We, the Oftentimes Wrong

The New Republic

You have read:

0 / 8

free articles in the past 30 days.

Already a subscriber?

Log in here

sign up for unlimited access for just $34.97Sign me up

POLITICS JANUARY 1, 2008

We, the Oftentimes Wrong

Madrid, Spain -- There’s
one danger inherent in the democratic system, a danger that, in recent times, keeps
surfacing. It is its tendency to spread into all other areas, even those that are
not strictly political.

Few people would deny that, however
imperfect, democracy is still the fairest, most acceptable and most reasonable
system of government. Not so much because the voters always choose the right
candidate (in fact they rarely do--one has only to look at the United States,
Venezuela, Iran or, until very recently, Italy, where voters kept Silvio Berlusconi
in high office for years), but because the citizenry as a whole is prepared to
put up with the results, however crazy or pernicious they might seem.

The important thing about democracy is not
who emerges from it as leader (remember, Hitler reached power via a combination
of the ballot box and pacts made with other parties), but the fact that the population
agrees that those chosen by the majority to govern will be allowed to govern
without further argument. Those of us who are appalled by the majority decision
will not attempt to foment rebellion; instead, we’ll either go into exile or be
patient and try to persuade the majority to vote differently next time.

Democracy guarantees only two things: that
we renounce force as a way of gaining power and that we renounce force as a way
of ousting a government, even if many people believe a government has acted
wrongly or against the interests of the country. What it never guarantees--and
this is something we should be quite clear about--are fair and honest leaders.

That’s why it’s so laughable when
present-day politicians invoke the democratic origins of their power just as
kings once invoked the supposed divine origin of theirs. What underlies this
attitude is the misleading idea that “the people are right” and that “if the
people have elected me, it’s because I am fair, good, honest and efficient.”

Obviously, one can’t know what any leader is
like until he or she has been in power for a while. And being endorsed by “the
people” in subsequent elections does not make them one iota better. That lying,
cataclysmic disaster, Bush Jr., received just such an endorsement, as did the manipulative,
dictatorial, coup-leading Hugo Chavez.

And if, around 1960, Spanish dictator
Francisco Franco had legalized political parties and called free elections, he
would have won them hands down, because the great mass of Spanish society was clearly
pro-Franco, however much people nowadays would like to deny or forget it. The
same would have happened over the decades with Castro in Cuba, as it did
with Hitler and Mussolini and Peron in their day.

In order to be--and continue to be--truly
democratic, it’s not enough to have been democratically elected, although that
is, of course, a necessary condition. You have to govern democratically too. These
simple ideas, which should be crystal clear, appear to be increasingly harder
to grasp. What people call “the people” are not necessarily right, or if they
are, it’s usually only retrospectively. It’s the grandchildren of “the people”
who might--just possibly--be right about the era in which their grandparents lived,
but who, regrettably, might be quite wrong about their nation’s current situation.

Put another way, present-day Germans see
Nazism as a complete disaster, a horrific mistake, but the Germans who lived
through that same Nazism saw it as the greatest blessing of their time--which
implies, alas, that present-day Germans might be no wiser about what is going
on now in their own country.

Or to use another example: Most Americans
now condemn the excesses and abuses of 1950s McCarthyism, and yet they show no
signs of disapproving of something far more serious that is happening right now--Guantanamoism.
It will, I’m afraid, be their grandchildren who’ll feel ashamed and shocked
that hundreds of prisoners were held for years under torture and without charge
or trial in a kind of ghost prison.

Bush Jr., the leader responsible for this,
was democratically elected (well, he was the second time), but the existence of
a place like Guantanamo
in large part de-democratizes him.

If what we call “the people” so often get
it wrong with something as vital as electing a leader, why should they do any
better in another field? And yet “popular” votes are proliferating, largely
because the Internet and text-messaging make it easier and easier to carry out
these sham polls. We are constantly reading or hearing that some newspaper or
organization or radio or television channel has got up a poll to determine, say,
the most important figure in the history of Spain or the United Kingdom or wherever.

And then there are the polls held to decide
the best songs, films or novels of all time: Since most of the people who take
part in this silliness are the young, the results depend greatly on what is
recent or even current.

The height of this half-witted concern with
what “most people” think was reached a few months ago. A multimillionaire--his millions
being his only credentials--launched a ridiculous “popular” vote to choose the
“new Seven Wonders of the World.” At first, this
seemed fairly innocuous, but it ceased to be so when even the more serious
newspapers devoted whole pages to the initiative, as if such a vote could have
any authority or value whatsoever.

How do “the people,” with no particular
artistic training, know what is wonderful and what is not? And have they all
been everywhere in order to compare the different Wonders? The poll triggered other
embarrassing initiatives. In Spain, there was a campaign to get “the people” to
vote for the Alhambra--the palace and fortress in southern Spain--regardless of
whether they had ever visited it or not.

Politicians and all kinds of celebrities,
including writers--who were previously assumed to possess at least a quarter of
a brain, if not half--hurried to vote for the Alhambra on the Internet, in case
they were deemed unpatriotic or something. I must confess that, after all this
nonsensical fuss, I was quite pleased when Granada’s “Wonder” failed to be chosen
as one of the seven stupidities of the world.

Just how stupid the whole thing was can be
gauged by the inclusion of the hideous statue, Christ the Redeemer or whatever
it’s called, that looms over Rio de
Janeiro. Apparently, people like it.

“The people” often like hideous things or
ludicrous and totally ephemeral things. “One hundred thousand Muslims in Indonesia,” I read in the newspaper, “are calling
for the creation of a pan-Islamic macro-state ruled by Sharia which would bring
together all majority Muslim territories, including Spain.” I’m sure there are millions
of Muslims calling for such a thing, therefore the Muslim “people” must want
it. Does being many make them right? No. Regrettably, we, “the people,” are
rarely right.

Javier
Marias is an award-winning author and columnist based in Madrid, Spain.
His work has been translated into 34 languages. His most recent book is the
novel Your Face Tomorrow: Dance and Dream.

Translated
from the Spanish by Margaret Jull Costa.

 

By Javier Marias

share this article on facebook or twitter

posted in: politics

print this article

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to Top

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK