefore that regardless of a ministers moral convictions, they will act in favour of social demand.
This principle of social demand driving government to social responsibility has intrigued me for some time. If you adhere to this, and your thinking can stretch beyond the post-modern movement, you may be asking yourself, what if the demand of society if morally wrong?
What if our society were to decide murder was good? Well, that would never happen I hear you thinking. But is that just because your worldview is shaped by your society? A hundred years ago the idea of a black man attending a university would have the same retort as you. Its easier to respond ‘that would never happen’ than to begin to question ‘what if my morals are just subject to my society?’ You may say that murder and human rights simply don’t equate, and I agree with you, but the point I am making is; are your moral decisions (gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion for some extreme examples) simply a by-product of liberty which is fertilised by government in our democratic society?
If our morals are subject to what society we are under, then this means our morals can change. If a moral changes, say, from an understanding of black rights being oppressed, to an understanding of black liberty, then is this to say that one of these understandings were wrong? Surely this is so. I think it is bewildering to then think that both these views are correct. Clearly one is wrong. This concept can be applied to any moral situation, whether that be something big such as gay marriage, or something seemingly small such as whether to hang onto that library book past its due date. It seems evident to me that if we apply this model to our own understanding of our morality, then we come to find that we don’t really have a moral structure at all. Its not that we are immoral, that is to say that we therefore are horrible people – its our actions that cause immorality not our understanding. But rather it makes us amoral; we simply don’t have a concept of good or evil.
If the key issue here is that our morals are amoral due to us framing what is right and wrong on what society demands, I believe the solution is to base them on something stable; something which will not be swayed by new thoughts, new beliefs – even if some may seem for the good and some are for the worse; our decisions of what is right and wrong and therefore we cant rely on understanding of morality. What we want is something that we can base our beliefs upon that is completely good. This is in effect the desire of all mankind. Sure, there are a few bent on immorality, but my experience of the world is they want moral conduct. In a democratic society we want it for the good of society, and therefore the individual.
The solution for me is the Bible. Having read and studied the Bible in quite some depth (yet may I add, that it is so vast a lifetime is too short to fully grasp that depth), I have concluded that there is simply nothing immoral about God’s teachings. Mankind suck at putting it into practise, this is true in the Old Testament with the Israelites, and it was true in the New Testament with the disciples (one of Jesus’ followers aided Jesus’ own falsely accused murder for the sake of money!). Jesus didn’t say to give false testimony, He said to love your brother, to not give false witness. He even said that the love of money is the root of all evil. I believe the pinnacle of moral teaching came from this man’s lips.
It is the Bible, I believe, is the hope for our nation. The reason why democracy is a bad model is not that it is capitalist or that government are hell bent of ruining our lives! Its because people are not reliable in judging morality, and its these people, us, that drive the decisions that our government puts over our society. There is no hope in mankind’s struggle to determine what is right and wrong. Its just a cycle of hundreds of years of the same mistakes. The hope for our nation is the moral teaching of Christ. If only enough people would raise their voice, then maybe the cry of morality would rise above the morals our society perceives as right.
Its an arrogant cry for Christians to hold in a society that says either ‘all morals are right’ or ‘my moral is right and yours is wrong.’ Yet, I can guarantee you one thing; if you read even one gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) you will find a flawless model of morality. Its shocking just how perfect it is. There simply is nothing wrong with it.
This alone is the hope for our nation. Christ alone is our hope.