Letter from Rev. Beu
Walking Together
Recently, my friend Bill told me that perhaps Iraq would do better if it had another dictator to control it and bring back some semblance of peace.
“Sometimes democracy is just not the best form of government.” Bill asserted. “Perhaps in countries, such as Iraq that do not have democratic traditions or institutions nor an educated populace, democracy will just not work.”
In other words, Iraq, in Bill’s mind, will need another dictator like Saddam.
I understand. It is true that Iraq now is a mess. And it is hard to know what would bring peace to that tragic nation. And it is true that it does not have the same advantages our nation did before its formation in that our Founders looked to English jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophers.
Sadly and ironically, even in our own nation, democratic traditions
are being eroded, including the Grand Writ of Liberty— habeas corpus —which has sometimes been called the essential right of a free society. It has been a part of English and American law since the Petition of Right was passed in Parliament in 1628 to put a check on the power of King Charles I.
Which makes me wonder: is democracy workable? It is easy to understand why Bill would think a dictator is needed in Iraq, but what about our losing our democratic traditions? Did we need to change so much after September 11, 2001?
Actually, I do not believe a dictator is what a country needs. It is true that a dictator can bring order and stability in the short run,
but after his reign [in rare cases, her reign] has ended, then almost invariably, all hell breaks loose. It is like a prison riot. When a leader uses fear to accomplish his goals, after the fear is lifted, the people will often respond with rage and self-indulgence. Democracy is a better way. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except when compared to all the rest.”
But my goal here is not to promote democracy for all nations, at least not our kind of democracy. Rather, I want to promote our number-one principle, that is, to affirm the worth and dignity of every individual human being. If a nation or community or church
can agree to that principle, then the odds would improve that there
will be peace.
We, the members and friends of Emerson Church, believe in a democratic process. And, no doubt, it can be difficult at times. It is not as if people become saints when they become members or friends of Emerson. And it is certainly tempting to forgo the process because it can be messy and inconvenient. But democracy will win out in the long run, because it offers the greatest chance for most, if not all, voices to be heard, for policies to be created with care and sensitivity, and for other people’s thoughts and feelings being taken into account.
Recently, my friend Bill told me that perhaps Iraq would do better if it had another dictator to control it and bring back some semblance of peace.
“Sometimes democracy is just not the best form of government.” Bill asserted. “Perhaps in countries, such as Iraq that do not have democratic traditions or institutions nor an educated populace, democracy will just not work.”
In other words, Iraq, in Bill’s mind, will need another dictator like Saddam.
I understand. It is true that Iraq now is a mess. And it is hard to know what would bring peace to that tragic nation. And it is true that it does not have the same advantages our nation did before its formation in that our Founders looked to English jurisprudence and Enlightenment philosophers.
Sadly and ironically, even in our own nation, democratic traditions
are being eroded, including the Grand Writ of Liberty— habeas corpus —which has sometimes been called the essential right of a free society. It has been a part of English and American law since the Petition of Right was passed in Parliament in 1628 to put a check on the power of King Charles I.
Which makes me wonder: is democracy workable? It is easy to understand why Bill would think a dictator is needed in Iraq, but what about our losing our democratic traditions? Did we need to change so much after September 11, 2001?
Actually, I do not believe a dictator is what a country needs. It is true that a dictator can bring order and stability in the short run,
but after his reign [in rare cases, her reign] has ended, then almost invariably, all hell breaks loose. It is like a prison riot. When a leader uses fear to accomplish his goals, after the fear is lifted, the people will often respond with rage and self-indulgence. Democracy is a better way. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except when compared to all the rest.”
But my goal here is not to promote democracy for all nations, at least not our kind of democracy. Rather, I want to promote our number-one principle, that is, to affirm the worth and dignity of every individual human being. If a nation or community or church
can agree to that principle, then the odds would improve that there
will be peace.
We, the members and friends of Emerson Church, believe in a democratic process. And, no doubt, it can be difficult at times. It is not as if people become saints when they become members or friends of Emerson. And it is certainly tempting to forgo the process because it can be messy and inconvenient. But democracy will win out in the long run, because it offers the greatest chance for most, if not all, voices to be heard, for policies to be created with care and sensitivity, and for other people’s thoughts and feelings being taken into account.
posted by Dave Hogg at
9:49 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
