Democracy is Not the Same as Freedom

Todd Hayen

You hear the word “democracy” thrown around quite a bit these days. “Democracy is being destroyed in the United States by Donald Trump!!” and “Democracy is being destroyed in the United States by Joe Biden!”

Every time we turn around we are being told that democracy is being destroyed by this or that—in the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, North Korea—oops, they don’t have any democracy to destroy, right? I forgot.

Not only is democracy being destroyed in all of our previously democratic countries, but it is being destroyed in countries that never had democracy, or haven’t had it before recently acquiring it. All of us democratic countries also have to be the ones responsible for maintaining democracy everywhere else in the world—like the lack of democracy, or lost democracy, will somehow rub off on us, or it will spread to us like some sort of infectious disease.

We must kill “non-democracy” before it spreads, because the more countries that are not democratic, the more likely we, the US and Canada, and anywhere else that is “free,” will get struck down and crumble. Very much like what happens when you have a bad apple in a bushel basket filled with other, healthy, apples. The rest of the apples will surely go bad.

But here’s the rub—“freedom” being conflated with “democracy.”

A democratic country is not necessarily a free country. And although I don’t know of any of these, I don’t think a free country needs to be democratic—a strong constitution is all that is needed, really. A strong constitution and a strong means to protect it.

Even countries that claim to be democratic are not free, often they are not even democratic. Take the late GDR for example—the German Democratic Republic, East Germany. They were clearly a communist country which afforded the populace very little freedom. While the GDR technically held elections, they were more symbolic than democratic, serving to legitimize the authority of the ruling party rather than offer genuine choice and representation to the people. Their government was complex, as are most governments, and even though a country may tout being a democracy, it often is far from it—at least far from what the general populace believes democracy to be.

I will not claim I even begin to know what the “general populace” thinks democracy is, but I doubt if I would be far from the mark if I said most people define democracy as “the people having the freedom to choose their leaders, typically through a popular vote”—majority rule. But it seems to be far more complicated than that. We must answer questions regarding the definition of “popular” vote, questions (in the US) about the electoral college, questions about who gets to vote, and who gets to be candidates, and who doesn’t, and whether that vote is administered legally and fairly. These considerations mentioned here are only a drop in the bucket, and they are essential to contemplate before we understand exactly what democracy is.

And why is democracy always conflated with freedom? If any of the above complexities are not handled fairly and transparently, you can easily construct a corrupt system of “voting” that entirely misses the point of freedom of choice. Let me use the former GDR as another example here. In that country, which called itself a democracy, The Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED), the ruling communist party, held a monopoly on power and tightly controlled the electoral process. Opposition parties were not allowed, and the SED effectively predetermined the outcome of elections. Voting was also not truly secret, as the government could monitor and punish those who did not support the regime. Additionally, only candidates from the SED-led National Front were allowed to run for office, ensuring that the ruling party maintained control over the government. Jump back to a “free democratic society”— supposing the populace did all decide on one leader in a free, corrupt-less, vote, there is no guarantee that the elected leader would do a single thing he or she promised in order to ensure his or her election. Is that freedom?

On the other hand, what if the “people” want a corrupt leader? Or a leader they think will do right by them, and do not give any scrutiny or thought whatsoever regarding the method the leader will use to accomplish his or her promises? What if the majority of the people want a fascist dictator (Hitler was, after all, voted into office), or want a communist government, or, closer to home, want to vote for socialism, and thus lose many freedoms they previously had.

I’ll turn now to Ayn Rand, an author and philosopher of the early to mid-20th Century. She is famous for such books as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Here is a quote from one of Rand’s ardent followers, Leonard Piekoff, which certainly reflects her own philosophy:

Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom…”

And a quote directly from Rand herself (found as Chapter 12, “Theory and Practice” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal):

“This means that the majority may vote away the rights of a minority—and dispose of an individual’s life, liberty, and property, until such time, if ever, as he is able to gather his own majority gang. This, somehow, will guarantee political freedom.

But wishing won’t make it so—neither for an individual nor for a nation. Political freedom requires much more than the people’s wish. It requires an enormously complex knowledge of political theory and of how to implement it in practice.

It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both.”

I have to admit, I am not a fervent fan of Rand’s philosophies, but this bit does make sense to me.

I recently viewed a nine-part Netflix documentary Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War. Throughout this master production of propaganda, I became numb to the word “democracy.” Democracy this, democracy that.

They must have uttered the word 1,000 times in describing the importance of preserving democracy in this country and in that country—particularly regarding Ukraine.

Very seldom did they articulate the word “freedom.” And it seemed that the only illustration of freedom in these countries threatened with losing their democracy were swarms of people protesting.

Yes, free assemblage and peaceful protest is indeed an example of freedom. But it isn’t the only one, and it isn’t the only freedom people lose when ruled by a totalitarian government. Maybe masses of people protesting the government is an example of democracy, but it is only one aspect of freedom—freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from the tyranny of medicine, freedom to be an autonomous being with inalienable rights. On and on.

Trust me, I do not hate the idea of democracy or majority rule. However, at its best, it has problems as Rand so eloquently pointed out. But what we are seeing in our present world, democracy is definitely not at its best, and the powers that be manipulate the word to mean what is best for them. The battle you and I face is not a battle for democracy, it is a battle for freedom.

Don’t let them trick you into thinking otherwise.