The Tyranny Of Democracy

A Constitution Does Not Hold A Nation Together It Is Shared Traditions And Customs That Do

 Liberal Democracy has often been hailed as the pinnacle of human political achievement and the “final form of human government.” However, what is often never discussed is how democracy itself paradoxically paves the way to outright tyranny. 

This is not a new revelation, yet its reality has been obfuscated due to incessant propaganda from both left and right liberals who seek to exploit democracy for political gain at home and use it as a basis for expanding the American Empire abroad. 

We often hear the statement, "America is a Republic, not a democracy;” however, the left cares little for this distinction as they relentlessly attempt to introduce more instances of direct democracy into our system while eroding all societal morals and norms that are required to keep a society cohesive. 

We’ve all seen the protests on television, filled with people marching through streets chanting, “Show me what democracy looks like! This is what democracy looks like!” 

Ironically, a mob is exactly what democracy looks like 

But why does democracy devolve into mob rule and ultimately lead to tyranny? We begin to answer this question by first looking at the trial of Socrates. 

Socrates was put on trial to determine the philosopher's guilt on two charges: a lack of reverence for authority and corrupting the city's youth. During the trial of Socrates, out of the 500 Athenian jurors summoned 280 jurors voted to find Socrates guilty, and 220 jurors voted for acquittal. 

Wrong Speak Publishing’s First Book “Black Victim To Black Victor” Purchase Now from WSP’s Store or Amazon!

During the penalty phase, those same jurors got to vote on whether Socrates deserved a mere fine for his transgressions or deserved to die. One would think that since 220 jurors voted to acquit Socrates of all charges, the same number, if not more, would vote for the fine over sentencing him to death. 

Unfortunately for Socrates, that was not the case. Instead, a whopping 360 jurors voted for death, and only 140 voted for a fine. 

This means some jurors who voted to acquit Socrates then turned around and sentenced him to die. Under Athenian law, the execution was carried out by drinking a cup of poison hemlock. Socrates drank the poison and subsequently died of gradual paralysis of the central nervous system. 

But it wasn’t just the poison that killed Socrates; it was democracy. I say that because, in our legal system, criminal cases like this require a unanimous jury for conviction, not a simple majority. But in ancient Athens, a simple majority, i.e., democracy, was able to find Socrates guilty and sentence him to death. 

Plato, who was Socrates's most famous student, discussed five regimes in “Republic,” beginning with Aristocracy. As one progressed through the regimes, and each deteriorated into the next, one eventually arrived at tyranny. 

The last stage before tyranny? Democracy. 

Plato argued in “Republic” that the most just state was one where philosopher-kings ruled. Possessed with a love for wisdom and undergoing rigorous philosophical training, they would govern with the state's and its citizens' well-being as their top priority. 

This is in stark contrast to Plato’s views on democracy, which he believed would lead to the rise of popular leaders who would exploit people's emotions for their own gain instead of making decisions that benefited the common good.

The intersection of democracy and patronage

One way for political leadership to obtain power is through the ever-expanding universe of “individual rights.” As demands for more rights increase, the government must grow to protect these rights. As such, politicians then campaign on protecting and handing out even more rights and privileges. 

This patronage involves the exchange of favors and resources in return for political and financial support. Patronage is also used to garner votes and secure loyalty from interest groups as reliable voting blocs. This practice morphs genuine representation into mass manipulation, compromising the democratic process by prioritizing personal gain over the public good.

But what about our written constitution? Sadly, mere parchment is incapable of being a bulwark against tyranny as it inevitably becomes vulnerable to evolving legal interpretations, changing societal norms, and political maneuvering. 

Moreover, the effectiveness of a written constitution relies on the willingness of those in power to uphold its principles. As society transforms, so does the understanding and enforcement of constitutional “rights,” leading to their erosion (and the invention of new ones) despite the document's existence. Ultimately a constitution does not hold a nation together, rather, it is shared traditions and customs. 

The rise and fall of the Roman Republic is a good example of this, especially because for all the successes of their civilization it was done without much in the way of written laws. The cohesive force that united all Romans lay in the unspoken norms of social and political behavior. 

Despite the absence of a written constitution or extensive body of laws, the Romans relied on unwritten rules, traditions, and mutual expectations, collectively referred to as "Mos Maiorum," meaning "the way of the elders." But as the Republic entered its decline, it was not the Roman law itself that weakened, but rather the erosion of respect for the mutually accepted bonds of "Mos Maiorum." 

The Roman Aristocracy (patricians) provided great stability and stewardship of their civilization. As more and more power was awarded to the plebeian (commoner) class, more instability arose. As such, ambitious politicians often sought to undermine republican institutions to further their own power and agendas, while civic virtue was all but abandoned, along with concern for the “common good.”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin

Polybius, an ancient Greek historian, sought to explain the rise of Rome to global dominance. He emphasized factors like its mixed constitution, which was a combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The founders studied both ancient Rome and ancient Greece and constructed a government with many similarities.

• Monarchy: ruled by the one. This is the Office of the President

• Aristocracy: ruled by the few. This is the U.S. Senate

• Democracy: ruled by the many. This is the U.S. House of Representatives

Add in federalism, which is supposed to divide power between the federal government and state governments, along with a separate judicial branch, topped off with a written Constitution and Bill of Rights, and you’ll see that the checks and balances championed by the founders were, at least structurally, put in place to try and prevent the slide into despotism.

Unfortunately, no structural safeguards are effective when the bonds of “Mos Maiorum” are eroded, and democracy expands unconstrained within a population whose education system is devoid of virtue, is failing its children academically, and is ultimately designed to undermine the Republic itself. 

Much like at the tail end of the Roman Republic, widespread corruption is now commonplace in the United States. Our ruling elite cloaks itself in the “virtues” of democracy while only caring about the privileges they can secure for themselves and their political patrons. 

We are experiencing deep-rooted social issues, disputes over immigration and citizenship, military quagmires, the use of violence as a political tactic, and most recently, the complete weaponization of the regime's Justice Department against its political opponents. 

Will the unprecedented arrest and prosecution of a former President and his political allies be a “crossing the Rubicon” moment for America? I fear the worst is yet to come.